Why Should I Care?

In times when the global economy has been suffering, it is not surprising to hear links between potential negative economic impact and adjusting human behavior with respect to our planet.  But this connection was made long before we entered the recent global recessionary period.  It even made it to the big screen during a economic growth period in “The Day After Tomorrow”, in this little exchange of key characters:

Vice President Becker: And who’s going to pay the price of the Kyoto accord? It would cost the world’s economy hundreds of billions of dollars.
Jack Hall: With all due respect, Mr. Vice President, the cost of doing nothing could be even higher. Our climate is fragile. At the rate we’re burning fossil fuels and polluting the environment, the ice caps will soon disappear.
Vice President Becker: Professor, uh, Hall, our economy is every bit as fragile as the environment. Perhaps you should keep that in mind before making sensationalist claims.
Jack Hall: Well, the last chunk of ice that broke off was about the size of the state of Rhode Island. Some people might call that pretty sensational.

And while Hollywood may not always be accurate and may blow things out of proportion at times, this connection is not new and the general impression given is always one to the effect that the scale of responding to climate change or major environmental issues is so grand that the economic consequences are just to great.  Let us accept for a moment that both realms seem intertwined and fragile.  A fundamental question becomes – Can both the environment and economy benefit in a positive way from one another?

Is it feasible, is it really possible to make the green movement also the next major economic movement?  Can it rival the industrial age, the computer age, will we have the green age?  Can we really ride a ‘green wave’ back to a global era of prosperity.  I have come across numerous articles lately that are attempting to make this sort of connection.  Here are a few short ones to get your feet wet:

• Back to the Land: The New Green Revolution 
• Tower of Power
• Green Revolution – Ideology Holding America Back
• Green Jobs: Towards Decent work in a Sustainable, Low-Carbon World

At the core of these articles is a set of ideas that suggest through investing in new, more ecologically sound technologies and processes we can spend our way out of the recession while at the same time making human activity less detrimental to the planet and more sustainable.  This is an interesting premise and certainly I would support a course of action along these lines.  However, I also find that the concepts of ‘green’ and ‘economic growth’ at odds with one another at their cores.

Realistically, a world that is moving toward sustainability is also one that is not focused on increased but actually reduced consumption.  However, at its foundation, the world economy is based on growth and still very tied to consumption and acquisition of physical goods.  So, can these two concepts that seem at such odds with one another really be the key to one another’s long term success? 

At first glance the answer would appear to be no.  I have never seen a futuristic projection of humans that does not involve items having economic value.  Even Star Trek, that foretold of many technologies before their time, still has ‘credits’ that are used to buy things.  It seems almost impossible for humans to imagine a world without ‘things’ having ‘value’ and markets revolving around their exchange, and certainly buying into green technology and processes can be part of the consumption process. 

However, is there some way in which a balance can be reached between ‘enough consumption’ and ‘enough conservation’ to make both realms work positively.  I think here the answer can be yes, but I don’t think it will be the catalyst that solves the short term economic challenges.  Reality will involve a long term investment in the green technologies to a point where they are abundant and cheap.  It also likely involves a continued movement towards information, thoughts and ideas having more economic value than physical things. 

Imagine if with a simple software upgrade that 50 inch LCD TV got twice the resolution without replacing a single part of the physical device and it drew 50% less power.  We buy the upgrade (supporting the economy) while actually consuming no more physical items and drawing less power (supporting sustainability).  Is this type of approach feasible?  We might be closer to it capability wise than you think, but it is just as much about the way we think as the way we act.  Changing the way we think and behave as well as how and to what we assign value is actually the part that seems harder accomplishment. 

Maybe I will make it my final wish of 2009.  Next time, we will wrap up the year that was and look forward into plans for 2010.  Until then, open your mind, use your brain, and remember – you don’t live in a bubble!