We trick people.
Part of why people/businesses choose not to act or spend money in a way that is sustainable or environmentally responsible is because there is generally a premium that must be paid in order to do so. That premium can be financial or convenience-related or both. Recycling is a common example of this.
My suggestion is that we make the cost of not acting in a sustainable manner so high that people "voluntarily" choose to do so because it is easier, cheaper and less hassle than the alternative. To a degree, this is already being done in some places. There are cities (Bloomington, IN is among them) that don't charge for recycling but instead, charge for trash pickup based on the amount of trash to be hauled away. So you separate out your recycling, buy things that don't come with excess packaging and as a result have much less trash. Less trash means less that you have to pay to have that trash removed. This solution also gives people the ability to be less thoughtful about how to deal with their waste (See, all freedom of choice is still intact) but they will be the ones who bear a larger burden of dealing with that waste as well. For this to work most effectively, revenue gained from these programs should be only used to improve trash processing and recycling programs within a community and not just thrown into the general community pot to be split up and parceled out based on some politician or bureaucrat's whim.
One strategy that would likely make this type of program more successful as far as the number of people who choose to participate would be to make the cost of non-participation even higher than it already is. If the government were to turn all highways into toll roads and increase the tax on gasoline to the point that a gallon costs $10, people are going to be much more careful about when they choose to drive and what activities they choose to utilize motor vehicles for. I would personally love to see the price of gas at closer to $10/gallon for this very reason. Nothing spawns innovation and new technology like trying to find alternatives for what we have decided is too costly.
That's true, there is: If we can't assume an ideal world of everyone agreeing that sustainability is one of the most important goals and acting to accomplish that goal, we can't assume that a government has the best interest of its people or world in mind either. But as has been shown many times throughout our species' sordid history, governments are much more pliant in being steered towards whatever the specific purpose of the day is than is the entire world population.
So call your representatives and elected officials (two or three times) and make yourself heard. It's amazing the small number of squeaky wheels it takes to get things moving. It's definitely not the only or best method for working towards saving the world, but it IS a method and it couldn't hurt. And if you have a best friend who happens to be the CEO of a multi-billion dollar company, call her up and ask her to swing her weight around a little.
I completely agree that increasing the prices on non-sustainable goods is a way to encourage (sneakily) sustainable practices.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not sure it's economically feasible for gas prices to go up to $10/gallon, or to make every highway a toll road, especially with a lot of economic uncertainty. I'm kind of arguing with myself about how to respond, because on the one hand, I can obviously see the benefits of less cars on the road, etc. But at the same time, I don't think it makes sense to put such exorbitant economic burdens on families, many of which probably can't afford it.
Finally, I think there's another issue at play with the federal government, and you briefly touched upon it with the comment about having friends that are rich. A large problem with our government system is that one of the only times we, as citizens, are all on equal footing is on election day. Any other time, we have to compete with interest groups, which, if they're large enough, have millions of dollars to throw at campaigns to ensure that Representatives vote in line with what the interest groups want. If you go to www.opensecrets.org, you can get access to all types of interest groups, find out who they are donating to, and how much money they donate to specific Representatives. To give you an example: the top 20 contributors, many of which are oil companies, within the Energy/Nat. Resources category contributed over $4 million in the 2011-2012 cycle alone. I don't want to discourage people from calling their local representatives, because I would hope that, if done in large numbers, change can happen, but I think we also need to factor in the role of interest groups, and consider alternative ways of creating change.
@jen g: I think part of the underlying problem is that we make decisions about sustainability based on economic feasibility in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI guess I believe that economic feasibility is an integral part of sustainability.
ReplyDeleteI barely got through V517 because it was my first academic experience with economics, so my thoughts and opinions on this matter have no scientific validity. Even so, I find myself in agreement with Scott and his desire for gas prices to more accurately reflect the true cost of extracting fossil fuels. Until the costs associated with non-sustainable goods and services take into account all factors related to their production and distribution (i.e. air pollution, water quality, etc.), I don't see how our current economic model will allow for sustainability.
ReplyDeleteI agree to an extent- yes, raising the prices/taxing non-sustainable behaviors and goods would definitely help people to re-evaluate their choices, hopefully with the end result of choices being made that are also healthier for the planet. However, I see a flaw in this logic in that the poor are going to be the most dramatically affected by such actions- they will be the first who cannot afford to pay higher gas prices, tolls, etc... which will only further accelerate their descent into poverty. Furthermore, I think that in many instances it is the more affluent in our society who are the greatest over-consumers, and therefore this proposal in some ways seems to be inadvertently targeting the poor and pushing the costs of changing behaviors solely onto their shoulders.
ReplyDelete@envisioning sustainable communities: I'm not sure I agree with your logic (or maybe I'm just not seeing it clearly). Raising the price of gasoline to $10 (or $20 or $100) per gallon isn't going to "target" the poor and push the cost of changing behaviors solely onto their shoulders any more that current gas prices do. It's a flat rate, which by its nature is completely class-blind, that people pay in order to have gas. People in poverty do not deserve more of an exemption from paying for being environmentally irresponsible simply because they're poor. If gas is contributing to poverty, it is the entire market that is the problem and not its price.
ReplyDeleteThe poor may be affected first, but in the end, the idea is to make the cost so prohibitive that alternative solutions are found because it's not worth the expense, for anyone.
What's tricky about charging the true cost rather than a subsidized cost for a limited resource? I don't think that's sneaky, but I can tell you from personal experience that it is sure going to hurt the single moms and poor families a lot deeper and more quickly that it is the priveleged/lucky folks. Doesnt' mean it shouldn't happen, but I think it would be a lot more kind and compassionate to create replacement infrastructure needed to support people before we potentially take away their access to work, school, etc. The social consequences of such an act are not something to take lightly. As an experiment, why not pretend gas costs $10/gallon and everytime you fill up the tank, donate the "excess" money to Mother Hubbard's Cupboard? I know you don't drive much, but it might be interesting.
ReplyDeleteScott,
ReplyDeleteThanks for an excellent post and beautiful blog. The topic you posed is one we shall return to and it is central to this class. How do you change behavior? What is the role of market signals? You may wish to look at the effects of $4/gallon gas on choices people make on where they live, what they drive and property values, for example for some interesting revelations. Also, several proposals for gas and carbon taxes are designed to lessen the overall economic burden on individuals while providing a price signal to change behavior. You may want to look at various proposals out there and report back.
Scott – I whole heartedly agree with your belief that the altruistic tendencies of individuals will ultimately not be powerful enough to create a sustainable civilization. I also agree with your recommendation that we alter the current incentive structure so that it is in the financial interest of individuals to pursue sustainable behaviors. However, I do not support your belief that raising the cost of “traditional” living practices is the solution to the problem. Ultimately, I find this plan to be equally as infeasible as relying on human altruism.
ReplyDeleteTo understand why such a plan would ultimately not succeed, take a moment to remember the downgrading of U.S. debt that occurred a few weeks ago. This event transpired, at least in part, due to the fact that the majority party in congress refused to entertain the possibility of raising taxes. And we’re not just talking about marginal tax rates. Tax loopholes that benefit only the richest of individuals were also taken completely off the negotiating table. Can you imagine what would happen if your plan, which is really just a tax increase by non-traditional means, was proposed to such a congress?
@Brian: You bring up a couple interesting points, which I want to respond to:
ReplyDelete1.) You refer to owning and driving cars as a "traditional living practice." The implication I get from this is that being able to afford to drive a car is a right that everyone should have. This mode of thinking is part of what I think is the underlying problem. People, especially those in the United States, tend to have a very strong sense of entitlement. This sense of entitlement leads people to complain about gas prices, higher taxes, and other lifestyle inconveniences that most of the rest of the world has just learned to deal with. There have been a couple comments above that have referred to the "feasibility" of forcing people to pay the real cost (or more) for things that are not, strictly speaking, basic life necessities. If we are to someday have a sustainable civilization and planet, what is not feasible is that everyone continue to get all of the things (affordable gas is a single example) that they think they are entitled to.
2.) You ask me what congress' reaction would be to such a proposal. Of course this isn't something that our current congress is going to go for. But if the oceans started rapidly evaporating into space, our current congress would likely refuse to recognize any significant problem and at the same time begin drafting a bill codifying an inalienable right to dry-dock space for yachts. So forgive me for my cynicism but I don't feel like "what would congress do?" is anywhere close to a reasonable metric for how to better obtain some balance of sustainability.
Ultimately, all of these little creature comforts that generally make our lives easier at a greater expense to the welfare of our planet and species are going to become too scarce and too expensive for most people to be able to have/use them. At that point in time we will have to adjust our existence so that we can continue to survive within the means of our little ball of rock. My suggestions (which are clearly mostly theoretical) are just ways that we can maybe ease into this transition instead of waking up one day in the future and realizing that we've pushed things beyond the point of return.