Intergenerational Justice part 1 - The Environmental and Fiscal Crises

I wanted to share a highly perceptive article by David Runciman on American democracy, in which he talks about intergenerational justice. I say share, I actually want to steal his idea because it's so good I wish I'd thought of it.

Intergenerational justice, in broad terms, is the idea that different generations have obligations towards one another and possess rights over one another that must be respected. Usually we employ this term to denote obligations of the present generation to those who will come after us, but its reach is much broader. It can also apply to the obligations of older people to younger people, and of the living to the dead. So, for example, when Helen Lovejoy of  The Simpsons cries "won't somebody please think of the children," she is actually expressing her endorsement of intergenerational rights.

One of the most influential thinkers in the history of intergenerational justice, though he never directly employs the term, is Edmund Burke. In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Burke defines society as

"a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born."

Today, this version of the social contract still forms the bedrock of a great deal of conservative thought, and explains to a large extent the right's interest in tradition and pastoral care of the local environment. But that is not to say that Burke's contract is the exclusive preserve of the right. His definition is sufficiently flexible to appeal to all sides of the political spectrum. A recent report making the case for constitutional protection of future generations was submitted to the House of Commons by Rupert Read, a left-winger and former Green Party candidate.

However, as Runciman's article makes clear, the ways in which both right and left employ intergenerational justice can vary hugely, neatly illustrating the partisan nature of politics both in the UK and especially in the US. When it comes to the environment, for example, the left generally employs intergenerational justice as a tool to encourage the present generation to limit CO2 emissions and leave future generations in a better position to combat climate change. The right, in contrast, tends to either dismiss this obligation or to question its preeminence. When it comes to the fiscal crisis these positions are reversed. Now, we generally find the right emphasising the need to reduce our debts so we do not force future generations to pay for our profligacy, whilst the left take a more relaxed view, arguing that seeking to address debt by slashing spending is unnecessary, or at least not our most pressing priority.

Runciman's analysis emphatically demonstrates the difficulty of applying intergenerational justice to real world political situations. Not only do we have to decide what obligations we owe to different generations, we also have to convince others of the value of our decisions. The wide endorsement of Burke's definition of intergenerational justice demonstrates that it is easy for most to accept that different generations have rights over one another, but the nature of western democracy is such that we rarely agree what these rights are, and how and when they should be protected.

Hinkley C and one of privatisations little ironies...

On Tuesday Ed Davey gave the official go-ahead for Hinkley C, a 3260MW nuclear plant that will be located in Somerset. The news wasn't much of a surprise, and the reaction was even less surprising - dismay from Caroline Lucas and the Green's, and perhaps some justifiable apprehension about how this might impact on the development of the renewables industry. Most people, including myself, greeted the news, if not exactly with delight, then with a fair amount of satisfaction.

 To those who think that renewables alone will lead us out of our energy crisis, I offer you a choice between gas and coal or nuclear power? If your answer to this question is coal or gas then you have some peculiar priorities, but do not imagine that you can pick neither. At present, the only renewable technologies that are commercially viable in this country are solar panels and wind turbines. The problem with these technologies is their reliance on weather conditions. This is not to denigrate renewables - the institute for Public Policy Research produced an excellent report demonstrating their effectiveness at lowering emissions - but it does mean that this intermittency must be guarded against with 'back up' energy. Currently this comes in the form of either gas or coal-fired plants. New nuclear power will likely take some of the coal out of this equation, removing huge quantities of CO2 that would otherwise have been pumped into the atmosphere.

You can argue all you want that nuclear is costly, but in my opinion the expense is worth it. As long as tidal and other forms of hydropower remain works in progress, nuclear is our best hope at substantially reducing our emissions.  Facts is facts: nuclear is a carbon free solution.

As ever, I fear that the real reason for rejecting nuclear power on the part of some environmentalists is far more cultural than scientific or economic. Of course nuclear carries some risks, but history demonstrates that these risks have been vastly inflated by rhetoric and imagination, rather then real life disaster.

There was one thing, however, that struck me as being a little odd in Davey's speech; his decision to make the announcement before the strike price had been agreed with EDF. Of course, this is likely to feed speculation that the project will be even more expensive than first predicted, but it also reminds us of the fact that we are almost wholly in the hands of foreign companies as we attempt to dramatically transform our means of producing power. In a wonderful article, James Meek describes the irony of the Thatcher government of the 1980s selling off large swathes of our energy grid, under the auspices of small state, market liberalisation, only to have these assets bought by foreign, often state-owned corporations. As well as making British energy subject to the decisions of German and French ministers, privatisation also had the effect of disposing of any industry expertise that Britain once possessed. When the Central Generating Electricity Board was broken up and sold off, with it went Britain's capacity to design and build its own nuclear power stations. One can't help but wonder how much better placed we might be as a nation to respond to the challenge of climate change had we been able to keep this expertise. Is it not also a little chastening to Osborne & Co that the past actions of his party have led directly to a situation in which her majesty's ministers must negotiate with an arm of the French state over the future of British energy? I thought this lot weren't prepared to dance to the European tune.

Environmentalists need to stop apologising and change the debate

It is a constant source of irritation and exasperation that people can be indifferent to or unaware of the magnitude of the challenge presented by climate change, or the speed with which mankind should be acting to counteract increasing greenhouse gas emissions. A good way of painting a picture in your mind is to think about what life was like on earth when CO2 concentrations were at similar levels to what we have reached today. For example, based on current, business-as-usual projections CO2 concentrations would reach around 750ppm by the end of this century. It was 40 million years ago when the planet last housed such large amounts of carbon dioxide, and crocodiles happily basked near the north pole. The scale of that kind of change is just mind-blowing

The really scary bit is to think about the rapidity with which our climate is changing. Deniers always point to climate change as a normal and natural process, which is true, but they fail to note the speed with which such change usually occurs and the speed with which humans are causing it to occur now. We are essentially talking about cramming something that should take place over thousands and millions of years into the space of a few generations. The new souped up version of the 'hockey-stick' graph provides a concise demonstration of this point. Moreover, when rapid climate change has happened in the past, courtesy of, say, huge volcanic eruptions, it is always accompanied by huge loss of life and extinctions.

Considering all this, I find it rather galling when I am accused of being an 'alarmist,' particularly as 'alarmist,' in this context, seems to refer to someone who is alarmed about a pretty alarming situation. It's like someone walking in when your house is on fire and asking what all the fuss is about.

We have every right to be alarmed, even more so given the failure of our politicians to make meaningful steps towards limiting emissions, and we should not be afraid to say so. The size of the task at hand always meant that any solution was going to be a bumpy ride, and we should not shy away from this. You don't just reconfigure a world economy without expecting some serious impacts on social and political life. Just as the first industrial revolution led to enormous changes in people's everyday lives, we cannot simply assume that our existing political and economic systems will be capable of meeting the demands of what amounts to a new economic era.

When it comes to money, environmentalists are often bashful about the costs associated with the transition to a green economy. However, when stacked up against the potential costs of failing to act, the case for splurging now starts to look pretty good. Yes, transforming our energy grid will be expensive, yes we may have to rethink our approach to growth and consumption, and yes the economy may be subject to short-term difficulties if we get serious about the true price of carbon. Don't be afraid to say it. The alternative is much worse. Of course, we want to find the most cost-effective way of reducing our impact on the environment, but that cannot and should not include failure to act, even if that action may carry some economic consequences.

It's all very well complaining that none of what I'm saying is pragmatic - the thought of a politician standing up and offering up environmental protection before growth as an idea is patently absurd - but unfortunately physics are not beholden to the politics of pragmatism. Whilst we engage in short-term party political wrangling we sign away the livelihoods of future generations. We can't keep on taking baby steps when we require great leaps forward, and we can't keep settling for compromise when nature will offer us none. All those who care about protecting future generations need to stop apologising and face up to the fight we are in.