For technology to provide climate change solutions that are economic requires energy to become more expensive, which Americans won’t stand for, argues Peter Knight

For technology to provide climate change solutions that are economic requires energy to become more expensive, which Americans won’t stand for, argues Peter Knight

Americans worried about climate change are trying to solve the problem by voting with their wallets rather than lobbying the people they vote for.

This is a rather exciting discovery, given that most Americans have given up shopping and the economy desperately needs a boost. The finding comes from research by the Centre for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University in Virginia.

The study – Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: an audience segmentation analysis – divides Americans into alarmed (18%), concerned (33%), cautious (19%), disengaged (12%), doubtful (11%) and dismissive (7%), and analyses each segment’s views.

Leading US green blogger Marc Gunther quotes the study’s author, Ed Maibach, as saying: “Of the group of people most concerned about climate change – the group we call alarmed – 75% say they have rewarded and punished companies based on their environmental performance, but most hadn’t taken the time to write or call their congressman.”

These findings are enough for us to start worshipping Bjorn Lomborg, the Dick Cheney of the environmental movement.

Lomborg believes that technical fixes – not unified political action – will save the world and we should abandon our futile bid to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the highly polarised US debate on climate change, the right loves the idea of technology riding to the rescue because it means maintaining the energy policy status quo.

The US left has been trying to get the US electorate to back the Kyoto process, but with little success. Don Quixote would stand a better chance.

In the US, anything that involves government intervention and price hikes – such as the consequences of cap-and-trade – is considered taboo. Making life more expensive through higher energy costs, as cap-and-trade will do, makes a lot of already angry recession-hit people frightened and cross. It is this anger, plainly manifest in political town hall meetings this summer, that looks set to scupper Barack Obama’s proposed healthcare reforms.

The right is very well organised, especially on the web. There is a cadre of “real” Americans who have suddenly appeared on the cyber horizon, guns blazing at any suggestion that energy should cost more.

It seems that while the “liberals” are out shopping, supporters of the right are definitely writing to their congressmen.

Business dilemma

The highly polarised debate creates a problem for businesses. How far and how fast should they move in their own climate change strategies? The news that Tesco has introduced a carbon label on fresh milk in the UK attracted widespread comment in the US media. While Wal-Mart’s much respected greening could eventually produce something similar, retail carbon labelling is a long way off.

Big brand owners, probably conscious of selective shopping by liberals with big wallets, certainly pay lip service to the idea of reducing carbon intensity in their products. But they can’t afford to be seen backing a political drive that would increase the cost burden on consumers. The bulk of corporations keep their heads well down in the climate change debate, and you cannot blame them.

Writing recently in the Wall Street Journal – which keeps up a steady invective against cap-and-trade – Lomborg returned to his theme of technical fixes, such as spraying sea water into the air to create reflective mists. Such solutions always go down well in a country that has made itself rich from technology. And it is a subject that can bring the left and right together because most of us love taking a look under the hood.

But the problem with technology is that its developers need economic incentives to make the necessary investments. And those inducements are based on sending price signals – essentially making energy more expensive so that alternatives become more attractive. Without strong cap-and-trade legislation – or carbon taxes (entirely unlikely) – the markets won’t change and synthetic mists will remain a Lomborg fantasy.

So where does this leave us? Well, there is always retail therapy. In the short term it is just what America needs to spring it from deep recession. In the long term, if the climate doomsayers are right, it could be a case of shop before you drop.

Peter Knight is president of Context America and director of the Context Group.
peter@contextamerica.com
www.contextamerica.com



Related Reads

comments powered by Disqus