Save us from our timid selves

One of my favourite trade union banners reads simply “ETU Says No”. It was first waved in 1998 during the first battle against power privatisation but has been a regular fixture at most rallies ever since. From WorkChoices to War in Iraq; from guest workers to globalisation, the Electrical Trade Union regularly says “no”. And the Electrical Trades Union is not alone, like many of us on the progressive side of politics who find ourselves defending our principles.

We have become the voice against change, standing against what sometimes seems like a wave of history sweeping us to the right. These tides of change have been called many things: “neo-conservatism”, “American triumphalism” and “free market fundamentalism”; but whatever you call them they have fundamentally reorientated the idea of political activism, casting those of us who grew up on the left as the “new conservatives”.

And now at a point in time where the challenge of climate change seeks to redefine the political discourse in profound ways, we are invited yet again to say “no” - no to global warming, no to rising oceans, no to business as usual - some of us add to the chorus - no to coal, no to cars, no to western consumerism.

Two recent books explore this phenomenon from different angles, Robert Reich’s analysis of Super-Capitalism and Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger’s Break Through - an extension on their controversial essay “The Death of Environmentalism”. Taken alone each book makes valid points about the nature of politics in the modern world. Taken together, these points become a line.

For Reich the target is the false, even delusional, conceptions we have of the motives of big business that drive us into battles we can never win. For the authors of Break Through, it is simple misreading of human nature and the factors that will motivate us to take a paradigm shift as we adapt to the challenges of a carbon-constrained world.

Reich, the diminutive former Clinton Labour secretary, has long been the human face of free trade: his Work of Nations was a compassionate call for national governments to embrace the profound changes of globalisation and coach their economies to successfully compete on the new stage.

Twenty years on and Reich argues that the nature of capitalism has fundamentally changed, a new super-hybrid he calls Super-Capitalism has emerged, which delivers fantastic deals for individuals in their capacity as consumers and investors, but lousy deals in their capacity as citizens.

In their efforts to deliver cheapest products and highest returns. Corporations are in a frenzied state of constant war with each other, where the winners are those that can drive down labour costs and remove regulatory barriers to sustain double-digit growth figures.

Reich’s observations are stark, but it is his interpretation that is profound - that companies that pursue this course are not evil or self-interested - they are merely doing what they have been established to do. He exposes Corporate Social Responsibility as fundamentally compromised and political campaigns against corporate amorality as fundamentally dishonest.

Ultimately, Reich argues, we are confronted with a trade-off that forces us to be honest with ourselves. Do we want the cheapest prices and highest returns on our investments? Or do we require something more as citizens? If we do, we need to be honest about this and makes collective decisions to regulate business, rather than simply asking business to act contrary to the interests of their shareholders.

This argument lays in stark relief around the response to climate change. As citizens we demand immediate action; as consumers and shareholders business (rightly) tells us we have much to lose - higher energy prices, lower profits for companies in affected industries. Industry speaks out as our defenders as consumers and investors - arguing we need exemptions, compensation, special treatment.

But as citizens who recognise that the ongoing enjoyment of the planet is at stake we say there are things of more importance than low prices and high share returns. And, on this occasion, we demand government resolve the argument in favour of us as citizens who need to live and breathe in order to consume.

And so the Rudd Government - backed by polling showing popular support for decisive action but spooked by business demanding stasis - begins the subtle process of intervening in the marketplace; placing a price on carbon through an Emissions Trading Scheme designed to promote renewable energy sources by putting a cap on carbon “pollution”.

The success of these measures will be determined by the government preparedness to continue to stare down the business arguments, that it can convince us that the cost of inaction is greater than the cost of action - that environmental Armageddon is too high a price to pay.

Which is where the authors of Break Through, a dynamic duo of career environmentalists turned heretics, come into play and argue the proposed market interventions of cap and trade schemes are not just inadequate, but counterproductive, if we are ever to adapt and meet the challenges of global warming.

Taking as a starting point Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, they make the basic point that a Doomsday narrative designed to scare the bejesus out of people will not lead to the required action. Instead, insecure people turn inwards, focusing on their own needs rather than the broader good. And by basis the Doomsday scenario around the idea of carbon “pollution” environmentalists risk setting themselves an insurmountable task - by attempting to “clean-up” when what is required is a more radical rethink of energy and consumption.

As the current technocratic, incremental debate over Garnaut unfolds it strikes me that what is missing is the possibilities of change beyond the mechanism. The debate is locked in the confines of how tough it will be; which industries will lose; who should be exempted from this pain.

Break Through’s alternative agenda for climate change is a positive paradigm shift that sees climate change as an economic challenge that creates as many opportunities as threats. In this model of economic change there may be losers, but there will be far more winners - particularly the economies that are first to grasp, innovate and develop the new energy models.

Instead of linking response to less activity or job-strangling mitigations, they call for new action in abatement initiatives to address the impact of the changes already occurring - building storm walls, rethinking water flows and preparing for the demographic shifts that will be required as the earth warms even if we take all the action we are told is needed now.

Alongside adaptation, they advocate bold, nation-building investments in renewables - a Marshall Plan investment that grasps the historical opportunities presented by the times. Here we are not talking about incremental steps but multi-billion investments in renewable technologies - driving markets that do not even exist and creating new jobs not even imagined.

For example, where is the government initiative to make Australia a world leader in a new emerging energy source - like solar or geo-thermal backed by a massive R&D commitment? Or a more humble Australian government initiative to insulate every house would deliver massive savings in energy efficiency and create thousands of solid blue collar jobs? While some industry sectors spread fear of job losses in a policy vacuum - big job creating initiatives would provide a cogent response.

In the words of the authors it’s the different between Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream speech” and the other speech, the one that could have been given - the “I have a Nightmare”. Which of these approaches better unlocked the hearts, the minds and the consciences of people to fundamentally change they way they viewed the world? When Tony Blair warned DAVOS of devastations in 2003 he never talked of the opportunities - and a moment for leadership passed.

One can quibble with the findings of both books - maybe Reich is too soft on the corporate, maybe the Break Through boys are failing to take on coal the way that climate warriors should, but that’s not really the point, both challenge is to take up positive agendas - to stop looking for enemies within the political process to fight but, rather lift our heads above the parapet and look at what the world can become.