- There is no correct state for the earth.
- Carbon offsets are misleading.
- Solutions targeted at wholesale behavior modification are inefficient.
- The notion of behavior modification may impede innovation.
- The most effective solution is still to use political force to eliminate market externalities.
There is no correct state for the earth. Many environmental advocates seem to assume a priori that humans' impact on Earth is necessarily bad. In particular, that there was a time, roughly in the 18th century or so, during which the Earth's atmosphere had the correct composition. Putting religious beliefs aside, this is not reasonable, and it is up to us to determine the best state for the climate. It may be, for example, that the Earth would be better off if its atmosphere contained more carbon dioxide. This is a minority view, but it should not be dismissed out-of-hand. We should be asking first, I believe, what climate we believe would be best and do what we can to make that a reality.
Carbon offsets are misleading. I am often dismayed at the smugness with which people argue away their impact on the environment with promises of carbon offsets. Unfortunately, one's overconsumption is not erased just because someone somewhere promised to plant a few trees on one's behalf. I think this practice may be particularly damaging because it can cause people to pigeon-hole carbon dioxide output in lieu of other environmental impacts. I have heard it suggested, for example, that a large conference integrate carbon offsets into its registration process. Certainly, carbon offsetting does not come close to erasing all of the impact of such an event (including all of the infrastructure and maintenance required to run a conference). Furthermore, this could have the negative effect of encouraging people to believe that they have dealt with the problem and thenceforth dismiss it. In my opinion, as I return to below, this short-term, low-impact activity gets in the way of long-term innovation.
Solutions targeted at wholesale behavior modification are inefficient. There are many research efforts to change people's behavior so that they will use less energy. Frankly, I have always been skeptical of behavior modification research -- a bit too Orwellian. And I find it especially unnerving when it comes from the Ivory Tower -- a bit too Hegelian. My approach would be to get the information out there and let people make up their own minds as much as possible. Regardless, though, these projects will only see measurable success if millions change their habits. This is just an enormously difficult thing to do from the bottom up.
The notion of behavior modification may impede innovation. Furthermore, most of the suggestions these behavior modification efforts supply require people to make tradeoffs. As a good friend once told me, innovation often occurs when someone rejects a tradeoff. For example, I should be able to use an electric razor and save energy, take lots of trips to the store and save gasoline, take a shower or bath and save water, keep the temperature where I want it and use less natural gas, keep my cellphone charger plugged in all day and generate power, etc. Let's focus on moving forward, not rolling back to 1710.
The most effective solution is still to use political force to eliminate market externalities. The principle problem with pollution is, and has always been, that companies can consider it a market externality. Before pollution laws were more strictly enforced toward the end of the 20th century, companies could ditch waste in a nearby swamp and effectively write-off the cleanup to an external process (the backside of the invisible hand of the market, if you will). Legislation and legal action have proven the most effective approaches to curtailing these practices and forcing corporations (and individuals) to dump less upon the commons.
So, my advice is this: Do not shiver in the cold and take 1-minute showers. Enjoy a bath, grab a fully-charged laptop, and bang out some letters to your senators and congressmen and congresswomen to encourage strong oversight, tax increases on gasoline and other harmful pollutants, increased funding for public transportation, and increased spending on innovative tools and fuels. Or, better yet, innovate solutions on your own.
