Framing and Solutions

To date, I have discussed the important role economic growth plays in our society and illustrated some of the problems associated with that growth. There clearly are benefits to it, and it certainly has benefited me, but the point of all this is to show that our commitment to exponential growth forever, ultimately, undermines the very support system that the economy and the rest of society is dependent upon. When do we decide that growth is actually making us poorer? By that time will it be to late? Will we be able to decide how to change own our own terms, or will nature decide that for us?

This short entry will focus on how environmental problems are framed, and how that framing limits the types of solutions that are pursued. When our social, political, and economic institutions are organized around a growth paradigm, solutions to environmental problems will often reinforce that paradigm. If, for example, the solution to a problem will stymie growth, it likely will not adopted. This is especially true when costs are incurred immediately but the benefits are not seen for years. It is hard for a politician to take action on an expensive, long-term issue when she is trying to be reelected in four years. It is often political suicide. A way around this is to search for solutions that alleviate the problem that don’t undermine, and may even promote, growth. In other word, to employ solutions that allow us to grow out of the problem.

When economic activity is preeminently production oriented problems are framed as issues of production, the only logical way to solve these problems of production –such as, pollution or deforestation -- is to produce better. For example, if cars pollute too much, manufacturers produce better catalytic converters. If engines use too much gas, engineers produce more efficient engines. If aquifers are being depleted, agriculturalists produce deeper wells. But do these ‘solutions’ solve the problem? In all cases the operation is “improved,” but the actual problem is just deferred or displaced. Pollutants still can’t exceed absorption capacity. And, aquifers are still mined at a rate that exceeds regeneration.

The “improved production” approach presumes that resource-use is a given and searches for marginal improvements. An alternative approach, that is rarely employed, presumes that current practices are unsustainable and looks for alternative forms of social organization. Meaning that the problem is consumption based and we need to change demand. Both a production and a consumption approach may have similar goals, for example they might both want to dramatically reduce the amount of CO2 we emit, and they might speak with similar urgency. But, the types of questions they ask and strategies they employ will be fundamentally different. I will stick with the climate change example to illustrate this:

A production approach views the emission of CO2 as the entire problem and therefore the solution is technological -- if we can develop better means of production, energy efficiency and renewables, we will solve the problem. If, however, climate change is viewed as a symptom brought on by the incompatible relationship between a growth dependent political economy and the finite world, then the solution appears to be social, rather than technological -- if we change consumption habits we will solve this problem (and many others). I tend to sit in the latter camp, because the former implicitly shifts the blame onto technology, or nature. But, the problem is not the technology itself, or natures inability to absorb our waste, rather it is a society that invents and then uses certain types of technology in an unsustainable way. If the social drivers of environmental problems are ignored, policy solution will focus on symptoms rather than curing the disease.

In reality, both production and consumption approaches are needed. There are many gains that can be made in the way we produce. But, marginal improvements can’t achieve sustainability on their own. It is foolish to not seek sweeping reforms in our consumption habits too. This, however, will force us to address the issue of economic growth, which is why serious consumption solutions are not being discussed.

My next entry will tie this all together with an interesting conversation that is happening in British Columbia around “green energy.” If you haven’t died of boredom by this point, I think you will enjoy it.