Blog post

Time for a more Radical Plan?

Dec 13, 2013 by | 2 Comments

In 2014, England will follow the example set by Wales and Scotland and introduce a carrier bag charge. If the Welsh and Scottish experiences are anything to go by, the policy will drastically reduce the number of bags in circulation, keeping unnecessary waste out of landfill and removing a little polythene from the diet of our cities’ seagulls.

Like recycling, re-using carrier bags has become something of an iconic “sustainable behaviour“. But whatever else its benefits may be, it is not, in itself, an especially good way of cutting carbon. Like all simple and painless behavioural changes, its value hangs on whether it acts as a catalyst for other, more impactful, activities or support for political changes.

The evidence from Wales is not encouraging. My colleagues at Cardiff University analysed the impact of the introduction of the carrier bag charge. Although their use reduced dramatically, rates of other low-carbon behaviours among the general public remained unaffected.

To be clear: fewer plastic bags would be a small, good thing. But as a major two-day conference at the Royal Society headquarters in London this week made clear, “every little helps” is a dangerously misleading mantra when it comes to climate change.

The Radical Plan meeting featured contributions from across the physical and social sciences, as well as civil society. The organisers – Professors Kevin Anderson and Corinne Le Quere of the Tyndall Centre – posed contributors a brutally simple question: what would need to happen if we were to do more than simply pay lip service to the idea of avoiding dangerous climate change?

The answers were undeniably radical – and none mentioned re-using plastic bags.

Scientists and engineers described the unprecedented scale of energy system change necessary to decarbonise rapidly. Social scientists argued for a transformation in the way we view ourselves, our consumption, and our role in society. Economists demolished the idea that economic growth could be maintained forever in a fossil-fuel driven, finite world. Policy experts questioned whether our current carbon targets were fit for purpose.

But across almost all of the papers presented at the conference, there was an inescapable consensus: a fundamentally different economic system is required, if we are serious about avoiding dangerous climate change, based on nurturing wellbeing rather than stoking corporate profit.

This is, of course, not a new idea. But what was striking was the convergence across contributors from the breadth of the physical and social sciences. The clear message was that unrestrained capitalism is incompatible with decarbonisation: the sums simply don’t add up.

Many sceptics see the issue of climate change as no more than a figleaf for ushering in a new era of socialism. The conclusions of the Radical Plan conference are unlikely to convince them otherwise. But for the vast majority of us – who say we “get” climate change, but still somehow cling on to the idea that small, incremental behavioural changes will be sufficient – the conference should be a wake-up call.

Nudging, tweaking, or cajoling people into piecemeal behavioural changes like re-using plastic bags is not a proportionate response to climate change. Engaging the public through their personal carbon footprints is really only a means to an end – and that end is a political and economic system that has sustainability as its central organising principle.

And if these sound like radical statements, unbecoming of the stately, reserved sentiments associated with the Royal Society, then consider the prospect of a world that is four or even six degrees hotter and the havoc and suffering that would be inevitable. This is also a radical choice.

Clearly, economic systems do not overhaul themselves – and in a democracy, majority support is a prerequisite for any significant societal shift. Politicians do not take risks if they don’t think the electorate will support them. And civil society cannot function without a diverse supporter-base.

This means that public engagement still lies at the heart of the challenge of climate change, but it is a form of public engagement that goes way beyond plastic bags. And any public campaign that treats minor behavioural change as a valid goal in itself is also taking a radical stance: complicity in a dangerously warmer world.

Article originally published by Guardian Sustainable Business 13.12.13

2 Comments + Add Comment

  • “Like recyc­ling, re-using car­rier bags has become some­thing of an iconic “sus­tain­able beha­viour“.”

    I used to re-use carrier bags, but then somebody made some change to their composition that resulted in them going brittle after a few months, and eventually falling apart into a mess of tiny white flakes. Very annoying!

    Who did that?

    “a fun­da­ment­ally dif­ferent eco­nomic system is required, if we are ser­ious about avoiding dan­gerous cli­mate change, based on nur­turing well­being rather than stoking cor­porate profit.”

    Stoking corporate profit *is* about nurturing wellbeing. Corporate profit is what pays our salaries, funds our pensions, and puts goods in the shops and food on the table. Not understanding that may explain why the campaign isn’t working.

    “The clear mes­sage was that unres­trained cap­it­alism is incom­pat­ible with decar­bon­isa­tion: the sums simply don’t add up.”

    On the contrary. The sums *always* add up – which is your problem. Decarbonisation costs a huge amount, which can be measured in human wellbeing, and which has to be paid. Your problem is that you keep on trying to get the decarbonisation without paying for it, or by disguising the costs and pretending to everyone that we’re not paying for it.

    The fundamental blocker to international negotiations on climate action is explained in the Byrd-Hagel resolution, and is that in order to be effective every nation has to decarbonise, including the developing world. There’s no point otherwise. But the developing world refuses to even countenance that, naturally, because of the immense cost in human wellbeing.

    People have tried manipulating the energy market to subsidise renewables and penalise fossil – the net effect of which has been higher energy prices, fuel poverty, the elderly dying in the cold, and half the cost hidden in taxes to pay those subsidies but still paid for by the people, a burden on the economy and employment and so on. More human suffering.

    It has often been suggested that if everyone who believed in the global warming crisis was to personally decarbonise – stop using fossil fuels, stop using anything made or transported with fossil fuels – then the use of fossil would drop dramatically overnight, the price of fossil fuel would drop, taking all the profit out of it, the price of renewables would skyrocket, motivating and funding the development of new technology and a rapid shift in energy generation, and eventually when the new tech comes along and prices fall again, everyone else would follow suit too. The reason why believers don’t – and why some of the loudest voices for decarbonisation are among the most conspicuous for energy use – is that this means the wellbeing costs would fall on *them*. That’s not their idea at all! They want the global benefits of decarbonisation, but they want the wellbeing costs to fall somewhere else. Everybody wants somebody else to pay – not realising that ultimately the chain of trade loops around and they’ll end up paying for it anyway.

    Decarbonisation means suffering and poverty – continued for some, a return to it for others. And virtually nobody is convinced that the price is worth paying. They’ll play along if they think they can get somebody else to foot the bill, but not otherwise. And that’s the problem.

    “Many scep­tics see the issue of cli­mate change as no more than a figleaf for ush­ering in a new era of socialism.”

    Heh! Yes. That much is obvious.

    But there are free-market solutions if you’re willing to listen. In my experience, nobody is – which tells me that implementing the proposed solution (socialism and state control of every aspect of private life) is more important to them than solving the problem.

  • […] the Talking Climate blog we reported back from the Tyndall ‘Radical Plan’ conference that was held just before Christmas at the Royal Society in London, and also asked […]

Make a comment

Creative Commons 2011 - 2016, Talking Climate
A project by COIN & PIRC.
This website has moved and is now part of Climate Outreach



This website, a project of Climate Outreach (COIN), has been integrated into the new Climate Outreach website. Any updates since 21 October 2015 have been made to the new website only, not here, and this website will soon be deleted. Please bookmark our new website – we look forward to continuing to share the latest in climate communication research with you. We are now tweeting from @climateoutreach so please follow us there.