3E Intelligence

The most recent environmental Eurobarometer tells an interesting story when you are able to dig a bit deeper. Of course, it is useful for DG Environment to be able to “learn” from the survey that “Europeans put the environment centre stage” and that 64% of EU citizens feel that protecting the environment “must be given priority over economic competitiveness” (I can hear the grumbling in DG Enterprise).

EurActiv’s coverage does a good job summarising this “good news” but there are a few elements in the Eurobarometer which are easily overlooked.

The really bad news is that citizens still see no link between the problems of the environment and their own lifestyle. Their green attitudes are therefore not translated into greener actions or more sustainable ways of living. The reason for this is that they still think of the environment as a “nice to have” instead of understanding them in terms of the essential life-support services nature provides (in terms of resources and sinks for all our human and economic activities). When asked what they think of when talking about “the environment”, only 3% think about the natural resources we exploit.

Although citizens see that they have a responsibility, they prefer to blame industry which is then also reflected in how policy-makers deal with environmental issues. “The polluter pays” seems to mean for citizens pointing their finger to others instead of looking at their own impact. When asked what environmentally-friendly actions they are willing to undertake, only 17% says “use my car less”.

It should be clear from this survey that European citizens still have little knowledge and understanding of the ecological realities which underpin their (and their children’s) future on this planet. At a time when we need to mobilise the global (not just the European) citizenship for a giant eco-revolution to save this planet, this is very bad news indeed.

One of the lessons I took back home after my week’s stay in California is that there is a lot happening in the USA on “sustainability entrepreneurship”. During an inspiring dinner meeting with some friends of the Global Footprint Network, we discussed about several exciting start-ups which have introduced “ecological constraints thinking” into their business operations.

As media- and VIP-horny CEOs descend upon Swiss Davos to bathe themselves in the glory of the “rich and famous”, it might be time to start thinking about organising an annual Davos-like summit for the new “eco-economy” entrepreneurs. But contrary to the traditional Davos, this “World Eco-Sustain Forum” should be about discovering new ideas and good existing practices for running future businesses in the era of new global eco-scarcity, not about meeting the Bonos or Jolies of this world (unless they bring loads of money of course).

That being said, such a Forum would also have to find innovative ways of dealing with its own ecological footprint. BTW: Davos generates “about 6,800 tonnes of carbon emissions, equal to the amount released over a whole year by 1,250 passenger cars or 900 homes” (source: The Press Association).

Who is willing to think with me how we can make this happen?

More reading on the traditional Davos meeting:

• World Economic Forum: Davos 2008
• Forbes: Special Report on Davos 2008
• CNN: In the field: Davos
• Financial Times: Davos 2008

American journalist Richard Heinberg is one of the most prolific writers of the peak oil community. His books The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies (2003), Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World (2004), and The Oil Depletion Protocol (2006) have become real classics for anyone concerned about the looming “resource crunch”.

In his latest book called “Peak everything. Waking up to the century of decline”, Heinberg develops his ideas further into a full civilisation critique focusing on the social and historical context of the new resource scarcity. On his Museletter blog, the author has published the introduction to this interesting new work. Here is a summary and some of my first comments.

One of the interesting thoughts Heinberg develops is that our 20th century (Western) way of life has really been a historical exception based on the extremely fast exploitation of natural capital (oil, gas, coal and mineral resources) which the Earth has built up in millions of years. Unfortunately the world has now entered a new era of maximum exploitation (the different peaks) which will rapidly be followed by rather quick declines (because of high demand from new industrialising economic powers and population growth).

Heinberg: “Our starting point … is the realization that we are today living at the end of the period of greatest material abundance in human history - an abundance based on temporary sources of cheap energy that made all else possible. Now that the most important of those sources are entering their inevitable sunset phase, we are at the beginning of a period of overall societal contraction.” and,

“We have caught ourselves on the horns of the Universal Ecological Dilemma, consisting of the interlinked elements of population pressure, resource depletion, and habitat destruction - and on a scale unprecedented in history.”

Of course, Heinberg’s analysis is not new. Ecological economists such as Herman Daly have warned for decennia that classical economists (who inspire the political elites) have overlooked that our economy is a subset of a broader ecological system and therefore our “real” economies should develop in balance with that ecology instead of feeding on it.

Heinberg sees an end to growth and a “commencement of decline” in the following “parameters”: population; grain production; uranium production; climate stability; fresh water availability; arable land for agriculture; wild fish harvests; yearly extraction of some metals and minerals.

This “new scarcity” will have an effect on the following “parameters of social welfare“, says Heinberg:

But next to the bad news, there is also some good news. There are some “not-so-good things” which “will also peak this century“: “economic inequality; environmental destruction; greenhouse gas emissions”. And then there are the “good things that are not at or near their historic peaks” such as

Here is the point where I start to disagree with Heinberg’s analysis. In his efforts to escape “doom and gloom”, Heinberg falls into the trap of a Rousseauesque future which is based on a too rosy vision of the past. The world of scarcity before the oil age was not one I would like to return to. Maybe the gap between rich and poor was less in terms of absolute numbers but the power inequality between classes was certainly bigger than now. A return to a new age of scarcity could even lead to new serfdom, more community control and therefore less personal autonomy, more survival of the fittest instead of intergenerational solidarity and so on. 

I agree again with Heinberg when he describes the failure of our instruments to measure progress (GDP) and the need for a Genuine Progress Indicator but his analysis of how people can be “convinced” to “reverse to lower levels of population, complexity and consumption” looks again incredibly politically naive to me. 

“People will need to feel that there will be an eventual reward for what will amount to many years of hard sacrifice. The reality is that we are approaching a time of economic contraction and that consumptive appetites that have been stoked for decades by ubiquitous advertising messages promising “more, faster, and bigger” will now have to be reined in. People will not willingly accept the new message of “less, slower, and smaller,” unless they have new goals toward which to aspire. They must feel that their efforts will lead to a better world, and tangible improvements in life for themselves and their families. The massive public education campaigns that will be required must be credible, and will therefore be vastly more successful if they give people a sense of investment and involvement in formulating those goals. There is a much-abused word that describes the necessary process - democracy.“

For sure, his central message is correct: “Our central survival task for the decades ahead, as individuals and as a species, must be to make a transition away from the use of fossil fuels - and to do this as peacefully, equitably, and intelligently as possible“. But is this last part of his message that I am very worried about. Do we really have the political structures in place to start our eco-renaissance or will we first have to suffer the “revenge of Gaia“?

I was moderating a debate on road transport in Brussels this week and mentioned in my conclusions that future transport policies should take into consideration potential higher oil prices because of the oil demand/supply crunch to be expected in the future (see also the recent IEA report on which I wrote a blog post earlier in the week).

I immediately got a harsh critical reaction from a well-known Brussels NGO representative criticising me for bringing up the “peak oil” issue. Higher oil prices will only lead to more exploration of tar sands and development of coal-to-liquids, things that would be even more damaging for climate change, the NGO man said.

I can understand this point of view but it is not good enough to just sweep the peak oil issue under the carpet. It confirmed my analysis that green NGOs are as afraid of the new energy scarcity as the political elites but maybe for other reasons. I had had discussions before with other NGO friends that “peak oil” was just a scare story made up by the big oil companies to get support for their dirty oil plans.

I really do not understand this. As long as “peak oil” remains a taboo, the NGOs will be unable to formulate adequate responses to the climate change/energy scarcity conundrum as both issues are two sides of the same problem: the lack of recognition that our economic system has a physical, ecological dimension whose restraints will have to be respected when transforming our current economic growth religion into the new ecological economy paradigm.

Maybe the real problem that NGOs have is that they will have to admit that neither energy efficiency nor renewables alone will solve the climate change/energy scarcity issue but that they will have to address difficult issues such as consumerism and population growth, battles which might split their constituencies and their leaders.

Are there any other views on why NGOs fear the peak oil debate? I would like to hear your views.

“Past lessons, future challenges” is the overall title of this year’s Green Week organised from 12 to 15 June in Brussels and was also the topic of the first high-level opening session this morning.

Commission President Barroso started the session with a remarkably optimistic evaluation of the recent G8-meeting and a positive picture of EU environmental policies. The fact that the Portuguese Commission President was present for the first time ever in Green Week is probably a good indication that in the last year there has been a serious shift in thinking within the European Commission. The Barroso commission which started its mandate under the banner of competitiveness and economic growth has clearly opened its eyes to the challenge of global warming, although its “overarching” strategy, the sustainable development strategy, has not made too much progress. Mr Barroso still has a long way to go if he wants to move from Kyoto to Johannesburg.

The President’s positive evaluation of the G8 outcome proves my point. “The G8 has crossed the Rubicon“, said Barroso. Maybe it did, but to go where? The real proof will come in Indonesia, Bali in December when the world community will have the chance to show if it REALLY can agree on serious climate change policies beyond 2012. Former UNEP chief Klaus Töpfer was more realistic on the G8 result: “It was the best we could have but it was not what we need“.

Former environment commissioner Wallström (now in charge of the EU’s communication strategy presented her vision of a sustainable Europe. “The quest for sustainability will be lost or won in the cities“, Mrs Wallström stated. Those of you who follow this blog, will know that I agree with her one hundred percent. To all those who are now trying to influence the international UN-led climate change process, I would like to say: go local and start pressuring your Mayors!

The problem with the EU and the sustainability role for urban communities is that our cities have little or no voice in the EU’s governance architecture. When I asked this question on the place of cities in the EU, no one really gave me a satisfactory answer. Of course, I would not like Brussels starting to define EU cities’ climate change policies but good practice networks like London’s C40 certainly could do with more visibility and money from the EU. I hope to hear more from Nicky Gavron, the deputy mayor of London, about the EU’s role to help cities become greener when Nicky will be a panelist in session 13 of Green Week on Wednesday.

One of the most interesting contributions of the opening session was made by former UNEP chief Klaus Töpfer. The ex-environment minister from Germany painted a more nuanced picture when talking about the past of EU policies. “Even now environment ministers are still end of the pipe ministers”, Töpfer said, urging for more integration of policy-making. Using the example of the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depletion, he made the point that by substituting one generation of ozone gases by another, “we created another problem” because the latest generation (F-gases) was more CO2 intensive. He also rightly underlined that the EU’s sustainable development policy is not “the most active part of EU policies”. “Where is the sustainable consumption and production strategy the EU promised in Johannesburg?”, was another of Töpfer’s critical questions. And last but not least: “we talk a lot about energy efficiency, but what about sufficiency?”

Finally, Jacqueline McGlade of the European Environment Agency made a plea for a tax shift away from labour and on to the inefficient use of resources.

One of the important topics brought up in the Q&A round with the audience was the issue of biodiversity. All speakers agreed that the biodiversity threat needs the same attention as climate change. “Maybe we need a similar body for biodiversity as the IPCC for climate change, and maybe there is a need for a ‘Stern report’ on biodiversity”, said Klaus Töpfer. Great idea! Why wouldn’t the EU take the lead on this, President Barroso? Show us that you are a real sustainability leader

PS: Today yours truly will be present at the session on the role of cities and regions to tackle climate change (session 13).

• Five stars for Eurostar as it announced its “Tread Lightly” campaign on Friday 1 June. The European train company will cut emissions from its operations by 25% by 2012. It also presented a 10-point green plan to accompany its energy savings initiative. Can Ryanair and Virgin Express do better?
• EU environment ministers had an informal meeting in Essen, Germany to discuss about an ecological industrial policy for Europe. See the German environment minister’s press release. I wonder whether EU industry commissioner Verheugen was listening? On the other hand, the German Presidency’s summary of the ministers’ debate has some very encouraging conclusions. I will be coming back to this paper later.

With the first round of the French presidential elections coming up on 22 April, the Economist this weekend features a lead article anointing Nicolas Sarkozy as France’s great hope for reform. Unfortunately, the Economist’s definition of reforms (“to get the economy growing faster”) lacks any awareness of the real challenge our “spaceship Earth” faces: to redefine and redistribute prosperity now that we are facing the threat of new economic scarcity (marked by climate change and declining natural capital).

The real important issues of the 21st century have been remarkably absent in the French presidential campaign. Except for the politically naïve “Pacte Ecologique” campaign by TV media star Nicolas Hulot, climate change and energy insecurity as symptoms of an ill-defined progress have played no part in the positioning of the main contenders for the throne. They all “talked the talk” knowing very well that “greenness” these days is a fashionable but it is very questionable whether any of them will remember his or her ” green” days once in the Elysée.

Make no mistake: I am not saying the Economist is completely wrong. France (just as other countries) is in need of fundamental reform. The labour market, liberalisation and tax reforms advocated by the magazine are valid battle horses, but they need to be redefined as part of a new sustainable development agenda and not as old remedies from a past long gone.

The days of classical economic growth based on cheap natural resources are over. Now is the time for smarter, more equitable and ecological development!

BTW: the French Alliance pour la Planète has (over-)rated the presidential candidates.