 |
|
Book Review
Lawson, Nigel – An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming (Duckworth, 2008)
Sachs, Jeffrey – Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet (Allen Lane, 2008)
Review by Harry Joll
Adherents of national stereotyping will enjoy the very different approaches Nigel Lawson and Jeffrey Sachs take to climate change. Both men take a largely economic view from very different perspectives. Lawson was a key economic player in the Thatcher cabinet; Sachs, a liberal American, is a high-profile adviser to international governments on development economics. The former refuses to deal in those "attractively alliterative weasel words 'climate change'", aiming his 106 pages instead at the alarmist picture painted of global warming. Sachs’ much larger book goes in the opposite direction, proposing that environmental degradation, poverty, population and international co-operation can and must be tackled together.
Common Wealth is inspiring, intriguing and flawed, as you might expect from its lofty aspirations. Jeffrey Sachs has attempted to address not just one monolithic problem, but several, and his solutions are appropriately ambitious. It would take a better economist than me to indentify the flaws in Sachs’ thesis, though even I can perceive some of the practical difficulties. An Appeal To Reason is more straightforward, which is not to denigrate its several incisive and thought-provoking contentions. Lawson offers very little in the way of solutions, because only a serious problem needs those (and he does not consider global warming to be a serious problem). Omissions and inconsistency are not infrequent, but what truly fails to convince is the assertion that it is impossible to know or plan for the long-term future, and therefore futile to try; better to enjoy the benefits of global warming (if it turns out to exist). Both authors are frequently guilty of sweeping statements and assumptions, but perhaps that is due to their common strength, the will to take risks and challenge orthodoxies. The writing of both men is vigorous and engaging as they pursue new arguments as well as old. All in all, two bold, dynamic and intriguing books which more than justify their entry into an increasingly crowded debate.
The difference in scale, both of problems acknowledged and responses proposed, is illuminating. Lawson is able to pursue his narrow remit only by employing several familiar, widely discredited arguments, and by choosing to ignore the fundamental context of global warming. In Chapter 2, discussing water, he briskly asserts that wars, migrations, scarcity, droughts and flooding are not directly precipitated by temperature increase, but they have everything to do with environmental degradation, population sizes and poverty. Sachs sees the problems in Darfur largely as a water crisis, brought about ostensibly by extreme poverty, itself caused by the lack of water for crops and other uses. It is a pattern we will see repeated, he claims, for natural resources have supplanted political power as principal objects of war and conflict. 'Climate change' has been adopted because it acknowledges the size and complexity of such problems: natural systems, their bewildering linkages and interdependencies, and their interaction with human development. Environmental science is young, as Lawson points out, but we already understand two things: global warming is just one phenomenon in the involved network of processes that govern the environment; and our imperfect knowledge has only begun to reveal the consequences of human activity on the environment, not their full extent and ultimate effect: "It is always essential to avoid the mistake of confusing the unknown with the unimportant."
Another issue which Lawson has clearly decided is unimportant, but is far from unknown, is that of fossil fuels. Rather ironically, from a former Secretary of State for Energy who oversaw the closure of a number of coal mines, Lawson nominates indigenous coal as one of the UK’s best answers to energy security, alongside nuclear energy and storage of imported natural gas. The question of severely limited supplies of fossil fuels in general, and peak oil in particular, is conspicuous by its absence.
Sachs, by contrast, is not satisfied with climate change alone, and throws in poverty, population and international politics for good measure. It is refreshing that Sachs does not rail against globalisation, but instead accepts and works within the world we have. The levels of knowledge and development we have now reached, the links of transport, trade, migration and communication, have thrown us together and continually remind us of our global interconnectedness. As Sachs says, “The defining challenge of the twenty-first century will be to face the reality that humanity shares a common fate on a crowded planet.” Our problems are global, and solutions will not work unless they are too. Sachs’ multifaceted proposition involves environmental sustainability, stabilisation of world population at roughly 8 billion by 2050, elimination of extreme poverty by 2025 and a new dawn of global co-operation. The level of idealism is inspiring, for as we have seen, the problems and systems of the human and natural worlds are themselves gargantuan, synergistic and immensely complicated – solutions need to be accordingly ambitious.
The idea that the developed world should bear the initial costs for curbing emissions, whereas all would eventually benefit, is objectionable to Lawson, a madness that asks current generations to make huge sacrifices for the sake of a distant, unknowable future. One man’s madness is another man’s long-term vision; Sachs realises it is humanity’s only option, and claims the necessary investment would be a mere 2-3% of annual world income. He makes no claims for the solutions being easy to realise, but he does make a good case in illustrating their relative simplicity and attainability. Briefly, these include: a renovation of global co-operation and foreign policy, particularly on aid and introducing sustainable energy; policy intervention to reduce fertility rates in the poorest countries; and the development and diffusion of new technologies. The experience both Sachs and Lawson have of economics and politics dominate their narratives, and it is easy to see why respect for markets figure so prominently. They are hugely productive, and can do many things efficiently. Since 1950, many poor countries, notably China and India, have geared themselves to close the development gap, with remarkable success. Meanwhile, richer countries have no reason (much less desire) to voluntarily reduce their productivity and wealth and use fewer resources. At the current rate of growth, the global economy is set to double to $140 trillion by 2022. The entrenchment and power of the global economy mean that it is senseless to revile it rather than try to use it as a tool. Lawson’s advocacy of a carbon tax across the board, leavened by reducing income tax among others, rather than carbon trading or offsetting is particularly convincing. However, as Sachs stresses but Lawson fails to realise, the world economy only goes so far. Lawson insists humanity will adapt autonomously to changes such as global warming. The Stern Review justifies its low future discount rate for investing in mitigation of climate change on ethical grounds - On a current trajectory, GDP per capita will indeed continue to rise, but that fails to reflect the billion people that will remain mired in extreme poverty. The rich-poor gap is widening in the UK, as in most of the world, fastest of all in developing nations like China and India. Markets are not drawn to centres of poverty, such as sub-Saharan Africa, where the basic conditions for enrichment are lacking. Nor are ecosystems catered to by market economics, for they are not recognised as property. Demography is not self-regulating. Technological advance and research is privately owned, so there's no incentive to spread it. All of these realities point towards the same conclusion: governments need to intervene where markets will not, and global co-operation and leadership on an unprecedented scale are needed.
Lawson’s attack on the "prevailing orthodoxy" proves that he can turn an acid phrase and construct a bold argument, but the editor might have stepped in on occasion. Lawson can hardly bring himself to describe what he opposes without a flurry of qualifications and snide sub-clauses. The Stern Review, the IPCC, Al Gore and miscellaneous “alarmists" all come in for particular flak, and one senses only partially due to difference of opinion. Indeed, perhaps An Appeal To Reason is best understood as polemic drafted in response to polemic. Environmentalists can be very intolerant of dissent, and they know the consensus is on their side: it is easy to feel that scepticism is an unreasonable hindrance to necessary, productive action. Lawson struggled to find a publisher, as many sceptical scientists struggle to find funding, and thus feeling like a persecuted minority is understandable. Dissent is not only reasonable, it is absolutely necessary to ensure that the orthodoxy is justified in prevailing. Arrogance and aggression are easy traps for both sides to fall into when it comes to such an important issue, yet they only serve to obstruct and alienate. An Appeal To Reason reminds us that environmental science is still in its relative infancy, and it is fallible. This has a bearing upon its relationship with the media: climate change makes for dramatic headlines, but scientists, journalists and the public all need to be wary of misrepresentation. One telling example is the link, frequently and casually made but far from scientifically established, between extremes of weather and global warming. Most intriguing of all is Lawson’s equation of environmentalism with religious faith: "eco-fundamentalism" has sprung up to fill the vacuum left by the dual collapse of Marxism among leftists ("green is the new red") and of religion in Europe. The overall lesson is that climate change should not be overstated to render what he pointedly calls a "convenient religion" more seductive.
Lawson's exposure of myths and misrepresentation is commendable... until he starts spinning them himself. He is right to question the majority view, but it is hardly fair to say that a scientific consensus is merely "conventional wisdom". The role of courageous voice of reason defying the misguided mainstream is appealing, but occasionally it goes to Lawson’s head and does not re-emerge as logic. Of course the industrial revolution wasn't the "ghastly mistake" Lawson archly suggests some environmentalists believe it was; the benefits are manifest. It would be a ghastly mistake, however, to ignore the damage it has wrought, or to venerate it is a perfect blueprint for an evolution that must continue or cease. The political correctness of environmentalism really gets under Lawson’s skin, but I wonder how many people would be prepared to swap it (and IPCC reports) for "common-sense considerations" such as the following: "I spent the summer of 2003 in south-west France myself [during the heat wave which killed thousands], and found it perfectly tolerable". Sachs, likewise, is prone to high-flown prose that favours assumptions and airy idealism over measured pragmatism.
If environmentalists are occasionally guilty of scaremongering, and provoking reactive scepticism and paralysis as a result, then Sachs’ optimism and highlighting of historical precedents to effect necessary change are what we should take forward. We already have technologies capable of rectifying most of the world's inequality, many of them simple such as perforated hoses to improve irrigation, or, more controversially, genetically modifying crops. When all is said and done, the flaws which Lawson identifies in the science and logic of climate change do not come close to justifying the alternatives he proposes. Rather more instructive than the alarmist scares cited in An Appeal To Reason is the parallel that opens and closes Common Wealth. Perhaps Kennedy would have been wiser to ignore the implications of the Cuban Missile Crisis and relaxed, rather than spending the last year of his life trying to steer the world away from the nuclear brink.. Perhaps we should join Lawson in enjoying rising temperatures in his French villa (I presume sub-Saharan Africa is invited), accepting that the radical changes needed to address our biggest problems are beyond us. Or perhaps we should look down from the peak of human development, at the wealth and worth of all we have, knowledge, resources, markets and an exceptional planet on which our common future depends, and realise that we have the tools and capacity to avert catastrophic climate change.