Capitalism in general and energy companies in particular are seen as villains in the climate change debate. The capitalistic drive to make profit regardless of environmental cost is perceived as responsible for global warming. This perception is backwards. Capitalist organizations only survive and prosper if they supply the needs and wants of consumers. As our needs and wants change, the products of capitalism change to supply the new needs and wants. This flexibility is reflected in the history of capitalism over the last several hundred years. Changes in the mix of products available is driven by consumers, not by producers- supply follows demand. If we want green products and green energy, we have to either demand them, or be forced to demand them.
Voluntary demand is slowly happening. Consumers are demanding green products and renewable energy, and businesses are responding. The key issue is not the change, but the speed of the change. Can we make the change to renewable energy and a greener product mix before the negative planetary changes overwhelm our ability to counter them?
The answer to this question comes back to us, the consumers. The problem with ‘us’ can be explained by something called ‘the commons dilemma’. The term comes from village commons in colonial America. Villages were built around a common pasture, and each village household could graze their livestock on the village commons. It was in each household’s self-interest to increase the number of livestock grazing on the common pasture. If each household continued to increase its livestock, the ability of the pasture to provide grass would eventually be destroyed. No one household was responsible for the destruction of the pasture- all the households together were responsible for the destruction of the pasture. The planet is our commons and all humans are village householders.
The modern version of the dilemma is that each individual human contributes an extremely small portion of the overall climate change problem, leading to the rationale that any changes I make will have no impact on fixing the problem, so why should I change? If everyone thinks this way the problem will never be fixed! What can be done to get people to give up this rationale and change their behavior?
People will change their behavior if the consequences of their behavior can be altered. People will change their behavior if they are rewarded for making the change, and they will change if they are punished for not making the change. Incentives (rewards) to switch to sustainable energy have been offered by local, state and the federal government for decades, and they have been effective at getting some people to switch. These incentives need to be sustained and expanded.
The other side of behavior modification, punishment, has not been applied, which is unfortunate. Incentives alone will not get enough people to switch to sustainable energy to effect climate change. Here is an example of the problem. In Seattle, a very progressively liberal city, for years about 50 percent of the residents voluntarily recycle some of their garbage. If the Seattle City Council wanted to achieve 100 percent recycling compliance, simply tell residents that their garbage will not be picked up unless they recycle.
Both political parties lack the courage to use punishments to make needed changes in behavior, and they each have a philosophical rationale for their timidity. The left naively thinks that sufficient change can be achieved by a combination of incentives, education and knowledge, but that is proven to not be enough. The right misunderstands the concept of economic freedom. The right views freedom through a short-term lens, insisting that consumers should be allowed to consume as much energy and resources as they can afford, ignoring the fact that this conception of freedom will destroy all choices for us in the long term.
The only times our government imposed significant punitive mandates on American citizens was during our two major war crises, the Civil War and WWII. Apparently climate change is not yet enough of a crisis.