Ration books for everyone: Part 2

When I wrote the first part of this post, I believed that the idea of implementing wartime-style rationing to reduce emissions belongs to the fringe of the climate crusade. Even so, I believed it to be dangerous enough to merit all the attention you and I can spare it. Because history teaches us that fringe ideas can sometimes overtake the mainstream. Especially with the right government help.

After I read that ration study, I shared it with Peter Bryant, board chair and managing director of business consultancy Clareo, who is one of the few rational voices in the transition, acknowledging that the way it is being advertised will never work.

Here’s what Peter told me he thought of the rationing idea. It looks equitable on the surface, he said, but in actuality, while it may raise the wealth of underdeveloped and developing nations, it would make developed countries poorer.

So far so good, if you ask someone from an underdeveloped country. But that’s not all. Peter noted that as a way of reducing emissions the approach is questionable because “emissions don’t always happen at the point either the energy or the products it produces are consumed” — there is space for plenty of unintended consequences.

Finally, something that pretty much everyone said when commenting on the research — it is against human nature and against the idea of a democratic society. As Peter put it, “it smacks of central planning which always fails and also has a hint of fascism.”

But it’s a fringe idea, right? It will never enter the mainstream, let alone become dominant. Right? Not so fast. The idea of direct rationing may be fringe but the discourse of which it is part is not fringe. The calls for behavioural changes as a means of reducing emissions are quite open and they’re multiplying.

This recent story by the Financial Times, for example, suggests that the push to change behaviours is gaining speed. The author, Philippa Nuttall, notes that changes in our lifestyles can go a long way towards hitting those net-zero goals the Paris Agreement sets but that the changes have been difficult and tricky to effect for several reasons.

One is that Western governments are reluctant to interfere in people’s lives, per one “independent researcher focused on climate communication”. According to that researcher, Adam Corner, this is a problem and governments should change their ways because their reluctance has no basis in reality.

“People would support behaviour change policies if they were sure what was being asked of them was fair and it was clear governments were not just trying to shift the blame on to consumers,” Corner told the FT.

Does it sound familiar? It should, because it echoes an argument made by the authors of that ration paper, although I wouldn’t blame you if you’ve decided to give it a miss. Here’s what the paper says, quoting a 1941 document from the British Ministry of Information:

“as long as people believe that all classes and sections are suffering and enduring equally, they will put up with very great hardship. It is ‘unfairness’ that people resent.”

The authors then jump on the fairness horse and gallop away with it. If everyone suffers equally, then everyone would be ready to suffer, the argument appears to be.

In other words, if Ursula von den Leyen can convince me that she will reduce the time she spends showering to 3 minutes, that she will only eat meat once a week and for the rest of the week she will only eat locally produced food, for example, I’d be more willing to also shower in 3 minutes and eat almost meatless and local.

If the collective leadership of the “free world” — a phrase that is fast becoming one of the most ironic ever in history — can convince us, those led by them, that they will willingly sacrifice their lifestyles at the altar of emission reduction, we will also be willing to sacrifice our lifestyles at that altar.

Only it’s not going to happen, is it? Because that artificial scarcity that the ration paper authors are talking about will be optional for those in charge of it, if it even applies to them at all.

What was it that Bill Gates said when asked whether he considers himself part of the emissions problem because he flies in a private jet? Right, he said he wasn’t, because he was spending billions on emission reduction. That’s what all of the leadership crowd are going to say if confronted similarly.

So, what’s a behavioural change champion to do? Start them early, that’s what. The FT quotes a former Italian education minister and current professor at the University of Surrey as saying that “schools and universities should teach students a new cultural message, which prioritises wellbeing and purpose over profit.”

Some educational institutions are already changing their curricula to include climate change-related messaging. You may call it propaganda — I know I do — but they probably call it awareness raising for a better tomorrow. Radical behavioural change takes a lot of time, after all, unless you want riots on your hands.

Yet many transition activists calling for that behavioural change argue that it needs to happen fast. There’s no time to lose, we’re on a highway to hell, etc. You’ve heard Fatih Birol and Antonio Guterres. Some greater interference, then, will be in order. And there’s nothing wrong with that, according to one University of Oxford researcher also quoted in that FT story.

Here’s my favourite paragraph: “A wrong-headed understanding of “freedom” in western countries is part of the reason for a lack of progress on behavioural change, says Emma Garnett, a researcher at the University of Oxford. Freedom, in many countries, has become synonymous with rightwing, free-market policies, she notes.”

In case you’re wondering what that researcher does, per her bio, her “research focuses on testing different approaches to shift behaviour towards more sustainable, more plant-based diets. More generally, Emma is interested in understanding how we fairly overcome economic, political and social barriers to reaching Net Zero conserving biodiversity and reducing inequality.”

And that former Italian minister? Lorenzo Fioramonti is currently the director of the Institute for Sustainability at the University of Surrey, who is “passionate about sustainability education and research and my books include: Wellbeing Economy: Success in a World Without Growth (MacMillan 2017) and The World After GDP: Economics, Politics and International Relations in the Post-Growth Era (Polity 2017), which have been featured – among others -  by Bloomberg and the Financial Times.”

Moving beyond GDP, eliminating meat from our diets, and getting off our cars are all elements of the same narrative and this narrative aims to create artificial scarcity — the very same sort of artificial scarcity that the authors of the ration paper talk about. That, and dispense with that “wrong-headed understanding of “freedom””.

After all, think about it. It’s easy to downsize from an SUV to a bicycle if you have no money to maintain the SUV or buy a new one because you operate in a “post-growth” economy and you don’t get bonuses and raises when that economy grows.

It’s easy to eat less meat — or none at all — if you can’t afford it. Same with everything else we consume — if you can’t afford it, you won’t consume it. Your carbon footprint will go down spectacularly. Net-zero accomplished.

Somewhere, that is, in Finland, the behavioural change pioneers have come up with a game for children to play. The game’s called the Climate Puzzle and encourages teens to find ways to reduce their consumption of everything for a more sustainable lifestyle. As I said, start them when they’re young.

From a Bloomberg report on the game with many thanks to fellow Energy Transition podcaster Tammy Nemeth for sharing it.

Instructors pull out a large board with a series of squares, each labeled with a climate-friendly action. “I will reduce the energy of doing laundry,” reads one. “I will buy items secondhand or recycled (90% of purchased items),” goes another. “I will favour organic food.” “I will try a vegan diet (12 months/person/year).” “I will favour sustainable services.” The size of each square corresponds with the impact of the action it outlines; the square about eating organic, for example, is less than a tenth the size of the one about going vegan.

It’s a brilliant idea. Teens are easy to guilt into surrendering rights, freedoms, and common sense because they are only just learning what these things mean. I expect the game will soon get a version for even younger children. I’m actually surprised it hasn’t already but it’s spreading across countries.

“We need policies that make healthy, low-carbon options the easiest and cheapest options. Sustainable options should mean going with the flow and not feeling like you are desperately swimming upstream,” the Oxford University food researcher, Emma Garnett, told the FT.

Since it is clear this is an impossibility, the only alternative is forcing behavioural change — through indoctrination for the younger generations and through artificial scarcity for their parents and grandparents. Glory be.