Political Conventions are a Waste

They say American presidential candidates must sell their product retail. But as the nominating conventions of both major American political parties recede into memory, all I can think is:

Someone just wasted a lot of money.

But then it’s not just the money that's wasted, is it? When I looked at the faces in the convention crowd, I didn't see Republicans and Democrats, Northerners and Southerners, delegates and super-delegates. Instead, I saw tens of thousands of roundtrip airfares and as many or more rental cars. And for what?

Originally intended to facilitate the choice of a candidate by delegates from far-flung states, these conventions have evolved into something entirely other, but, nevertheless wholly American: A product launch.

The major political parties can no longer afford to indulge in the messy, unpredictable nominating conventions of the past. The election cycle has elongated while the news cycle has collapsed on itself. Like celebrities and big corporations, politicians have got to manage their brands. And that means driving news coverage. A successful convention does that.

While it might be good for business, it's a bad model for the 21st century.

Last year, Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (RSA) in the U.K. came to the Carnegie Council for a discussion of Climate Change and the Green Economy. He made several points, but the one that stuck with me related to business travel.

I was just thinking on the way over here, sitting in a business class absolutely filled with business people – all exhausted, all away from their families, all going to business meetings. When is this going to stop? Of course the reason it can’t stop is if you are pitching for a contract and there are five of you competing, and four of you fly, and one of you tries to do it remotely, then you’re going to lose. When is business going to get to the stage where they say, “Actually, we only want to talk to people virtually.”

Both the Democrats and the Republicans tried to sell their conventions as "the greenest convention ever." But that is just preposterous. A green convention would be one where all the delegates stayed home, watched the speeches on YouTube, and cast their votes via secure online connections. Seems like it would be easy to do.

Unfortunately, if one party tries it and it flops, then like the business travellers in Taylor's example the other will feast on that failure.

I know somebody has to lose. But do they have to waste so much doing it?

Climate change ethics talk with RSA--Manhattan, the fragile ecosystem

That torrential rain storm and the tornado in Brooklyn yesterday proved that Manhattan is indeed a fragile ecosystem. Floods halted the the nation's largest transit system. In my neighborhood, the Second Avenue bus line had lines of people stretching around the block. People were waiting for buses, not free ice cream.

Today, we just finished an excellent public forum on the Ethics of Climate Change at the Carnegie Council with RSA's Robin Thompson. In my mind some of the main ethical questions related to climate change cover the burden and solutions:

Burden: Distributing the burden of climate change, but on whom? On rich countries? On those most affected? On those with a history of polluting? On those with the ability to address the problem? Or shall we think about the actors that can help--countries, companies, or individuals? As one person said in the conference, it is probably all of the above.

Solutions: Kyoto has been criticized as being insufficient, but you have to start somewhere. What about the role of technology and transfer? The world has at its disposal much more advanced technologies now compared with those available during the Industrial Revolution. Or, as Peter Singer has suggested, how about dividing up the world's population to get a country's right to pollute and then trading polluting rights between countries based on need?

Some of the main points articulated during today's meeting include:

The importance of educating the public, of having accurate information, and considering what the data mean for the future.

Importance of interconnectedness, which can help people to change in faraway places, having a ripple effect.

The need to change the culture, to redefine environmental awareness as not just ethical but also cool. Al Gore is now considered a rock star--that's a good start.

The approach must be sane--we shouldn't panic or beat ourselves up. Sane and calm action needed.

Unintended consequences abound--a taxi driver who chooses an energy saving cab can use that money to put his kids through school, presenting odd tradeoffs like gas vs. education.

Think small, scale up, and imagine the possibilities. Get involved, push for political action before it is too late.

Finally, people and organizations must cooperate to put human development first.

We will be putting a summary up on http://www.policyinnovations.org/ soon.

RSA, Carnegie Council Discuss Ethics of Climate Change

As part of the Carnegie Council's collaborative project with London-based think thank RSA on the ethics of climate change, we are posting the first part of an online discussion between the heads of the two institutions on the topic below (reprinted from the Carnegie Council website here):

This online conversation between Matthew Taylor, RSA Chief Executive, and Joel Rosenthal, Carnegie Council President, is part of a joint project on the ethics of climate change with the RSA in London and Carnegie Council.

MATTHEW TAYLOR: It is now clear that tackling climate change by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels is necessary not just to protect the environment, but also to save human lives. Climate change is an issue of global human rights. Those who have contributed least to human induced climate change will not only be the worse affected, they are also the least able to deal with the impacts. We are already seeing the first climate change refugees as land becomes uninhabitable due to rising sea levels and desertification. And without tackling climate change, other global challenges such as improving health or reducing poverty will become ever more intractable. The choice between tackling climate change and tackling poverty and disease is a false one. What would be the point of spending decades trying to eradicate diseases or reduce poverty only for climate change impacts to create new epidemics, famines and wars?

There is a perception that high consumption of fossil fuels must go hand in hand with the high quality of life enjoyed by developed nations. This does not have to be the case. We need to see a transition away from a global economy reliant on fossil fuel consumption to a low carbon economy for many reasons other than climate change. Think, for example, of the health problems associated with pollution. More urgently still, fossil fuel scarcity means governments are seeing energy supply as the key issue of national security.

Many argue, and more and more agree, that there is a moral obligation for developed countries to help developing countries make the transition to low carbon. Remember that when the Chinese build their new coal fired power station every week, it is in large part because they are manufacturing products for our domestic markets. Global justice was in part the rationale behind international agreements such as Kyoto. But we cannot simply rely on politicians to negotiate agreed targets at the international level. It is up to us to give the politicians the courage to agree sufficiently demanding targets and the will to police them, and it will be in large part up to business and individuals to deliver on the commitments their governments make.

There is no sign as yet that technology has the silver bullet. So we must start to think about how we must change our lives. In order to make this transition towards a low carbon future, consumer pressure must be brought to bear on business and government to provide the necessary infrastructure and products. Individual behaviour is shaped by external incentives, personal choices and social norms. Living low carbon lives will mean action on all fronts.

QUESTIONS

Is it enough to rely on citizens of developed countries to use consumer power to reduce the carbon intensity of our current lifestyles, or is the way we live now inherently highly carbon intensive?

What are the most powerful ways for state action, corporate and individual action to work together to foster sustainability?

Does any global framework have ultimately to accept the principle that every citizen of the world has the same limited right to the carbon?

Dear Matthew,

I salute the RSA for taking up this urgent issue. The case in favor of limiting carbon emissions in light of threats to the natural environment and public health is, by now, overwhelming. While Al Gore's book and movie An Inconvenient Truth may put an exclamation point on this observation for the benefit of wide audiences and popular culture, the arguments have been well rehearsed for many years now. I agree that it is well past time for action.

So the question is, what guidance do we have for action? Philosophers give us three distinct moral principles to animate our work: stewardship, intergenerational justice, and distributive justice. Stewardship rests on the idea that man's relationship to the natural world is not one of ownership but rather interdependence. On a planet of 6 billion people, it is self-evident that resources are finite. Here in the United States, the population has risen from less than 200 million to more than 300 million just in my lifetime. Stewardship implies special care for non-renewable resources and respect for common goods.

Most of us learned as children that when we leave a place that we have visited, the place should be in as good a condition, if not a bit better, than we found it when we arrived. The principle of intergenerational justice means that we owe our heirs not only a livable planet, but also as much of the richness and diversity as we have enjoyed.

Things get more complicated when we speak about distributive justice. Distributive justice raises the question of benefits and burdens. Who pays for the burden of clean up, or the added cost of mandating "clean" technologies, especially in developing countries? Why should India or China be required to develop according to "green" standards while the U.S. and Europe most definitely did not?

Political scientists address this issue in the language of self-interests and collective action. Addressing climate change is at some level a common interest. Yet the effects of climate change will not be uniform and political units will calculate the threat in different ways. Thinking in terms of individual responsibility and the liability of specific actors is insufficient. As you point out, we need to think in terms of social connection as well.

The environment is not a distinct entity "out there"—rather, it is embedded in economic patterns (jobs) and lifestyles (consumer choices). Climate change is actually one big collective action problem. As you suggest, perhaps the best strategy is a two-pronged approach. Incentives and disincentives need to be devised to affect individual choice. Simultaneously, social structures and institutions need to evolve so that individuals acting rationally within them will promote positive change. Think small and scale up. Think big and imagine new social arrangements.

History is full of positive examples. After the industrial revolution and the environmental crises it caused, traditions of preservation and conservation emerged. Progressive reform also emerged, marrying the innovations of science and technology to better government, environmental protection, and improved lives. Sanitation, parks, protecting of ecological resources—all came about as a result of raised consciousness followed by political action.
We inherit the successes of the ecology movement of the 1960s and '70s. The achievement of that generation was astounding in its influence and reach. These successes are now a generation old. What is the post-cold war, globalization generation doing? Is it measuring up to its historic responsibilities? I fear not. But with RSA and other like-minded groups entering the arena, I have hope.

Sincerely,

Joel H. Rosenthal