Scanning through news headlines you can get a sense for the real passion these issues are evoking on a global scale. If the detainment of 1000 protesters gathered to advocate for fair climate policy is an accurate indicator of global sentiments, citizens are demanding action in what they perceive to be an increasingly urgent crisis.

While I am happy to see climate change receiving the much needed attention it deserves, as the author of a site focused on both sustainability and technology I am disappointed that there is not an equal focus on technological development that could relieve the pressures associated with emissions cuts.

I am reminded of a cliché often used in health that we are promoting a system of ‘sick care’ and not ‘health care,’ which is to say that our practices are reactive (e.g. replacing a clogged artery) and not proactive (e.g. promoting a healthy diet, regular exercise, and check-ups). A reactive system addresses the symptoms of the problem – in this case climate change – but does not focus on the fundamental behaviour driving that change: consumption of resources at a higher rate than they can be replaced, and offsetting a previously established equilibrium in which carbon dioxide could be absorbed at the same rate it was being produced.

Realistically, until there is a cheaper alternative to coal-fired energy (whether through technological advancements that can reduce the price of alternative energy, or through
a reassessment of our economical models that would dramatically increase the price of coal), it will be very difficult to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is a primary cause of the tension that can be seen at the Copenhagen Summit – development, in the most encompassing sense of the word (particularly for unindustrialized economies) is essentially linked to the ability to emit carbon dioxide. It is a system of compromises. Countries must choose the extent to which they will develop and provide opportunity for their citizens and the amount they are willing to exacerbate environmental issues.

By focusing discussions specifically on emission caps, we ignore the very real possibility that there is another path leading to mutual gain and sustainability. Research and development into renewable energies, smarter agricultural practices, and efficient technology could reveal new solutions to the development vs. emissions problem. In the most ideal situation technological developments could allow industrialization to occur in tandem with emissions cuts. At the very least, technology can assist in the adoption of sustainable values by reducing the inconvenience associated with change, and this is why I consider it to be such a critical factor in achieving the goals of the Copenhagen Summit.

For now, the very existence of a global summit focused on reducing emissions and reevaluating current practices is a good start. It recognizes that there is a problem, puts a new cost on consumption, and with any luck will spur the technological development required to become sustainable by making it economical to do so. It is my hope that policy makers, and the public at large, will soon come to see sustainability as an interdependent issue lying at the cross roads of economics, technology, and social values – and that achieving sustainability must be a collaboration, not a compromise.

While in Hong Kong I stumbled upon an organization called Civic Exchange, a self-proclaimed public policy think-tank, that recently published a book titled “The Great Disconnect” (available in PDF form here).

The book probes the driving factors of environmental change and makes some interesting insights related to the economic crisis of 2008. Of these insights, I found the most interesting to be the author’s analysis of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as the prime indicator of a country’s economic state. The Government of Canada defines GDP as “the unduplicated value of all goods and services produced in a year within Canada’s borders measured at market prices.” This is to say that it is a measure of economic throughput – it measures the final value of goods and services. This style of book-keeping is problematic from the perspective of environmental policy because it focuses on the value of production without considering the upfront cost of consumption.

The book provides a useful example – consider the sale of lumber. A tree by itself does not have value in our economy. However, if that tree is cut down and sold as lumber it adds value to our GDP. A cost can only be associated with consuming this resource if we pay to reforest the region.

Now consider that a widely adopted practice to battle the ongoing recession has been the distribution of stimulus funds to encourage spending. Since we gauge the health of our economy by the size of the GDP, there must be an increase in the production of goods and services to improve our economy. Ultimately, the world-wide reaction to the global recession has been to consume more resources. Understandably, when unemployment rates are rising governments may find it difficult to focus attention on sustainability, but it is clear that on a planet with finite resources this model cannot go on forever. What is needed is a new economic performance indicator that values more than just the production of goods and services.

The crux of the problem with achieving environmental sustainability, as I see it, is that our economic model awards growth at all costs. This is not to say that capitalism is flawed, but that our means of measuring its inputs and outputs are primitive. In a suitable analogy I see our economy as a car. Our current model rates vehicles by their speed and acceleration without considering the fuel-efficiency and safety performance – it is outdated. We are being sold a Ferrari as a family vehicle, and while it currently offers a glamorous lifestyle we have put ourselves at serious risk of a catastrophic crash. Without considering all inputs to a system, we cannot control the outputs or make sufficiently educated decisions. A key input that I believe is being neglected in our economic model is the value (and condition) of resources – particularly non-renewable fuels, and plant-life capable of absorbing CO2.

With a debit-credit system of tracking our resources, a more natural economic goal could be to achieve a balance (where a deficit represents the wasteful use of resources, and a surplus represents the creation of value from limited resources). The beauty of a balance-based system is that the terms “waste” and “value” can always be redefined. As standards of quality improve the cost of resources can be increased, thus making it more difficult to produce a valuable product, which in turn would spur the creativity and innovation required to drive an economy forward.

The cornerstone of this model rests in the interpretation of “quality.” Standards of quality in life would have to be redefined for such a model to work. Stature in society must be driven from psychological, physical and emotional satisfaction rather than the accrual of material goods.

The concepts I have put forth are obviously far easier said than done. Every nuance of a new economic system requires serious global agreement (and participation), and a change in the core values of entire nations. Such value shifts have happened before (consider how quickly values surrounding personal privacy and social connectedness have changed with the adoption of the Internet). It is my hope that the shift away from blind consumption (and towards true sustainability) can be achieved before the consequences become visible, because, as with the speeding Ferrari – by the time we can clearly see what lies ahead it may be too late to avoid the crash.

The debate proved to be less one-sided than I’d anticipated, though the focus of the discussion tended to drift from the proposal. At the heart of the defense, the argument is less that western climate policies such as the soon-to-be-abandoned Kyoto protocol are negatively impacting our environment – more that western policies are not sufficient, and do not adequately acknowledge a history where the majority of carbon dioxide emissions were generated from countries that are now industrialized and able focus on cleaner technology. Many developing nations do not have this luxury and must rely on cheaper, coal fired power to support their industrialization to enjoy lifestyle for which they have worked so hard to earn – particularly in countries such as India and China.

I can certainly sympathize with this point of view. Consider having spent your life working tirelessly to achieve the luxuries of a western lifestyle for your family (climate controlled buildings, cars, readily available electricity and water), and just as you are starting to see results you are told – by countries that had free reign on their emissions while developing their economies – that you must limit your rate of development because you are polluting too much in the process. It comes across as a hypocritical “do as I say and not as I do” argument. However, regardless of the extent to which it is unfair, there is a serious difference between the unknowingly ignorant practices of industrialized nations throughout the 20th century, when the significance of pollution was unknown, and ignorant policy making when new information has become available.

According to Wired magazine “If China’s carbon usage keeps pace with its economic growth, the country’s carbon dioxide emissions will reach 8 gigatons a year by 2030, which is equal to the entire world’s CO2 production today.” India is not far behind. Given that both countries are imposing plans that rely heavily on coal to meet their energy needs, it would be a stretch to say that “Asia is saving the world from climate policy disaster.” The audience of the debate felt the same and the proposal was voted down at a ratio of approximately 8:1. However, it was also made clear that there is a need to rethink our western policies. Any effective climate change policy must take into account the fact that Asia needs to develop, and will require large amounts of energy to build that infrastructure. While the donation of ‘carbon credits’ from industrialized nations to developing nations to compensate their emissions is a good start, it is not sufficient. What is needed is larger economic overhaul that values environmental preservation, and incentivizes people to make more conservative choices. And that is precisely what I will be talking about in my next post! In the meantime enjoy this picture taken from Lamma Island nearby Hong Kong which juxtaposes a coal fired power plant against a scenic ocean beach.

Skyline from Lamma Island, Hong Kong

While I’m not rushing out to buy a clapper (I did own one in my last year of university and found it to be novel but ineffective) I am eagerly awaiting some smarter interfaces to control our light (one of the sources that tends to suck up a fair bit of our home energy consumption). DIY’ers unite – this is a great forum to throw some sensors around the house, hack your phones, remotes and media centres and come up with something great. When you’ve got the IP secured don’t forget to share the love.