There were many superb questions called at the Sustainability UnConference. I will be detailing more later on the whole event. The circles I hosted were about the (un)success or not of social/political movements and what questions or change theories of the political economy were there.

 

My brief notes are: 

 

-XR is different to anti-slavery, LGBQT+, suffragettes, and minority/black rights because the “ask” is less clear (cf. Ban slavery, a clear ask]

-[Open] Does a protest movement need an ask?

-Policy(Overton) window (and influenced on corporates) may have moved, and that would be a success

-While energised some young, it has antagonised other population segments

-Degrowth not considered by majority of economists/policy makers as viable

-XR opens doors for change makers to influence corporates, policy

-cf. Outrage and Stonewall, (LGBTQ+)

-XR  negative - is ZR now chipping out change makers and entrenching incumbents.

 

(Novel) are “leaders” emergent properties of complex systems. (eg a Greta would have emerged somehow in any case)

 

Cf. CFCs/Ozone, Nuclear.

 

Note how green party in Germany is now mainstream

 

Four theories/frameworks to note:

-Overton Window

-Swing Voter

-Median Voter

-Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem

 

And two challenging economic realities:

Economic growth will be needed to lift the poor (intra and inter-country) our of poverty

Decarbonisation across all areas of human life (Land/Food, Industry, Power, Building, Transport etc.) needed and low-carbon growth is not (yet) reality in most sectors.

 

Mainstream Economic Policy:

Carbon tax/price solves 80% of problem (eg Jasion Furman view)

(Vast) Innovation needed (subsidy helpful for early stage tech)

Standards can help raise the bar

 

Challenging political realities:

Poor/Middle class don’t want to pay (maybe no one wants to pay)

Poor countries don’t want to pay vs rich countries

[Open] Swing voter unlikely converting soon

[Open] Median voter moving slowly

 

[Open] Arrow suggests a plurality needs to be an answer.

 

Median voter might suggest that education, activism in converting population may work. May push both window and policy in more green directions.

 

Swing voter might suggest that this is not possible as swing voter not being converted on climate matters. Geography of the swing voter also important.

 

(It did not occur to me so clearly until this conversation that the tactics for converting “swing” voters are likely different to the “median” voter strategy)

 

Alternative strategy: ignore/bypass voters

Carbon pricing/tax not viable to majority of swing and current median voters. (This does not ignore voters but essential complies with both views here)

Utilise “Industrial Strategy” policy for the major sectors that can slip by voters 

eg raise standards, subsidise and go super large on innovation investment (but can govt do this? And what about health, education etc)

May be slow, but might be a political economy solution ?? (One that elites and technocrat always use and so at risk of backlash)

 

[Aside] Importance of weak social ties or social network [cf. VC cf. UK COVID vaccine strategy]

Does XR/activist movement have a policy strategy?

Can economists propose anything better than carbon price?

Must it be techno-optimism that saves us?

 

 

[Open] Limits to markets

[Open] Do we need strong political vision