CLEARING OBSTRUCTIONS

“Our minds are often cluttered with repetitive thoughts that make it very difficult for us to be fully present.  Managing the mind is a key skill, and this includes the discipline at times to be able to switch thought off.  We need to discover the ability to live fully in the here and now.  This is the pathway to true understanding.” 

The Tabula Project, Clearing the Mind

Socrates once declared, “the unexamined life is not worth living”.  We need to learn to observe ourselves with a higher degree of detachment.

We are often burdened with conflicting thoughts and feelings, which hinder us – as individuals and as a society. We need to strip away the false preconceptions and misperceptions we labour under if we are to remove the main obstacles to progress.

It takes time to change deeply engrained thought patterns.  New thinking leads to new behaviours, which further reinforce and evolve the new mindset.

Ideas have a self-fulfilling power of their own.

Policies and courses of action adopted for short term gain are often by default adopted for the long term and become rigidly programmed.  Anthropologist Gregory Bateson has demonstrated the risks of extinction that arise by way of loss of flexibility.  When ideas go unexamined, they can become hard-wired habits difficult to reverse with sometimes disastrous consequences[i].

Climate policy is full of examples of rigid and self-defeating thinking.  There is an assumption that electric vehicles will decarbonise transport whilst allowing us to continue our lifestyles.  However, emissions reductions achieved from improving the efficiency of new cars and rolling out electric vehicles has been offset by increased usage and the trend towards larger vehicles – so-called “rebound effects”.  This has significantly hindered progress in reducing emissions from transport, the largest source of emissions in the UK.

Too often we focus on targets and measurements that entrench unsustainable outcomes. The transport metrics we use of time savings skew policy towards road building.  As Joseph Stiglitz noted, what we measure affects what we do; and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted[ii].  A myopic focus on GDP gives insufficient focus to health and well-being, enhancing biodiversity, creating jobs, reducing poverty, stabilising the economy, and increasing resilience and the ability to adapt to climate change.

Climate change should be framed in terms of managing immense risks.  A net zero test for public policy would be a useful tool to help ensure cross-government policy alignment, that government sticks to the least-cost path to net zero, and that net zero is considered early enough in decision-making process.

We must address the underlying causes of problems

Anthropologist Gregory Bateson asked “What sort of habit of mind leads to paying too much attention to symptoms and too little to the system?  Treating the symptom makes the world a safe place for the pathology, such as ‘curing congestion’ by building more roads!”

‘Predict and provide’ has been discredited as a strategy to reduce congestion^[iii]. Too great an emphasis on road building also conflicts with net zero targets by inducing traffic. Pricing is one of the most effective ways to reduce congestion and target the root causes of climate change, but the result of repeated failures of road taxation to cover the social and environmental impacts of road use is that we over consume our roads.  Moreover, in lowering the running cost of motoring, electrification will increase congestion.

The root cause of anthropogenic climate change is the price of fossil fuels that produce the energy we consume and the political and economic structure that keep us addicted to them.  Pricing properly for carbon is critical but the central dilemma for climate policy is how to ensure that the poorest in society are not penalized.  How can we use carbon pricing as an instrument whilst ensuring that the transition to net zero avoids inflicting hardship on low-income households?

Studies have shown that the overall impact of a carbon tax doesn’t need to be regressive as its revenue can be returned to households in ways that promote progressivity.^[iv]   When revenues from carbon taxes are progressively redistributed as cash payments, as in British Columbia, public opposition softens significantly.^[v]

The biggest barriers to progress on climate policy

The biggest barriers to progress on climate policy are political not technological.  A shift towards energy demand reduction is urgently needed but potential impact on living standards means that implementation of the necessary policies and measures can be politically difficult.

The freeze in fuel duty since 2011 is a case in point.  The fuel duty escalator was first introduced in 1993 as an environmental tax, to stem the increase in pollution from road transport.  However, since the fuel duty protests in 2000, and the referendums on congestion charging in Edinburgh and Manchester, levying any additional charges on road users has been seen as politically toxic.  Governments have repeatedly baulked at ending the freeze.

The ongoing freeze in fuel duty is unaffordable.  In her inaugural budget in 2024 the Chancellor confirmed that she would keep the temporary 5p cut and freeze fuel duty for another year because increasing the tax “would be the wrong choice for working people.”  However, at a cost of £3 billion this is a significant commitment.  Given the fiscal position, Reeves is under huge pressure to axe the 5p fuel duty cut in her forthcoming budget.

The switch to EVs should have provided the chance for an honest conversation with the public about road taxation. As the Transport Select Committee highlighted the Treasury faces a £35 billion black hole as receipts from fuel duty and VED disappear^[vi].  However, this would require political leadership and strong cross-party consensus at a time that any consensus is fracturing.  All the signs are that we will miss a once in a generation opportunity to change how we pay for road use.

We must avoid polarization and ideological thinking.

We must avoid polarisation and ideological thinking.  This is demonstrated in discussion around local transport, which is too often self-defeating especially where there are high levels of car dependency.

The disbenefits of car dependency are clear but a debate centred on cars being ‘good’ or ‘bad’ becomes alienating.  The problem is not the car but too much car use.  How can you encourage people to change their behaviour when they don’t have any other choices available to them?

A strong sustainable transport policy framework with good public transport and a level of car restraint is an essential foundation.  Moreover, the public need a better system of incentives and feedback.  As Thaler and Sunstein demonstrate, too often incentives are not properly aligned so if people engage in environmentally costly behaviour they will probably pay nothing for the harm they inflict. Moreover, people do not get feedback on the environmental consequences of their actions.^[vii]

We need to change the tone of the debate.  We need narratives based on cooperation that invite us to accept our personal responsibility.  George Marshall contends that “enemy narratives” adopted by both environmentalists and climate deniers is not helpful to addressing the climate crisis. “The battle for mass action will not be won through enemy narratives… We need to find narratives based on cooperation, mutual interests and our common humanity”.^[viii]

Better integration of thoughts and feelings

Much of the way we live has been designed using an outdated model of how humans think, feel and behave.  Pete Dyson and Rory Sutherland refer to the concept of a “homo economicus” who makes decisions using rational cost-benefit analysis in an environment of perfect trust, fully aware of all the available options, acting purely in their own self-interest.  But outside of academia these conditions rarely exist.^[ix]

The division between the rational and emotional brain runs deep in our society and culture.  It causes confusion and is profoundly destabilising.  Bateson describes it as “monstrous”^[x].  Tony Leiserowitz describes it as a “long cultural mistake”, “without that feeling of emotion, you cannot make good decisions”.^[xi] Seymour Epstein describes “analytical processing” and “experiential processing”.^[xii]

Better integration of thoughts and feelings will be critical to tackling climate change. We need to find ways to effectively engage our emotional brains.  Rational scientific data frequently loses out against a compelling emotional story that speaks to people’s values.  Climate change is a battle for hearts and minds.

These are some of the themes to be considered at the CLEARING OBSTRUCTIONS roundtable discussion on Wednesday 15^th October 10:00-12:00.  We will be joined by 

• Patrick Harvie MSP, Net Zero, Constitution and External Affairs spokesperson and former Co-Leader of the Scottish Greens
• Paul Campion, CEO at TRL
• Professor David Begg, former UK Government Advisor & Visiting Professor at Plymouth University

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS EVENT PLEASE VISIT THE REGISTATION PAGE HERE 

[i] Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 1972, University of Chicago Press, 2000

[ii] https://www.caixabankresearch.com/en/economics-markets/activity-growth/measuring-and-using-gdp

[iii] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14000213

[iv] Impacts of a carbon tax across US household income groups: What are the equity-efficiency trade-offs? L.H. Goulder et al, May 2019

[v] https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/21/6/2518/7079134?login=false

[vi] https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/153/transport-committee/news/160791/road-pricing-act-now-to-avoid-35-billion-fiscal-black-hole-urge-mps/

[vii] Richard H Thaler & Cass R Sunstein, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press, 2008

[viii] George Marshall, Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, Bloomsbury USA, 2014

[ix] Pete Dyson and Rory Sutherland, Transport for Humans: Are we nearly there yet? London Publishing Partnership, 2021

^[x] Gregory Bateson, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 1972, University of Chicago Press, 2000

[xi] Tony Leiserowitz quoted in George Marshall, Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, Bloomsbury USA, 2014

[xii] Seymour Epstein quoted in George Marshall, Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, Bloomsbury USA, 2014