Ecomodernism

I've never really considered myself much of an environmentalist.  Its not that I don't care about clean air, endangered species, or rain forests, only that so much of what I've read from self-described environmentalists tends to be anti-technology, anti-growth, and anti-free markets - basically "anti" many of the things I happen to believe are quite good for the planet overall.

Of course, those aren't the views of every environmentalist but they do seem to represent the modal view I read in the media.  For many years, I've been aware of organizations like PERC which advocates for free market environmentalism.  But, it was only this summer that I became aware of a related movement after a call from Michael Shellenberger who is the President of the Breakthrough Institute.  

He and others are heading up a movement they call Ecomodernism.  I'm sympathetic to many of the views espoused in the Ecomodernist Manifesto that was put out in April.  They write, for example:

“Intensifying many human activities — particularly farming, energy extraction, forestry, and settlement — so that they use less land and interfere less with the natural world is the key to decoupling human development from environmental impacts. These socioeconomic and technological processes are central to economic modernization and environmental protection. Together they allow people to mitigate climate change, to spare nature, and to alleviate global poverty.”

and

“We offer this statement in the belief that both human prosperity and an ecologically vibrant planet are not only possible but also inseparable. By committing to the real processes, already underway, that have begun to decouple human well-being from environmental destruction, we believe that such a future might be achieved. As such, we embrace an optimistic view toward human capacities and the future.”

I'm not yet ready so say I'm an ecomodernist, but this certainly seems a much more attractive kind of environmentalism than I've encountered in the past. 

End of Doom

Ronald Bailey has an excellent piece in the October print edition of Reason Magazine entitled, "The End of Doom" and a recently released book with the same title.  It's a nice counterweight to the oft-heard refrain that the world is going to hell.  

Here are a a few quotes I found particularly interesting.  In critiquing Rachel Carson's Silent Spring:

“At its heart is this belief: Nature is beneficent, stable, and even a source of moral good; humanity is arrogant, heedless, and often the source of moral evil. Carson, more than any other person, is responsible for the politicization of science that afflicts our contemporary public policy debates.”

In discussing our out-sized fears of cancers from synthetic chemicals and of biotechnology:

“It should always be borne in mind that environmentalist organizations raise money to support themselves by scaring people. More generally, Bonny observes, “For some people, especially many activists, biotechnology also symbolizes the negative aspects of globalization and economic liberalism.” She adds, “Since the collapse of the communist ideal has made direct opposition to capitalism more difficult today, it seems to have found new forms of expression including, in particular, criticism of globalization, certain aspects of consumption, technical developments, etc.””

He ends with some choice words about the precautionary principle.  

“Why does it matter if the population at large believes these dire predictions about humanity’s future? The primary danger is they may fuel a kind of pathological conservatism that could actually become a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

and

“The precautionary principle is the opposite of the scientific process of trial and error that is the modern engine of knowledge and prosperity. The precautionary principle impossibly demands trials without errors, successes without failures.

...

”An indirect implication of trial without error is that if trying new things is made more costly, there will be fewer departures from past practice; this very lack of change may itself be dangerous in forgoing chances to reduce existing hazards.” ”

Food Shortages, Climate Change, and GMOs

I filmed a spot on Fox Business Network this morning in response to this story about possible food shortages due to climate change.

I was glad one of the hosts asked me about GMOs - it wasn't a topic I had anticipated coming up.

By the way, if you want to see some good recent work on the effects of climate change on agriculture within the U.S., see this comment and reply in the American Economic Review by Fisher, Hanemann, and Roberts and by Deschênes and Greenstone.  Both sets of authors wind up at the conclusion that climate change is likely to have a negative effect on agricultural profits in the U.S., but the two sets of authors differ in their subjective views about whether the effects are "large".  Neither study considers the mitigating effects of trade on consumers (i.e., we could import food from other countries who benefit from warmer weather), neither considers the mitigating effects of technological development and adaptation (they assume we wake up tomorrow with 2100 temperatures and must live with today's technology), and neither considers the great deal of uncertainty in the predictions arising from climate change modeling.  These are good studies, but I'm saying there's still a lot we don't know, and probably a lot we can't know until it happens.  

Environmental Impacts of Vegetarianism

Given the latest report from the new dietary guidelines committee that recommends less meat eating (see some of my previous discussion on that here), I found this study just published in Ecological Economics by Janina Grabs quite interesting.

Grabs ask an important question that is rarely asked.  If people stop spending money on meat, what will they spend their money on instead?  And, what are the environmental impacts of those other non-meat expenditures?  Using data based on Swedish consumers, she calculates that, at first blush, a vegetarian diet does indeed appear to have slightly smaller energy use and carbon impacts, BUT if you take into consideration what the vegetarians do with the extra money they used to spend on meat, those environmental gains become dramatically smaller.  She calls this the rebound effect.

Here's the abstract:

“Sustainable diets, in particular vegetarianism, are often promoted as effective measures to reduce our environmental footprint. Yet, few conclusions take full-scale behavioral changes into consideration. This can be achieved by calculating the indirect environmental rebound effect related to the re-spending of expenditure saved during the initial behavioral shift. This study aims to quantify the potential energy use and greenhouse gas emission savings, and most likely rebound effects, related to an average Swedish consumer’s shift to vegetarianism. Using household budget survey data, it estimates Engel curves of 117 consumption goods, derives marginal expenditure shares, and links these values to environmental intensity indicators. Results indicate that switching to vegetarianism could save consumers 16% of the energy use and 20% of the greenhouse gas emissions related to their dietary consumption. However, if they re-spend the saved income according to their current preferences, they would forego 96% of potential energy savings and 49% of greenhouse gas emission savings. These rebound effects are even higher for lower-income consumers who tend to re-spend on more environmentally intensive goods. Yet, the adverse effect could be tempered by purchasing organic goods or re-spending the money on services. In order to reduce the environmental impact of consumption, it could thus be recommended to not only focus on dietary shifts, but rather on the full range of consumer expenditure.”

A couple caveats.  First, it is important to notice an important clause to sentence claiming a 16% reduction in energy use and 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions - this is the reduction related only to their diet.  In terms of overall impact, I believe these only translate to 1.8% and 4.15% reductions, quite simply because food only makes up a small part of the consumers overall energy use and carbon impact.  Of course, all this relates to the "first round" impacts and ignores the rebound effect, which is the main point of this study.

Second, the later part of the abstract, which suggests that the, "adverse effect could be tempered by purchasing organic goods" is mainly due (if I'm understanding the study correctly) to an income effect NOT because organics have substantively less energy/carbon impacts.  Because organics cost more, that leaves less money for the consumer to spend on other things that would require energy.  You could create the exact same kind of result by simulating a person who bought and ate less food, and then took all the dollar bills that were saved, and burned them.  This little thought experiment ought to reveal that the goal in life is not to minimize energy use per se, only to reduce it to the extent that you're not taking into account the impacts on others that are not already reflected in the market price.

None of that should distract from the overall important message of this study: that we need to look at all the effects (even unintended ones) when trying to look at policies that encourage people to change dietary habits.  

How do people respond to scientific information about GMOs and climate change?

The journal Food Policy just published a paper by Brandon McFadden and me that explores how consumers respond to scientific information about genetically engineered foods and about climate change.  The paper was motivated by some previous work we'd done where we found that people didn't always respond as anticipated to television advertisements encouraging them to vote for or against mandatory labels on GMOs.  

In this study, respondents were shown a collection of statements from authoritative scientific bodies (like the National Academies of Science and United Nations) about the safety of eating approved GMOs or the risk of climate change.  Then we asked respondents whether they were more or less likely to believe GMOs were safe to eat or whether the earth was warming more than it would have otherwise due to human activities.    

We classified people as "conservative" (if they stuck with their prior beliefs regardless of the information), "convergent" (if they changed their beliefs in a way consistent with the scientific information), or "divergent" (if they changed their beliefs in a way inconsistent with the scientific information). 

We then explored the factors that explained how people responded to the information.  As it turns out, one of the most important factors determining how you respond to information is your prior belief.  If your priors were that GMOs were safe to eat and that global warming was occurring, you were more likely to find the information credible and respond in a "rational" (or Bayesian updating) way.  

Here are a couple graphs from the paper illustrating that result (where believers already tended to believe the information contained in the scientific statements and deniers did not).  As the results below show, the "deniers" were more likely to be "divergent" - that is, the provision scientific information caused them to be more likely to believe the opposite of the message conveyed in the scientific information.  

We also explored a host of other psychological factors that influenced how people responded to scientific information.  Here's the abstract:

“The ability of scientific knowledge to contribute to public debate about societal risks depends on how the public assimilates information resulting from the scientific community. Bayesian decision theory assumes that people update a belief by allocating weights to a prior belief and new information to form a posterior belief. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of prior beliefs on assimilation of scientific information and test several hypotheses about the manner in which people process scientific information on genetically modified food and global warming. Results indicated that assimilation of information is dependent on prior beliefs and that the failure to converge a posterior belief to information is a result of several factors including: misinterpreting information, illusionary correlations, selectively scrutinizing information, information-processing problems, knowledge, political affiliation, and cognitive function.”

An excerpt from the conclusions:

“Participants who misinterpreted the information provided did not converge posterior beliefs to the information. Rabin and Schrag (1999) asserted that people suffering from confirmation bias misinterpret evidence to conform to a prior belief. The results here confirmed that people who misinterpreted information did indeed exhibit confirmation, as well as people who conserved a prior belief. This is more evidence that assuming optimal Bayesian updating may only be appropriate when new information is somewhat aligned with a prior belief.”