Don't Do It Yourself

I hadn't realized this, but apparently the Democratic National Convention's planners are making all kinds of moves to make it the "most sustainable" convention ever, including a search for the elusive carbon neutrality. I think individuals who aim for that kind of objective in their personal lives are acting out of laudable motives, but to me it's actually counterproductive for a political organization to be doing this.

The public policy argument made by liberals is that the United States ought to reduce its carbon emissions, and that this can be accomplished either by a cap/permit scheme or a carbon tax scheme. Either would have the impact of raising the price of carbon emissions, with that added cost transmitted up and down the economic conveyor belt, leaving each consumer free to make each individual choice and tradeoff based on considerations of price and quality. In the end, carbon emissions will fall and climate change will be mitigated. Engaging in the laborious (indeed, impossible) task of calculating the aggregate carbon footprint of each and every individual activity you engage in isn't part of the agenda on any level.

The individual carbon footprint of any particular activity under the current policy regime just isn't relevant -- the point is that the current policy regime is bad and needs to be changed. When you see the Democratic Party aiming for a carbon neutral convention, it does much less to improve the environment than it does to define environmentalism in terms of an unrealistic standard of behavior that few individuals will reach, while rending huge swathes of the progressive community vulnerable to spurious charges of hypocrisy from the right.

Photo by Flickr user Clownfish used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

I agree with your larger point, but I think in this specific instance, highlighting "sustainability" is the kind of good politics that leads to good policy. It says, "we (as a country) can do things the way we're used to doing them, which much less environmental impact, and by the way, Democrats care about that and Republicans don't."

Posted by Drew Steen | July 9, 2008 9:30 AM

It's especially silly because the DNC consists of flying people in from around the country, and further requiring the presence of many other people called "journalists," for something that has already been decided. There is no instrumental reason for the Convention, or for any party convention in a situation where the nominee has already been chosen. The only "sustainable" thing to do with the Convention is to cancel it, or hold it online.

Posted by Rich | July 9, 2008 9:36 AM

@Drew Steen: In theory it should work that way. In practice it will lead to a bunch of nitpicking gotcha stories. "The Democrats say they're running a sustainable convention, but our camera crew found these sandwich wrappers in a trash bin just a few feet from a paper recycling bin."

Posted by alkali | July 9, 2008 9:48 AM

I agree with the necessity of a carbon tax (cap and trade has flaws), but in the absence of that- is it really that bad for Democrats to do this? Perhaps I don't understand your point, but I would think there would be "huge swathes of the progressive community vulnerable to spurious charges of hypocrisy from the right" if they DIDN'T make the convention carbon neutral. Besides, it's not like they are making the convention carbon neutral in place of advocating carbon tax- they can do both.

Although Rich has a point- aside from really good potential PR, the convention itself isn't very newsworthy.

Posted by Jono | July 9, 2008 9:55 AM

Actually, calculating the aggregate carbon footprint of each and every activity is on the agenda; it is the agenda. Do you think that the cap on carbon emissions will work if there isn't a calculation made? And do you think that people won't claim, rightly, that it isn't a simple calculation? If it's too complicated, that's a problem for your policy proposal, isn't it?

Posted by Thomas | July 9, 2008 9:58 AM

In the end, carbon emissions will fall and climate change will be mitigated.

Either that, or big business will game the system to get around the law, like they do with pretty much every regulation these days.

When I click "remember personal info" why doesn't it remember my personal info?!?!?!

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 9, 2008 10:02 AM

In the end, carbon emissions will fall and climate change will be mitigated.

Either that, or big business will game the system to get around the law, like they do with pretty much every regulation these days.

When I click "remember personal info" why doesn't it remember my personal info?!?!?!

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | July 9, 2008 10:05 AM

a great little item to start selling at grateful dead shows and outside the demo convention would be little bags of "neutral carbon!" what's in the bag? I don't know , some black carbon looking powder or something. this could also be sold at the GOP convention as an ironic or comic item

excuse my snarkiness, I'm also on the phone trying to straighten out an airline reservation...

Posted by bdbd | July 9, 2008 10:07 AM

Matt writes: "the end, carbon emissions will fall and climate change will be mitigated."

That is fantasy.

Unless China, India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam etc. cease economic development, global CO2 levels will increase exponentially for the next three to four generations, no matter what the US/EU might do. If you believe in anthropogenic climate change due to CO2 emissions, then accept the fact that warming will happen.

India (for example) with roughly 500 million people who lack access to electricity, will not stop development to salve Western environmentalist sensibilities.

Cap and trade in the US will be a massive tax on all producers and consumer (the burdens to be borne primarily by working class and poor people), and an unprecedented transfer of wealth to traders and speculators - and totally useless as a practical matter.

Conservation makes sense at many levels. Alternative energy, as a means of neutralizing the Arabs/Moslems, makes sense. But stop lying to people. CO2 restrictions here will not affect global warming one bit.

But then, the entire climate change debate has never been about facts. Instead, climate change has become the false religion of anti-capitalists who, after the fall of the Soviet Union, needed something to replace the Marxist fallacy.

Posted by Eagle613 | July 9, 2008 10:10 AM

I agree with Drew: the DNC's choice will look to skeptics like gimmickry and, as Rich and alkali argue, potentially exposes it to some "gotcha" stories. But to me, its implicit message is (transportation and the convention's foreordained nature aside), Here are the sorts of things facilities management types can do not just for one-off events but as routine practice.

Given his posts on choices regarding urban planning and mass transit issues I'm not sure why MY would be opposed to seeing the DNC's choices here as something like a glimpse of what can be done, potentially, all the time, everywhere.

Posted by John B. | July 9, 2008 10:10 AM

@Thomas: Well the idea behind cap-and trade is that you can set a cap on the aggregate amount of emissions and simply divide up the carbon into permits which can be bought and sold on the market. Theoretically, the only calculations you need to make are how much an individual firm is polluting, and how many permits they have. We already perform this kind of calculation in enforcing environmental standards, so this isn't much of a complication.

The bigger problem with cap-and-trade is the regulatory problems arising in the market of permits. If left unchecked, firms can act in predatory ways. If checked- presumably by limiting the number of permits a firm can buy or sell based on the amount it pollutes- than we essentially have an overcomplicated carbon tax.

Posted by Jono | July 9, 2008 10:13 AM

Matt's very right on this.

It goes way beyond the convention. Greens really need to stop playing into the Cheneyesque notion that conservation is a "personal virtue."

I think playing the "green consumer" game hurts the cause much MUCH more than it helps. It makes environmentalism look like an elite lifestyle choice, which is the poison that has always killed us politicall so far.

Lifestyle choice is going to get us diddlysquat. Changing the structure of the market is the only thing that works, and it requires collective action. If we're serious about solving these problems we have got to repeat that to ourselves before breakfast each day, and repeat it to seven friends in the course of every day. Lifestyle choice won't do it -- we've got to change the rules of the game, and that requires collective action.

Posted by Ted | July 9, 2008 10:19 AM

Wait, so are you saying that when planning an event, and given two options:
1)Aim to reduce your Carbon Footprint.
2)Ignore your Carbon Footprint.

The sensible thing to do is go with (2), lest you be call names by a group of deranged people who had decided to call you names before you made a choice?

I have no clue why -that- would be a more important factor than, you know, opting for the more eco-friendly choice.

Why is it bad to, when possible, act in a manner that reduces your damage to the environment, as small as it may be when looking at the big picture? Showing people that it is an actual possibility to take measures to do things in a greener way is bad?

For someone who just wrote a book that argues about going against demonstrably wrong right-wing paradigms, despite the knee-jerk reaction to conform to them in fear of being ridiculed, I can't understand how you can't extrapolate the essence of that point and put it to use in contexts other than foreign policy.

Posted by torteya | July 9, 2008 10:21 AM

Wait, so are you saying that when planning an event, and given two options:
1)Aim to reduce your Carbon Footprint.
2)Ignore your Carbon Footprint.

The sensible thing to do is go with (2), lest you be call names by a group of deranged people who had decided to call you names before you made a choice?

I have no clue why -that- would be a more important factor than, you know, opting for the more eco-friendly choice.

Why is it bad to, when possible, act in a manner that reduces your damage to the environment, as small as it may be when looking at the big picture? Showing people that it is an actual possibility to take measures to do things in a greener way is bad?

For someone who just wrote a book that argues about going against demonstrably wrong right-wing paradigms, despite the knee-jerk reaction to conform to them in fear of being ridiculed, I can't understand how you can't extrapolate the essence of that point and put it to use in contexts other than foreign policy.

Posted by torteya | July 9, 2008 10:23 AM

Environmentalists would be better served making a documentary about monster trucks and then explaining how this most grotesque of all consumer spectacles (giant vehichles smashing other giant vehicles while belching fire) was actually helping the environment because the entire thing was paid for and then some by carbon offsets. This whole 'Al Gore is a hypocrite because he lives in a big house' idea needs to die. It shows that people don't really understand the concept of cap-and-trade and carbon offsets. Get Gravedigger to do some burnouts to save the planet.

I agree that the DNCC is chock-a-block full o' stupid. Just rent a hall for three days, put up a damn podium, and stop with all the rigmarole. It's expensive symbolism at best and stories like 'Dems demanding color-coded food and carbon neutral BBQ pits drives up costs' make the party look like a bunch of goo-goo ninnies who couldn't run a bake sale.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 9, 2008 10:35 AM

One of Matt's best posts ever.

Pricing the external costs associated with carbon based fuels, and leaving people free to find the best ways to accommodate, is sound economics.

Also, the reduction in real incomes from the higher prices can be offset with refundable tax credits and/or reductions in rax rates.

Posted by kafka | July 9, 2008 10:37 AM

Just rent a hall for three days, put up a damn podium, and stop with all the rigmorale. It's expensive symbolism at best...

That's precisely the point. You think anyone's going to vote for a political party that's poor? People always gravitate towards friends who throw the better parties, and turning the Convention into a stripped down, utilitarian event just tells the voters, "We Are Lame."

Posted by Tyro | July 9, 2008 10:48 AM

See, it's not important to limit your own carbon footprint. It's important to limit *other people's* carbon footprints.

Posted by too many steves | July 9, 2008 11:05 AM

The RNC is making noise about reducing trash and such at their convention up here in the Great North.

Posted by The Other Steve | July 9, 2008 11:08 AM

Profligacy is morally wrong, but convincing people to change their behavior for purely moral reasons, or even to prevent a fairly well-defined future catastrophe from happening, is difficult, if not impossible. If gasoline is a buck, it's pretty difficult to convince people to pay a premium for a Prius in order to reduce their carbon footprint and save the planet. If gasoline is a buck, and I've always wanted a big chunk of metal to tool around town in, I'm going to buy the leviathan and worry about climate change later. (And I'm going to quit smoking tomorrow! or the next day.) And don't you dare infringe on my autonomy as a consumer by telling me that my affection for my guzzler is wrong-headed and immoral.

But, we now have empirical proof that when gasoline costs 4 bucks, the price premium on a Prius (or other small hybrid) is less than the savings on gasoline - therefore the Prius is cheaper than a comparable non-hybrid. More importantly, we know from the cratering of large vehicle sales that the desire to be surrounded by superfluous metal is not embedded in the American psyche (it's what makes America great! according to the Newt), but rather a preference that's pretty easy to dislodge when the choice has economic consequences.

Raise the price! If anyone wants to buy a Hummer, and they can find someone to build it, let them buy it, provided they're willing to pay for the privilege. You won't find a helluva lot of takers. Instead, you'll see the vast majority of consumers flocking to most efficient vehicles they can get, and manufacturers falling over themselves to meet the demand.

Yesterday I spent 40 bucks to fill up my Prius, and won't visit the gas station again until I've driven somewhere between 350 and 400 miles. Cheney wants to you to think I'm smug and self-righeous about how much good I'm doing for Mother Earth - I'm not - I could be doing a lot more. But I do get quite a lot of satisfaction from the fact that I spend 50 to 70% less to fill Exxon's coffers than most of my heavy metal friends.

Posted by Geoff G | July 9, 2008 11:10 AM

The issue is less that they shouldn't do it and more that they shouldn't be shouting about it from the rooftops. Their convention is being planned in order to not do horrible things to the local environment, landfill capacity, power demand, &c. Great, that should be the paradigm that goes into most all convention planning anyway. Do they want a cookie for not being needlessly wasteful with their own money?

Beyond this, the very simple fact of the matter is that they're hardly breaking any new ground here. Green Build, the annual conference for the USGBC, has taken a lot of steps to reduce their overall impact on the host city the last several years, and some of their more obvious steps are being picked up in the industry. Acting to reduce the local impact of a convention is certainly laudatory, but it's also pretty much just common sense.

Posted by Scott | July 9, 2008 11:41 AM

India (for example) with roughly 500 million people who lack access to electricity, will not stop development to salve Western environmentalist sensibilities.

Well, it certainly won't attempt to develop in sustainable ways if the old industrial powers treat conservation, in Cheneyesque fashion, as some kind of lifestyle choice.

But Smeagol316 is nothing if not a selfish bastard.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 9, 2008 11:50 AM

Tyro - Obama manages to rent out arenas and concert halls on a regular basis and stage appealing events without a 4 year planning cycle, dedicated event staff offices, and bid requirements for caterering contractors that look like a NASA launch checklist. Conventions don't have to go completely spartan but the DNCC should knock off the needlessly baroque.

Posted by joejoejoe | July 9, 2008 11:59 AM

pseudonymous in nc says:

"Well, it certainly won't attempt to develop in sustainable ways if the old industrial powers treat conservation, in Cheneyesque fashion, as some kind of lifestyle choice."

Right, because you drive a prius, or recycle your white wine bottles, the Indians are going to force hundreds of millions of poor people to do without cars, computers, air conditioners, health care, etc. But that's ok, in your book, because capitalism and middle class consumerism are damn evil, right?

The Indian government just published its Climate Change policy statement, and guess what it says:

(1) poverty is the biggest source of pollution, (2) India needs to radically increase its per capita consumption of energy, and
(3) the link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and climate change has not been established.

So what are you going to do? Force the Third World to live in poverty? Burden poor people in the US so you feel virtuous, despite the fact that their pain will do nothing at all to stop climate change (assuming, of course, both that warming is taking place, and that this cycle, unlike the last one in the early-mid Middle Ages, is due to industrial activity).

Tell you what, why don't you ensure your "carbon footprint" is equivalent to the one of a Third World peasant, and set an example for the rest of us? Or are you just a load of hot air?

Don't try and impose your pseudo-religious visions of environmental rapture on the rest of us - let those who live in mansions and fly private jets (e.g. the AlGore) do what they perceive to be virtuous, and leave the middle class alone.

Posted by Eagle613 | July 9, 2008 12:16 PM

So what are you going to do? Force the Third World to live in poverty?

Oh, look, from today's New York Times:

On Tuesday, the Group of 8 pledged to “move toward a carbon-free society” by cutting emissions of heat-trapping gases in half by 2050. But poorer countries, led by China and India, refused to sign onto that goal — they are holding out until rich nations like the United States take more aggressive steps to cut pollution over the next decade.

I have no illusions about the difficulty of persuading the developing nations that they should try and do things differently from the developed world back in the 19th and 20th centuries. The first step, though, is for those developed nations to get past its last half-century of resource gluttony.

But to the projectionist Smeagol666, all of this is rendered irrelevant by the fact that Al Gore is fat. In truth, Smeagol is just seeking excuses for his own selfishness.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 9, 2008 12:33 PM

The idea that economic growth and C02 emissions necessarily go hand in hand is commonly believed (and espoused by Eagle613 here), but it isn't actually true. While researching this topic I found some interesting graphs which indicate that the amount of C02 emitted per dollar of GNP has been falling steadily for decades. And it's been falling more quickly for the US than for the world. The reason for this was not stated, but decreasing reliance on coal and increasing energy efficiency would be my guess.

I would add that Eagle's doomsday scenario, in which Asian economic growth causes exponential increases in CO2 emissions over this century, will not happen for the simple reason that it can't. The fossil fuel supplies necessary for it to happen don't exist. We already know what's happening with oil; what is less well known is that natural gas and coal are set to peak fairly soon (before 2050, almost certainly) and supplies are already tight.

Which is all the more reason to move away from fossil fuel use, and knock it off with the excuses about what the "other guys" are doing. The other guys will have to do it too if they want to keep the lights on.

Posted by Medium Dave | July 9, 2008 12:50 PM

The idea that economic growth and C02 emissions necessarily go hand in hand is commonly believed (and espoused by Eagle613 here), but it isn't actually true. While researching this topic I found some interesting graphs which indicate that the amount of C02 emitted per dollar of GNP has been falling steadily for decades. And it's been falling more quickly for the US than for the world. The reason for this was not stated, but decreasing reliance on coal and increasing energy efficiency would be my guess.

I would add that Eagle's doomsday scenario, in which Asian economic growth causes exponential increases in CO2 emissions over this century, will not happen for the simple reason that it can't. The fossil fuel supplies necessary for it to happen don't exist. We already know what's happening with oil; what is less well known is that natural gas and coal are set to peak fairly soon (before 2050, almost certainly) and supplies are already tight.

Which is all the more reason to move away from fossil fuel use, and knock it off with the excuses about what the "other guys" are doing. The other guys will have to do it too if they want to keep the lights on.

Posted by Medium Dave | July 9, 2008 12:56 PM

I have no illusions about the difficulty of persuading the developing nations that they should try and do things differently from the developed world back in the 19th and 20th centuries. The first step, though, is for those developed nations to get past its last half-century of resource gluttony.

No it isn't. There would be little or no benefit from us "getting past our gluttony" if China and India are going to continue to massively increase their emissions. Tata Motors is about to start selling its new low-cost Nano passenger car in India and other developing countries. India alone has almost a billion people. This vehicle and other new small, inexpensive cars are likely to massively increase the rate of car ownership in the developing world. The increase in pollution from this kind of development would swamp any effects from us "getting past our gluttony."

Show us that countries like China and India and Indonesia are serious about limiting their emissions, then you might be in a position to lecture Americans.

Posted by Mixner | July 9, 2008 1:24 PM

The idea that economic growth and C02 emissions necessarily go hand in hand is commonly believed (and espoused by Eagle613 here), but it isn't actually true.

Let's go a little further with this-- if you build a car that takes less gasoline when gas costs $4 a gallon, you're going to sell more cars (example: the Prius). If you build more fuel-efficient power plants, people will use them, because it's cheaper. Why wouldn't there be a market for the innovations and changes that a cap-and-trade system would impose on us? Are people in India really going to say "gee, we need a new power plant. Let's not buy the more fuel-efficient one that's available at half the price"?

Posted by Persia | July 9, 2008 2:10 PM

Are people in India really going to say "gee, we need a new power plant. Let's not buy the more fuel-efficient one that's available at half the price"?

Ohhhh yeah. For sure. Read Arundhati Roy's writings on the subject. Indian energy policy is not controlled by the "people," but by a select group of oligarchs who have very little interest in long-term economic feasibility. They will buy what they are told (and bribed) to buy.

Despite what its ideologues would have you believe, free-market capitalism only really exists at the lower levels of the system. Once massive amounts of capital investment are involved, corruption and cronyism play a much bigger role than rational choice.

Posted by scythia | July 9, 2008 2:17 PM

Show us that countries like China and India and Indonesia are serious about limiting their emissions, then you might be in a position to lecture Americans.

Goodness.

I thought people like this only existed in the work of 17th century French playwrights. Well, live and learn.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz | July 9, 2008 4:42 PM

This is an interesting take on the DIY craze. It's often best to try, but not always. Good debate on that topic here:
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digits.php?rType=1&sPath=2405&sNode=2405&uId=293

Posted by GHarri | July 17, 2008 10:57 AM

This is an interesting take on the DIY craze. It's often best to try, but not always. Good debate on that topic here:
http://digits.hrblock.com/ssDigits/digits.php?rType=1&sPath=2405&sNode=2405&uId=293

Posted by GHarri | July 17, 2008 10:59 AM