2020 VISION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY
MELBOURNE SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY INSTITUTE
The Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute (MSSI) at the University of Melbourne, Australia, brings together researchers from different disciplines to help create a more sustainable society. It acts as an information portal for research at the University of Melbourne, and as a collaborative platform where researchers and communities can work together to affect positive change. This book can be freely accessed from MSSI’s website: www.sustainable.unimelb.edu.au.
Cite as: Pearson, C.J. (editor) (2012). 2020: Vision for a Sustainable Society. Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne Published by Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute in 2012 Ground Floor Alice Hoy Building (Blg 162) Monash Road The University of Melbourne, Parkville Victoria 3010, Australia Text and copyright © Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced without prior permission of the publisher. A Cataloguing-in-Publication entry is available from the catalogue of the National Library of Australia at www.nla.gov.au 2020: Vision for a Sustainable Society, ISBN: 978-0-7340-4773-1 (pbk) Produced with Affirm Press www.affirmpress.com.au Cover and text design by Anne-Marie Reeves www.annemariereeves.com Illustrations on pages 228–231 by Michael Weldon www.michaelweldon.com Cover image © Brad Calkins | Dreamstime.com Proudly printed in Australia by BPA Print Group
Foreword
T
he last two centuries have seen extraordinary improvements in the quality of human lives. Most people on earth today enjoy access to the necessities of life that was once available only to the elites. Most people enjoy longevity, health, education, information and opportunities to experience the variety of life on earth that was denied even to the rulers of yesteryear. The proportion of humanity living in absolute poverty remains daunting, but continues to fall decade by decade. The early 21st century has delivered an acceleration of the growth in living standards in the most populous developing countries and an historic lift in the trend of economic growth in the regions that had lagged behind, notably in Africa. These beneficent developments are accompanied by another reality. The improvements are not sustainable unless we make qualitative changes in the content of economic growth. The continuation of the current relationship between growth in the material standard of living and pressures on the natural environment will undermine economic growth, political
stability and the foundations of human achievement. The good news is that humanity has already discovered and begun to apply the knowledge that can reconcile continued improvements in the standard of living with reduction of pressures on the natural environment. The bad news is that the changes that are necessary to make high and rising standards of living sustainable are hard to achieve within our current political cultures and systems. Hard, but not impossible. That is a central message from this book, drawn out in Craig Pearson’s concluding chapter. This book introduces the reader to the many dimesions of sustainability, through wellqualified authors. Climate change is only one mechanism through which current patterns of economic growth threaten the natural systems on which our prosperity depend. It is simply the most urgent of the existential threats. Climate change is a special challenge for Australians. We are the most vulnerable of the
v
developed countries to climate change. And we are the developed country with the highest level of greenhouse gas emissions per person. There are roles for private ethical decisions as well as public policy choices in dealing with the climate change challenge. This book is released at the time of ‘Rio+20’, a conference in Brazil to review the relatively poor progress we have made towards sustainability in the past 20 years, and soon after the introduction of Australia’s first comprehensive policy response to the global challenge of climate change. Australia’s emissions trading scheme with an initially fixed price for emissions permits comes into effect on 1 July 2012. The new policy discourages activities that generate greenhouse gases by putting a price on emissions. The revenue raised by carbon pricing will be returned to households and businesses in ways that retain incentives to reduce emissions. Part of the revenue will be used to encourage production and use of goods and services that embody low emissions. The policy has been launched in controversy. Interests that stand to gain from the discrediting of the policy argue that it is unnecessary either because the case for global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the associated climate change has not been proven, or that the new policy places a disproportionate burden on Australians. The health of our civilisation requires us to bring scientific knowledge to account in public policy. Everyone who shares the knowledge that is the common heritage of humanity has
vi
a responsibility to explain the realities to others wherever and whenever they can. The argument that the new policy places a disproportionate burden on Australians can be answered by seeking honestly to understand what others are doing. The critics of Australian policy argue that the world’s two largest national emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States, are doing little or nothing to reduce emissions, so that it is either pointless or unnecessary for us to do so. China has advanced a long way towards achieving its target of reducing emissions as a proportion of economic output by 40 to 45 per cent between 2005 and 2020. It has done this by forcing the closure of emissions-intensive plants and processes that have exceptionally high levels of emissions per unit of output, by imposing high emissions standards on new plants and processes, by charging emissionsintensive activities higher electricity prices, by subsidising the introduction of low-emissions activities, and by new and higher taxes on fossil fuels. China has introduced trials of an emissions trading system in five major cities and two provinces. This adds up to a cost on business and the community that exceeds any burden placed on Australians by the new policies – bearing in mind that the revenue from Australian carbon pricing is returned to households and businesses. The US Government has advised the international community of its domestic policy target to reduce 2005 emissions by 17 per cent by 2020. President Barack Obama said
to the Australian Parliament that all countries should take seriously the targets that they had reported to the international community, and made it clear that the United States did so. United States efforts to reduce emissions are diffuse but far-reaching. They now include controls on emissions from electricity generators, announced in March 2012, effectively excluding any new coal-based power generation after the end of this year unless it embodies carbon capture and storage. From the beginning of next year they will include an emissions trading system in the most populous and economically largest state, California. The United States is making reasonable progress towards reaching its emissions reduction goals, with some actions imposing high costs on domestic households and businesses. Australia has now taken steps through which we can do our fair share in the international effort, at reasonable cost. It would be much harder and more costly to do our fair share without the policies that are soon to take effect. What Australians do over the next few years will have a significant influence on humanity’s prospects for handing on the benefits of modern civilisation to future generations. This book will help Australians to understand their part in the global effort for sustainability. Ross Garnaut University of Melbourne 15 April 2012
vii
Contents Foreword by Ross Garnaut Table of Contents
v viii
Author Biographies
x
Drivers
1
1 Population Rebecca Kippen and Peter McDonald
2
2 Equity Helen Sykes
10
3 Consumption Craig Pearson
17
4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change David Karoly
27
5 Energy Peter Seligman
37
People
47
6
Ethics Craig Prebble
48
7
Culture Audrey Yue and Rimi Khan
57
8
Awareness and Behaviour Angela Paladino
64
9
Local Matters Matter Kate Auty
70
10 Public Wisdom Tim van Gelder
79
11 Mental Health Grant Blashki
86
12 Disease Peter Doherty
94
13 Corporate Sustainability Liza Maimone
104
14 Governance John Brumby
114
viii
Natural Resources
123
15 Ecosystem-Based Adaptation Rodney Keenan
124
16 Water Hector Malano and Brian Davidson
132
17 Food Sunday McKay and Rebecca Ford
141
18 Zero Carbon Land-Use Chris Taylor and Adrian Whitehead
150
Cities
161
19 Changing Cities Peter Newman and Carolyn Ingvarson
162
20 Affordable Living Thomas Kvan and Justyna Karakiewicz
170
21 Built Environment Pru Sanderson
177
22 Infrastructure Colin Duffield
184
23 Transport Monique Conheady
192
24 Adaptive Design Ray Green
200
25 Handling Disasters Alan March
210
Outcomes
221
26 Twenty Actions Craig Pearson
222
Further Reading
234
Index
241
ix
10 Public Wisdom Tim van Gelder
W
ill change to a sustainable society be wisely and pro-actively managed? Or will it be forced on us in unwelcome, disruptive and possibly catastrophic ways? Wise management will require governments at all levels to make lots of decisions, and to make them expeditiously. In this decision-making, public opinion is a critical constraint. For example, Australian roads are becoming ever more congested. There is a good case that this would be best managed by some kind of ‘user pays’ approach, with payments varying according to where and what time one drives. Yet major political parties dismiss this option, fearing a public backlash – no matter how illinformed, short-sighted or self-serving that reaction may be. Meanwhile our cities become increasingly gridlocked, with escalating economic, health and environmental costs. Simply put, unless we can improve the relationship between government decisionmaking and public opinion, we’re going to ‘hit the wall’ in numerous respects. As part of this effort, we need to develop better ways to find out what the public opinion is, ie what the public actually thinks. But what is the problem? Don’t we already
Citizens are often rationally ignorant about major issues.
know pretty much what the public thinks, from the endless stream of opinion polls? And isn’t the problem in fact that there is too much monitoring of public opinion, and that governments are too sensitive to it? It is true that public opinion, in the standard sense – what might be called the public attitude – is in oversupply. What we almost never know is the considered opinion of the public – the public wisdom.
79
2020
Public opinion rejects road use pricing to alleviate congestion in Australian cities. Source: Scott Davies, Flickr.
Public Attitude versus Public Wisdom Public opinion, as we usually understand it, is the kind of information generated by the familiar polls run by organisations such as Morgan and Gallup and delivered as fodder to the mainstream media. The public wisdom, by contrast, is the collective, considered opinion of the public, what the public as a whole would think if it were able to think seriously about the matter, ie become wellinformed, reflect carefully, and pool its thoughts into a coherent position. Thinking seriously in this way requires collective deliberation; in other words, constructive discussion and debate.
80
Public opinion falls a long way short of public wisdom. In When The People Speak, noted theorist of democracy James Fishkin points to a number of problems with public opinion: • Respondents are generally ill-informed; they are usually ‘rationally ignorant’ on the topic. • Individuals’ attitudes are subject to manipulation by powerful forces pursuing their own agendas: eg, major corporations resisting tax system changes. • The opinions elicited in standard polls may be artificially manufactured by the polling process itself: ie, may not reflect any real view held by the respondents but rather views shaped by that process.
Public Wisdom
To which we can add, the respondents will generally not have engaged in any serious deliberation (on their own, or with others) on the issue, and the polling process provides no opportunity for such deliberation. In short, standard opinion polls give us a distorted snapshot of the attitudes the respondents happen to have at that moment – not a fair reflection of what they (would) think about the issue. To compound matters, standard polling processes simply tabulate individual opinions. They do not synthesise or aggregate the viewpoints of the respondents into a common or collective position, as would be required for genuine ‘wisdom of the crowd’. For an example of genuine collective wisdom, consider the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). These are generated by means of an elaborate process, involving much highquality deliberation, in which exceptionally well-informed scientists pool and refine their knowledge, coming up with an agreed expression of what their community as a whole believes.
Establishing the Public Wisdom Why does a safe and timely transition to sustainability require the public wisdom on sustainability issues? First, because it will help governments to make necessary decisions. The public wisdom can provide the kind of ‘mandate’ or authority a government needs to tackle divisive issues and make tough decisions, even when doing so may be going against the tide of public opinion as
measured by the polls. This potential benefit was behind Julia Gillard’s recommendation, in the 2010 election campaign, that a 150-person Citizen’s Assembly be convened to develop some common ground on climate facts and policy. Second, because on many issues the public wisdom would be the best guide to the truth of the matter. If we’re serious about making the right decision, then we must find out what the public really thinks. Consider an issue like whether we should have more large dams to better manage scarce water resources. This simple-sounding question sits on top of a complex web of issues, involving not just factual and technical matters but diverse competing interests and conflicting values. Certainly many individual experts and interest groups are highly knowledgeable about particular aspects, and their input should be given due consideration. However, such folks always have a particular perspective; they see only their part of the elephant. The wider the involvement – the more diverse and comprehensive the selection of participants – the more chance that all the relevant information can be brought to the decision, and the relevant interests and values recognised and accommodated. I’m not claiming that the public’s considered opinion is the best guide on any complex matter. Many issues clearly are matters of specialist expertise, and the general public is in no position to assess the merits of different theories. An obvious example is the science of climate change. Only the body of climate scientists has the knowledge and competence
81
2020
to settle the scientific issues. Neither laypeople individually nor the public as a whole have any business trying to make up their own minds on this topic. However, on major sustainability issues there are no individuals or special groups in a uniquely privileged position to discern the truth. These decisions are matters of interests and values as much as they are matters of knowledge or expertise, and the Australian people are the relevant authorities on what their interests and values are. The problem with the public wisdom is that we almost never know what it is. Indeed, that wisdom usually doesn’t even exist, in the sense that nothing has been done to put it together. We do have many windows into the public mind, but they’re all either ineffective (don’t
deliver public wisdom) or impractical (too cumbersome and expensive). For example, standard opinion polls, for reasons described above, don’t tell us what the public wisdom is. A large step up from standard opinion polls are well-designed surveys, such as those conducted on climate change by Joseph Reser and his colleagues. However, these surveys provide little opportunity for the respondents to engage in any sustained reflection, individually or collectively. They are just more sensitive ways of identifying the attitudes people happen to have. Ideally, such surveys would play a larger role than they currently do in the gauging and reporting on public opinion. However, they can’t identify the public wisdom in the sense described above.
Deliberative democracy in action – the Australian Citizen’s Parliament, 2009. Source: Rosemary Shapiro-Liu.
82
Public Wisdom
Deliberative Democracy Currently the best alternatives to standard opinion polling are those provided by the deliberative democracy movement. There are many variations, but a deliberative democratic process (DDP) typically involves the convening of a representative sample of the public – a ‘mini-public’ – to learn about and deliberate over the issues, and produce some kind of expression of their considered views. Australia has had dozens of DDPs, including the 2009 Citizen’s Parliament; the proposed Citizen’s Assembly mentioned previously would have been another example. Australia would benefit greatly if DDPs were held much more often, and if their results were more influential in major decisions. However, deliberative democracy, in its standard form at least, can’t meet the need to deliver the collective wisdom for the purpose of guiding timely decision-making on major sustainability issues. They are too few, slow to set up, and expensive.
What Do We Need? If the transition to sustainability requires the public wisdom, and if we currently have no practical and effective mechanism for ascertaining that wisdom, then we need to develop something better. What would such a mechanism look like? Here’s a wish list: • It would generate public wisdom in the fullest sense – ie, the collective considered opinion based on large-scale deliberation.
• It would be generating that wisdom on all major issues, including new issues as soon as they arise. • It would make that wisdom available to anyone at any time. • It would be inclusive in the sense of providing a practical opportunity for any interested citizen to participate, and would in fact involve participation of numerous and diverse members of the public. • It would be politically and ideologically neutral; independent of government, corporations or other powerful interest groups. Surveying the wish list, it is obvious that any mechanism capable of delivering the goods would have to be internet-based. It would have to be, in other words, a kind of national virtual forum (NVF). No such forum exists today. The good news, however, is that a NVF plausibly could exist. The internet of course hosts innumerable forums already; many address serious social, economic and political issues, and support deliberation that is often of surprisingly high quality. While it is de rigueur to sneer at the quality of online discussion, and indeed much of it is rubbish, we should at the same time acknowledge that every day literally thousands of Australians jump online and vigorously debate major issues. Further, and more profoundly, there is the fact that internet-based environments or systems have been proven capable of synthesising collective intelligence or wisdom of various kinds. Wikipedia, prediction
83
2020
In only a few years, social media have become major forces in democratic movements, such as in the Egyptian revolution. What’s missing is a way to harness such forces for the purpose of divining the public wisdom. Source: Ahmad Hammoud, Flickr.
markets, Amazon.com and Stack Overflow are all well-known examples. To be sure, none of these generate public wisdom of the kind expected from the NVF. How exactly that form of collective intelligence will be assembled or extracted is a major design challenge. But important precedents do exist, and they do more than just prove that collective intelligence can be generated: they provide a wealth of insights and hints for the development of an NVF. An NVF would clearly face numerous major obstacles. In my view, these are best regarded as challenges to be overcome rather than fatal objections to the whole exercise. Here are four, with brief hints as to how they might be tackled.
84
1. Critical Mass. The NVF will have to attract many and diverse participants. To do this, first and foremost the NVF must be easily accessible – simple to use and available via any major channel (website, mobile apps, etc.). It must be thoroughly and effectively integrated with social media. ‘Gamification’ techniques will help deepen participants’ engagement. Finally, a major media alliance would situate the NVF in the public’s attention. 2. Representativeness. For its outputs to count as the wisdom of the public as a whole, the participants would need to be sufficiently similar to the public – ie, to statistically represent the public. On the
Public Wisdom
face of it, this will be a problem if the NVF has an open-door approach, allowing its participants to self-select. However, various strategies can be used to approximate and enhance representativeness, approaching full representativeness as a kind of limit case. For example, assuming there are demographics on participants of a known degree of reliability, and a sufficiently large and diverse set of participants, it would be possible to select suitable subsets of participants to form the pool for the purposes of computing group wisdom. 3. Gaming. If it builds any kind of momentum, the NVF will become a target for ‘gaming’ (eg, astroturfing) as groups attempt to manipulate the outputs to suit their own interests. This problem can never by fully solved, but could be handled adequately. The problem of distinguishing genuine from bogus participation is similar to the problem of distinguishing genuine email from spam, and Google has shown that this can be done remarkably well. 4. Influence. The main point of setting up the NVF is to help governments make the best decisions. For this to work, governments would have to take the NVF outputs seriously. This problem would start to solve itself just insofar as the NVF achieves critical mass and credibility – not because governments will be virtuous and do the right thing but rather because politicians will start to respond out of political expediency. If the genuine considered opinion of the public on a major issue is
available, and if it diverges significantly from the public attitude as expressed in the polls in a politically convenient direction, then it will constitute another kind of cudgel with which to beat opponents.
ACTIONS FOR 2020 Clearly, establishing a National Virtual Forum would be no mean feat. Yet we need such a thing if we’re to make a smooth, timely transition to sustainability. The NVF proper will not be built in a day or even a year. Rather, it will evolve in a series of stages, incrementally approaching the full vision. Eight years to 2020 is a reasonable timeframe within which something worthwhile could be achieved: Twitter is less than eight years old and has already played a key role in democratic movements worldwide, such as the uprisings in North Africa. It is high time we had practical and effective mechanisms for knowing what the public really thinks on the major issues affecting it. The ubiquity and sophistication of the internet and the systems built upon it provide a historically unique opportunity to realise this democratic ideal.
85
Further Reading Public Wisdom Carson, L. (2011). Deliberative democracy. ABC Radio National, Ockham’s Razor, 5 June. http://www. activedemocracy.net/ Diamond, L. (2010). ‘Liberation Technology’. Journal of Democracy, 21, 69–83. Duval, J. (2010). Next Generation Democracy: What the Open-Source Revolution Means for Power, Politics, and Change. Bloomsbury. Fishkin, J. (2009). When the People Speak. Oxford University Press. Reser, J., et al. (2011). Public risk perceptions, understandings, and responses to climate change in Australia and Great Britain: Interim Report. Gold Coast, Queensland: Griffith University, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. Sunstein, C. (2008). Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. Oxford University Press. Surowiecki, J. (2005). The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor. van Gelder, T. (2012). Cultivating Deliberation for Democracy. Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 8: No. 1, Article 12. http://services.bepress.com/jpd/vol8/iss1/art12