Could rebranding environmentalism help tackle climate change?
Politicians have been trying to address climate change for decades now, with limited success. Given the scope and urgency of the problem, cirumstances suggests the environmental movement has failed. That means it’s time for a new environmentalism.
Or so the argument goes. But does the environmental movement really need rebranding?
Defining failure
The starting point of any movement’s next iteration is the old one’s inadequacies. New environmentalism is no different.
A couple of years ago, BusinessGreen editor James Murray argued that “environmentalism is in crisis”. What was needed, he argued, was “a different response to those that have been tried and proved wanting in the past”. That response can be described as “new environmentalism”.
But the crisis message has caveats. Speaking at the New Environmentalism Summit held in Brussels yesterday, UN Environmental Programme executive director Achim Steiner – who identifies himself as a new environmentalist – warned not to underplay the environmental achievements of the last 20 years. From establishing a global deal to curb global warming to two degrees, to renewable energy accounting for 19 per cent of the world’s energy consumption, “while not having solved the problem, [environmentalists] have an extraordinary record of success to point to”.
Yet for all the environmental movement’s success, global emissions continue to rise. Countries have failed to agree a new global deal to replace the Kyoto protocol that was due to expire in 2012. And green groups widely condemned world leaders’ last major effort to do so – the Copenhagen conference in 2009 – as a failure.
So how might new environmentalism address past deficiencies?
Next iteration
There are a number of points of contention which continue to obstruct progress, new environmentalism claims.
One reason environmental campaigns fail is because there is too much preaching to the converted, Marco Lambertini, director general of environmental NGO WWF, told the conference. He said there are plenty of people primed to take action on climate change which old environmentalism failed to engage. New environmentalism must find new ways to reach that “low hanging fruit”, he said.
That means at least trying to connect with those on the centre-right of the political spectrum instead of relying on the traditional support of those on the left. How? By overcoming arguments that pitch economic growth and environmental stewardship as opposing priorities.
New environmentalists encourage fresh, optimistic, perspectives: that green industries can create jobs, that energy market deregulation can be good for business as well as the environment, and that less waste means more efficient use of resources (sometimes labelled the “circular economy”).
Research by the Climate Outreach and Information Network shows alternative framings can work. And the new environmentalism message does seem to be getting some traction with its target audience.
Earlier this year, two conservative groups released reports explaining how environmentalism could be interpreted as addressing market failures. Though whether gaining the support of a group of self-identified “progressive” conservatives represents a broad church is perhaps debatable.
New environmentalists also seek to circumvent what they see as old, ideological objections to potential low carbon solutions. While nuclear power and shale gas are controversial with greens, both have the potential to lower energy sector emissions. New environmentalism doesn’t offer blanket support for either of those technologies, Murray says. But it does imply at least exploring their potential.
In theory, that means new environmentalists may not have a problem with ramping up nuclear power so long as it can be shown to be cost-effective. Likewise, it could mean accepting some fracking on the basis that it’s curbed emissions in the US, on the condition that it did the same here, was well-regulated and short-term.
Finally, new environmentalism embraces the free market as an agent of change. The desire to make profit is “normal behaviour”, European Commissioner for the Environment, Janez PotoÄnik, told the conference. Instead of condemning the environmental impacts of that behaviour, new environmentalists must find a way to harness the power of the market and force long-term thinking into corporate culture, he said.
That could mean some limited market intervention, such as the commission’s proposal to tweak the carbon price by regulating how many permits get traded in the EU emissions trading scheme.
Rebranding
Some of the purported differences between ‘old’ and ‘new’ environmentalism may feel somewhat cosmetic.
New environmentalism draws heavily on some fundamental principles. The three ‘Rs’ – reduce, reuse, recycle – have been around since the 1970s, and get to the heart of the concept of a “circular economy”. Likewise, using market mechanisms to cut emissions is hardly new. The EU emissions trading scheme was established almost a decade ago, and has been praised and damned by different flavours of environmentalist ever since.
PotoÄnik acknowledges this. New environmentalism is as much a continuation as a departure from previous thinking, he said, and the two must go “hand in hand”.
But if old environmentalism isn’t necessarily in crisis, and new environmentalism isn’t really new, what’s the point of the exercise?
Perhaps it’s just aiming to give the wider movement a shot in the arm. Comparisons with the creation of New Labour are fair, as Murray acknowledges. Whatever its ideological legacy may be, drawing the line between old and new ways of thinking helped deliver Tony Blair to number 10, which was New Labour’s priority. It was a deliberate shift in emphasis with a specific goal in mind and it delivered.
New environmentalism may have similar ambitions. Acknowledging the world has changed and new actors need to be involved in environmental decisions could help curb greenhouse gas emissions. Albeit in a different way to that which ‘old’ environmentalists may have supported. Whether that’s a good thing probably depends on your definition of success.