Does the proposed Statement
of Conscience (SoC) on Responsible Consumption make economic sense?
Can its proposed actions accomplish its goals? Two economists and an informed
layman gave their views.
Dean Drake of the Epiphany Community Church
Unitarian Universalist in Fenton, MI introduced the session, noting that
although many UUs dislike economists, economics changes and involves us all.
He then introduced the other speakers, noting that Janos Horvath who was supposed
to speak was unable to come.
Cecil Bohannon, professor of economics at Ball State University in Muncie, IN spoke next. His first reaction to the SoC was that it's silly; here we are flying on jet planes to comfortable hotels to meet in air conditioned conference rooms. The SoC suffers from a typical other-directedness. Lacking a transcendent world, it's moral and cultural elitism as UUs trade Cadillacs for Volvos, feel virtuous, and now want to educate the rubes. His second reaction was to question what the SoC means by sustainability. Nearly all economists agree that underpricing resources is bad policy and leads to misuse. Buffalo Bill, for example, shot vast numbers of bison on the Great Plains, but shot no longhorn cattle, because the bison were unowned and "free" while the cattle belonged to ranchers. Currently we overfish the oceans where nobody owns the fish, while fish farms are run sustainably. Private property promotes sustainability. His third reaction was to consider the effect on future generations. Current consumption can invest for the future, natural resources are but one kind of resource, and it can be wise to use them to create other kinds of investment. For example, there was a boom in Muncie in the late 1800s when natural gas was discovered. Much of it was wasted, but many institutions built using gas wealth survive to this day and continue to enrich Muncie and its people. Voluntary reductions in consumption means increased savings or charitable donations, both of which are appealing to conservatives and libertarians. The spiritual benefits of not caring too much about material things are also important, as noted by Thoreau, Emerson, and, yes, Jesus.
Larry Landrum, professor of Economics at Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA then spoke. He echoed many of Prof. Bohannon's sentiments, and asked who can oppose responsible consumption? Nobody, of course, but people can differ as to what responsible consumption means. As Prof. Bohannon noted, un-owned resources are abused and depleted. Price changes protect resources, while prices and technology work hand in hand. In Europe in the early modern era, so many forests were cut down that they were running out of fuel wood. As prices rose, it became worthwhile to dig for coal to use instead. Since coal mines tend to flood, this led to the development of steam engines to run pumps, one of the precursors of the industrial revolution. In the 19th century, whale oil was the main lamp fuel, and un-owned whales were fished out. This motivated the development of the petroleum, using kerosene instead. Markets motivate responsible consumption and shifts to new markets and materials. He questioned the term "moral cost," costs not reflected in prices. Social costs are certainly real, and it's important to internalize them, to make users bear the social costs either directly via prices or indirectly via regulation to make users act as if they were bearing the costs. Individual actions don't suffice here, the government needs to set the rules so that you bear the full costs and gain the full benefits of your actions. Modest price changes can be very effective. Laws requiring people to recycle are nowhere near as effective as charging per pound to haul garbage while taking recycling for free. Variable road pricing prevents traffic jams by giving people an incentive not to drive or to use transit during congested times. In Germany, they imposed a carbon tax on emissions and made a corresponding cut to the existing social security tax. This also makes people who don't act responsibly bear more costs. People are primarily concerned about the welfare of themselves and of people close to them, so the way to achieve a result is through self-interest via market coordination, to "fix the machine."
Dean Drake spoke last. Before he retired, he was an environmental lobbyist for General Motors, where he found that variable road pricing wasn't politically very popular, but that his own form of responsible consumption had worked for him, as large savings in his 401(k) retirement plan had allowed him to retire at 51. He expressed concern about the SoC process. Last year, Rev. John Buehrens suggested delaying this SoC a year in order to make it better, but the chair argued first that since only one SoC per year is allowed that would delay all of the rest of them, and second that since SoC's are just for people to think about, it's not all that important whether the details are right, an attitude he found dismaying. In conversations with Prof. Horvath they explored the question of why people act altruistically, why they give money and effort away. One theory is that people internalize their share and their descendants' share of the benefits of whatever cause they might support, estimate a net present value of those benefits, and give that much. Or there is a time and place utility of having a good conscience. They also recalled that GA's used to be at college campuses, which were very inexpensive albeit often uncomfortable places to meet, but aren't any more. What changed? In the past 20 years, UUs have become richer, in large part due to the actions of Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan as their 401(k) and other portfolios have risen in value, and this SoC assuages our guilt at our dubiously earned wealth. But this SoC ignores all the important work on sustainable development to the point that it's embarrassing, and doesn't even touch on all the previous work such as carbon taxes. Instead it talks obliquely in different language. He expressed great concern that the language on government action would come back to bite us, since the same arguments could be made by advocates of abortion bans, AIDS quarantine, or censorship. If we try to regulate others, they'll come back and try to regulate us. And finally, the quote at the end attributed to Chief Seattle is a well-known hoax.
A short question and answer followed. One speaker noted that the language of the SoC had been completely revised from last year, widely considered for the worse, and would likely be amended in the plenary session. Another noted that 25 million people in the U.S. claim to practice responsible consumption already. Another asked about pricing goods to include disposal costs; Dean Drake responded from his experience that pricing often makes that happen now and 75% of automobiles are already recycled, since the best source of steel for new cars is old cars.
Reported for the Web by John R. Levine; formatted for the web by Kasey Melski.
General Assembly 2001 · Program Grid
