Jeffrey Sachs…voice of hope or blind idealism?

So, this week heard Jeffrey Sachs ‘live’ for the first time, at the 240th meeting of Trinity College’s Historical Society. As expected at such an august event, there was much formality, and not a few comic moments (I kept being reminded of the food hall in Harry Potter). Most of the 400 or so of us were there to hear Jeffrey Sachs however, here in Dublin for some high level government meetings, and also this gig at which he was to receive an award – the Historical Society’s Medal for Outstanding Public Discourse.

His presentation – around 25 minutes – was standard Sachs. World is changing; never been like this before; we have the capabilities to end poverty AND prevent the worst outcomes of climate change; economics can be a powerful tool.

What struck me during his talk was not just his optimism – though that was refreshing – but constant reference to future times. With climate change for example, he admitted at least 3 times that “we’ve messed up”. The next generation (so, most of the audience…not me though – Sachs is only four years my senior, ha ha) will reap the benefits or suffer the catastrophe of whatever decisions are made by governments NOW.

He did crack one joke – borrowed from the great JK Galbraith, an economist perhaps even more liberal than Sachs – that economists are put on this earth to make astrologers look good. Sachs is known for his idealism, rubbing shoulders with rock stars and the shakers and movers of our world (and also promoting structural adjustment in post-Soviet eastern Europe – less of a success, according to some). But I suppose at least someone is saying this stuff; he’s pretty sure we have the capacity to change, save our species from its headlong rush towards self destruction, and pull billions of people out of poverty at the same time.

Voice of hope or just blind idealism? You decide. I’ll be long gone before the skies darken and seas swamp our major cities. Sorry about the mess we left.

The myth of the rational citizen

So, as the fiasco known as the ‘UN Climate Change Conference’ draws to a close, we can see that very little progress has been made – apart to confirm that the most powerful people in the world are still unable to agree on how to stop the destruction of our planet. China seem to be attracting the most criticism, though in essence we are all to blame.

As Oscar Wilde said, the truth is rarely pure and never simple, and Polly Toynbee in her excellent article in the UK Guardian yesterday, suggests that most, if not all of our politicians are hampered by the fact that the majority of people in the developed world are unconcerned about climate change, and simply wish to continue their carbon-exuding lifestyle. Even Obama, to whom we looked for inspiration and hope, was constrained by so many issues on his domestic agenda he had very little room for manoeuvre in Copenhagen. Many politicians who begin promoting ‘green’ policies, and demanding real funding for them, will find their careers very much on the line as the voters look to their pockets for political advice rather than our world.

I’m reminded of an excellent text from two years ago, with the SNAPPY title ‘The myth of the rational voter: why democracies choose bad policies‘. The author argues – without cynicism – that voters are essentially irrational, with systematic biases in their views (and voting behaviours) around economic policy. The ‘normal’ voter essentially behaves according to individual and immediate needs rather than (for example) policies having an impact 50 (or even 20) years in the future.

This of course creates unpleasant bumps on the political landscape, and much gnashing of teeth, but social, cultural AND political cycles have a way of balancing one another out. But, in the context of climate change, this tendency is far more serious – as a species, we need to raise our eyes and really see what will happen 50 years in the future if no sensible and rational decisions are made, and support our politicians as they make what are world changing decisions.

Sadly, as yet there is little evidence for the notion of a ‘rational’ voter who will consider (for example) the fate of Bangladesh, much of which will vanish under the sea within the lifetime of my daughter if current trends continue. Its all enough to make one turn to religion (but I won’t).