Sustainability Bites

There is no such thing as a free lunch

Regretfully, it’s too late for ‘no-regrets’

by | Jun 5, 2019 | 2 comments

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What’s the pathway for real sustainability following the Australian Election?

By Peter Burnett

Like many people, I was surprised by the win for conservative parties in the recent Australian election. I know there were lots of factors in play, but I thought that the extreme weather of last summer in particular had propelled climate change to the top of the political agenda, especially in the minds of young people, who were enrolled to vote in record numbers. I was reinforced in my views by much of the political commentary. Progressive parties seemed to have reached a similar conclusion, campaigning hard as they did on ambitious environmental policy platforms.

How wrong I was

Financial issues, especially proposed tax changes, appear to have weighed more on the minds of voters. The views of one young voter, who appeared on the television show ‘Q&A’ after the election, seemed to me to encapsulate the electoral mood. This voter commented that she was concerned by climate change (and also, she implied, by the expected opprobrium of her climate-voting cohort) but ultimately voted conservatively because of her concerns about the more immediate impacts of progressive party tax policies on her family.

While the election result could be attributed to various one-off factors, from an environmental perspective the underlying problem is that environment continues to be framed as an issue of progressive vs conservative, left vs right. Unless both sides pursue strong environmental policies then we cannot hope to sustain the policies necessary to avert the ‘dangerous climate change’ of the UN Climate Convention, let alone other disasters such as the loss of a million species predicted in the latest report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

The divide over environmental policy was not part of the political landscape when environmental concerns first became prominent in the public consciousness in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Rather, it emerged much later as vested interests, realising the implications of the policies necessary to counter environmental decline, pushed back hard, including by framing issues in terms of the ‘environment vs jobs’ dichotomy that reflects the dominant and still-powerful post-war paradigm, that of economic growth as progress.

A clash of paradigms

Can we return to bipartisanship? This would require a shift from a growth paradigm to one of sustainability. In pure policy terms the case for such a shift is clear: the growth paradigm became outdated around 50 years ago, when humans realised that the environment was a limited, rather than unlimited, resource. The sustainability paradigm that emerged in response rests on the recognition that we can only consume nature at the rate at which it renews itself. If we exceed that rate, we are headed for disaster.

In political terms however the case is far from clear. The growth paradigm is based on ‘growing the economic pie’ and gives a ‘win-win’ outcome: grow the pie and you grow every slice, including the slice constituted by government spending on the environment. ‘A rising tide lifts all boats’, as they say.

The sustainability paradigm on the other hand gives a ‘win-lose’ outcome. If we consume to our hearts’ content, we court disaster at the expense of future generations (if not our future selves). If on the other hand we live within our environmental means, we do the right thing by future generations, but at the expense of constraining our own consumption, especially by those who do, or aspire to, consume a lot.

And who wants to give government a mandate to constrain consumption, unless convinced there is no other way to look after their children and grandchildren? Although this has been a logical conclusion to draw for over 50 years, this framing has yet to be adopted generally, in part because so many people have a vested interest in either clinging to the growth paradigm or watering down the sustainability paradigm.

This watered-down version of sustainability is that we can live within our means simply by using environmental resources efficiently, with the bonus outcome that efficient consumption will save us money. Another win-win, achieved for example by switching off lights in empty rooms. We might have got away with such an approach in 1969, but in 2019 it’s far too late for such a ‘no-regrets’ approaches.

It’s time (?)

I argued in an earlier blog that it will probably take a significant environmental crisis to generate the social consensus necessary to support a paradigm shift. I still hold that view, although there is at least one example of a country finding an easier path. In the period 2005-2009, the United Kingdom shifted from a bland incremental climate policy to an ambitious goal, enshrined in law, to an 80% cut in emissions, from a 1990 base, by 2050. There was no crisis, but a confluence of factors conducive to change.

The UK Government had commissioned the influential Stern Review, which argued the economic costs of not acting (Sir Nicholas Stern pointed out that climate change is the “greatest and widest‐ranging market failure ever seen”). Al Gore produced his influential documentary, An Inconvenient Truth (aimed at alerting the public to an increasing ‘planetary emergency’ due to global warming). And future Prime Minister David Cameron wanted to modernise the Conservative Party (then in Opposition) and actually beat the Government to the punch in opting for ambition. And the Global Financial Crisis gave the UK Government an opportunity to present ‘green economy’ measures as a major part of the solution to the crisis.

Whatever the precipitating event, we will only respond effectively to environmental issues when we abandon the growth paradigm in favour of one built around sustainability. If that happened, environmental policy would become much more like foreign policy: generally bipartisan because we are all in favour of Australia being a secure country able to pursue prosperity under an effective international rules-base order. If only Australia had a David Cameron or two (circa 2006 of course, not the Brexit David Cameron).

Image by Mediamodifier from Pixabay


  1. wildgoanna

    Thanks Peter, a good article,

    And I agree it will take a crisis, or really a series of crises where people can join the dots between the effects they are experiencing locally, which end up being in social and economic terms, not environmental per se, and the more abstract conceptualisations of what’s happening globally. While we conceive of climate change, for example, as a global phenomenon, it manifests itself as a series of local events. When there’s a long drought and a lack of water, people respond and demand ‘something’ be done. When some birds are disappearing somewhere else, well in the scheme of things I have more immediate concerns to worry about …

    You ask if we can ‘return to bipartisanship’. I would argue we actually have bipartisanship now when it comes to environmental and sustainability issues, or a very large degree of it. That’s part of the problem. The differences between the major parties is really very marginal, despite apparent election posturing etc. Both advocate the economic growth paradigm, almost without question. And probably for good reason, the experience is that business demands it, that’s what people on the whole vote for, and everything else being equal who wouldn’t want it. It can be argued that Labor is more disposed to supporting environmental programs but it is all marginal fluffy stuff really, it hardly comprises a sustainability agenda.

    What would it take to shift to a sustainability paradigm?
    The trouble is we know everything else isn’t equal. But when you speak of the clash of paradigms, I don’t think it is between the major political parties or a question of bipartisanship between them. And I struggle to see how there ever will be, without a major major crisis, bipartisanship on a sustainability paradigm, because it would require such a profound change to the ideological underpinnings of our western liberal capitalist, or market-oriented if you like, democracies. And need for this will be disputed, and used to divide not unite people, all the way. This ideology, and I don’t use the word with a necessarily negative connotation, emphasises individual freedoms, liberties, including with private property, and market liberalism as the best way to provide the good life and the good society. These freedoms etc were hard fought for over several centuries and won’t, nor shouldn’t, be thrown away lightly. And, if anything, the paradox is that the last 30-40 years of increasingly neoliberal governing have taken us the other way just as the sustainability concept became widely promoted, and it is hard not to argue from a narrow economic perspective we have, as a crude generalisation, become wealthier and better off as a result. Some like to think we can shift the paradigm but still keep the economic, social and political systems we have largely as they are.

    However, I think a move to a sustainability paradigm implies quite a profound change in our prevailing ideology and political philosophy in order to effect the sort of systemic social and economic change required. I dont agree with everything Naomi Klein writes but her 2014 book ‘This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate’ sums up the dilemma quite well I feel. In light of the recent (symbolic) declarations of emergencies and getting on par with a war footing to deal with climate change, her language does not seem too radical. Klein writes that the bottom line is:

    “our economic system and our planetary system are now at war. Or more accurately, our economy is at war with many forms of life on earth, including human life. What the climate needs to avoid collapse is a contraction in humanity’s use of resources; what our economic model demands to avoid collapse is unfettered expansion. Only one of these sets of rules can be changed, and it’s not the laws of nature.” (p21)

    cheers, and thanks again :jim donaldson

    • Peter Burnett

      Thanks for your comment Jim. I don’t disagree your comments and they prompt me to clarify my argument. I think the bipartisanship I am referring to, in the West in the late 1960s and early 1970s (until the OPEC oil crisis) was not so much a bipartisanship around the sustainability paradigm, which was only just beginning to emerge, but around the fact that there was a major environmental problem which needed to be addressed collaboratively. Two examples from this period are the US National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which passed the Congress with a huge majority, and the OECD’s adoption of the polluter pays principle. I concede that one likely reason behind some of this bipartisanship was a näivity as to the implications of implementing such measures.

      Best wishes, Peter



  1. Have we bitten off more than we can chew? – Sustainability Bites - […] Too late for no regrets pathway: a pathway to real sustainability[Politics, policy, history] 22. A short history of sustainability:…
  2. Joining the dots (again) on Sustainability Bites – Sustainability Bites - […] Too late for no regrets pathway: a pathway to real sustainability[Politics, policy, history]22. A short history of sustainability: […]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *