Climate change and social policy

I went to a party a few days ago, and I had a very interesting conversation with a friend's friend who spent the better part of an hour trying to convince me that the real priority of public action right now should be social policy, and not environmental policy. I have always felt uneasy about the relationship between social protection and climate policy. I've never been able to get my mind around finding a hierarchy between both. I mean, the fight for the well-being of society's least privileged or most vulnerable members is at the heart of why I'm a left-winger. I believe that public action should be guided by the principles of solidarity and fairness, and that it is a government's moral responsibility to ensure a decent livelihood for everyone. But, at the same time, I am absolutely terrified by what the effects of the current environmental destruction will be for my and future generations. So what should be the priority ? Until very recently, I though that given the budget constraints western countries face, it was virtually impossible to finance climate change mitigation and adaptation programmes (which require massive investments) one the one hand, and a high level of social protection on the other hand. I now realize how simplistic this view is, and I'm not even discussing the case of developing countries. 

It is obviously a mistake to think of social policy and climate policy as two fields that hold no connection with each other. I read an OECD paper on the issue that sums it up really well (which is surprising considering the OECD's longstanding fight the disappearance of the welfare state) : "Comprehensive social protection that aims to prevent impoverishment  - and protect, promote and transform livelihoods and social relations  - provides significant opportunities to help people adapt to climate change". This is especially true for the most vulnerable members of society (elderly people, children) who will be hit the hardest by the effect of climate change : they need to be given the means to adapt to what's coming. One could argue that this is essentially true in developing countries, but less relevant in developed countries where the social net makes sure no one is left behind. Sorry to disappoint, but in these times of austerity and of neo-liberal intellectual hegemony, good old Welfare State ain't what it used to be. For 30 years, and now more than ever, European countries have sought to dismantle their social safety nets, thus ensuring that future generations are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change. And if you think I'm exaggerating, read this and this (French). 

Therefore, policies to reduce social inequalities, to protect the weakest individuals, and to ensure a decent livelihood for all should be the centerpiece of climate change adaptation programmes. In addition to it being ideological warfare on the poor, dismantling the welfare state in the face of growing climate change is in my opinion an economic blunder : though I have no actual figure to put forth, I have a strong feeling that it is much cheaper to invest now in a more resilient society than to spend billions of euros in twenty years (if that currency still exists) coping with the disastrous consequences.

That's for adaptation. But what about mitigation ? The link between social policy and climate change mitigation is essentially one of social justice : who should bear the burden of the immense effort that is needed in order to reduce our GHG emissions ? How do we make sure we can achieve substantial progress towards a carbon-free economy while not passing the price to poor and vulnerable people ? That, I have to say, is an extremely complex question about which I have been thinking for a while (basically ever since the debate on the carbon tax in France a few years ago). Making high-income individuals (whose climate impact is much higher than the average man's) pay (polluter pays principle) is necessary but not enough. What's needed is an economic re-engineering on a scale that is hard to fathom. The centerpiece of this should be to put a price on carbon that's high enough as to modify individual behaviors and spur technological innovation. Poor households can be impacted directly (through carbon taxes for instance) or indirectly (because of regulations that make the cost of business higher for companies that pass up the cost to customers). Even the poor in developed countries need to change their behaviors. What they need is the proper amount of economic incentive, and the proper amount of support : it is much easier to change your consumption pattern when you don't struggle to make ends meet. There are ways to offset the economic impact of rising carbon prices for the poor, but then you risk annihilating your incentive... What's the solution ?

These are tough questions to be answered by very serious people (and if possible not the ones handling the euro crisis right now, or else we're in deep trouble). Though I'm only starting to think about these issues, I have the feeling that making climate policy socially acceptable will be essential to launch the kind of radical transformation we need to climb out of our hole.