Environmentalism is sweeping Western democracies. Protest groups like Extinction Rebellion and the child doomsday prophet Greta Thunberg have captured the public imagination with visions of impending environmental Armageddon. Many children now seem to think that they are destined to meet an early death in a climate change holocaust. In the EU, 77% of voters identify global warming as an important criterion when deciding who to vote for. For young people, the allegiance to the cause is even higher. But as with much in life, words come easier than action. Like at the Glastonbury Festival, where the same crowd that cheered David Attenborough left behind an ungodly mess, the distance between talking the talk and walking the walk is often considerable.
In France, the European country where most (56%) identify climate change as a ‘very serious problem’, the Gillet Jaune movement started as a protest against fuel tax rises, as voters proved unwilling to accept any cost associated with confronting the ‘serious problem’ they claim to worry about. This is not unprecedented. In Mexico, where even more voters identify climate change as a serious problem, people took to the streets in 2017 to express outrage at fuel tax increases. In Washington State, a bastion of those liberal voters who normally prioritise action on climate change, voters rejected a proposed carbon fee to pay for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. As could be expected, cost free virtue signalling is much more popular than getting your wallet out.
But the non-binding virtue signalling extends beyond the fickle electorate. And obviously, when politicians succumb to the temptation of conspicuously laying claim to the moral high ground, the consequences are potentially much more significant than traffic disruption on the street of London or the odd lost day at school. The British parliament, swiftly and seemingly without any due diligence or impact assessments, recently voted through a commitment to achieve carbon emission neutrality by 2050. Details on how to achieve it are unavailable, but according the Committee on Climate Change the cost estimate is 1-2% of GDP, a staggering amount that requires drastic budgetary action – and of course the true cost may prove much higher. The British public overwhelmingly supports the measure. But as could be expected, quizzed on what they would be willing to sacrifice to achieve it, a poll found that 74% opposed cutting public services against 8% in support. Increasing borrowing was opposed by 45% against 27% in favour and tax rises was opposed by 41% against 36% in favour (one suspects this result may have been more heavily opposed if the poll had asked if people were willing to pay higher taxes. Instead, the question was framed as general support for higher taxes, opening up for the interpretation that the notorious ‘rich’ could just be ‘asked’ to pay for the party). And even the British governments plan pales in comparison with proposals pushed by the far left, who have latched onto climate change as a trojan horse for their big government agenda. The British Labour Party are contemplating bringing forward the emissions neutrality target to 2030 and in the US, the hard left are pushing the Green New Deal, a raft of radical proposals that some say could effectively eradicate air travel. For voters, the feelgood factor of cheap virtue signalling could prove a temporary high followed by a serious hangover.
Climate change is a complex subject. Despite the mainstream claim that manmade climate change is ‘settled science’, many questions remain over cause and effect and historic predictions of impending doom have proven to be exaggerations. On top, the benefits of concrete action are uncertain, costs of impactful initiatives are high and benefits accrue unevenly, across borders and largely to future generations. Perhaps unsurprisingly, voters who are happy to express concern for the environment expect others to shell out, should their favourite policy come with any costs. It remains to be seen how the political reality of lofty environmental ambitions will play out, but one day the same people who now protest for action on climate change may be on the streets again protesting the very measures their activism helped inspire. Beware the consequences of your actions. Even virtue signalling can sometimes come with real costs.