Thought Leader Thursday – Professor of Philosophy Marc Davidson

Prof. Dr. Marc Davidson has been appointed professor of Philosophy of Sustainability and the Environment at Radboud University with effect from September 1, 2020. He is mainly concerned with the question of how we should act from a moral point of view in the light of sustainability and environmental issues. Issuemakers talks to him about the responsibility of consumers, companies and the government for nature.

To start with, we would be interested to hear how you, as a philosopher, view the sustainability discussion. What values do you think are at stake here?

Of course, there are the values of current prosperity and short-term economic growth. These interests of the here and now rarely have to be fought for. The sustainability debate mainly concerns the trade-off against three other interests. Firstly, that of future generations. With many choices we postpone problems to the distant future, such as in the case of nuclear waste and climate change. Is that justified? Secondly, there are the interests of people elsewhere: for example, how are we going to divide the costs of climate policy fairly between countries? Finally, there is the importance of nature. We are not the only species on this planet. Yet, until now, our dealings with nature have mainly revolved around human well-being. However, there are good reasons to consider the welfare of other species.

If there are so many different interests, how can you lead this debate properly and make the right choices?

We are by nature quite short-sighted, both in space and time. Protecting us from that short-sightedness is one of the reasons why we have a government. In addition, the government is often better able to organize knowledge, for example through institutes such as the RIVM. But then citizens must have some confidence in experts and scientists, and in governments that listen to this. Unfortunately, trust in the government is eroding and this does not help in the discussion surrounding sustainability issues.

So a strong government is actually needed at this point?

Yes, sustainability issues are certainly collective issues. The problems arise because people pass them on to each other: reaping the benefits of behavior themselves and passing on the costs to other people. Preferably with people thousands of kilometers away or even in the distant future. You can only break this kind of shifting by government intervention. Unfortunately, the wind of neoliberalism has been blowing for several decades, which believes that the government should stand at a distance. I define neoliberalism as the ideology according to which competition is the best organizing principle for society. The more people are in competition with each other, the better for everyone. But this does not work for collective action problems, as you need coordination by a government.

What about citizens who would like to be sustainable, but simply do not have the resources for this?

There will be a section of the population for whom this indeed applies. But in the Netherlands we are collectively rich enough to collectively bear those costs. If the strongest shoulders bear the heaviest burdens, society can very well become sustainable. The yellow vest protest movement in France is an example of what happens when the burdens are not shared fairly. Then people rebel. Only increasing energy costs without looking at the distribution issue causes such problems.

Is the government also responsible for raising awareness among citizens?

Yes, we've actually been doing this for decades. But I actually think that citizens now need a government that shows backbone and says: 'Sorry guys, this just has to happen'. The funny thing is that politicians who keep looking back at what the citizen wants are ultimately taken less seriously.

Where then lies the greatest responsibility for the environmental issue? Does a better environment start with you or should a strong government take the lead?

A better environment absolutely starts with you. No democratic government in the world has ever acted without individuals directing it. A kind of contradiction is always outlined: should individual consumers do something or is it the government's turn? If people claim that it is the government's turn, consumers are left out. Of course, major environmental problems cannot be solved without government intervention. The government must set the preconditions: ensure a level playing field for the business community, for example. But the point is that the government will only act if it sees support. This support base consists not only of voters, but also of people who exhibit certain behavior in society. The government can discourage meat consumption, but it will only do so if it sees that there is a market for people who buy meat substitutes.

Could these forerunners come from the business world?

Yes, certainly, although the business community has far fewer opportunities to get ahead. Consumers do not compete with each other. This is different for companies, because they have to offer their products on the market. Buyers are not always interested in how this product is produced. Often producers cannot benefit from more sustainable production. The steps that a company can take are therefore never as great as the steps that a consumer can take. The business community acts within the preconditions set for them.

How could the business community better take into account the value of nature?

When the value of nature is expressed in abstract terms, as a pro memoria post, it is often overlooked. This can be prevented by putting a price tag on the use of nature. One way is to express in money the benefits that people derive from nature, so-called ecosystem services. This not only concerns the benefits of food, but also the benefits of recreation, water purification and crop pollination. It is important to keep in mind that this only concerns the interests of humans and that the importance of nature itself remains out of the picture. In addition, more nature conservation will be done if nature managers receive a financial incentive. In the Netherlands, for example, it seems very reasonable to compensate farmers for the reduction in their business that is being demanded by society.

The discussion surrounding sustainability is of course a global issue. So finally, we are curious about your insights on the global level. International discussions have been going on for several years about the content and design of a CO2 tax. How do you view this?

This is also due to the competition between countries; not only people pass things on to each other, but also different states. For example, all countries compete with each other for low profit taxes. It is difficult for individual countries to introduce a tax, because there is a risk that businesses will then move across the border. There must therefore be a global agreement on the minimum levy. Europe could possibly take a lead in this, but again European agreements would have to be made first. That is why European unification is so important. Although I am sometimes a bit pessimistic about our motivation, I am positive that if we want to, we can tackle the sustainability issue well together.