One proposal for addressing climate change is to completely change the system by which people are rewarded. Each individual could be given a carbon / environmental consumption budget. Suppose these carbon credits were the only currency available in the economy. The question is whether anyone should be able to exceed the average carbon budget and if so on what grounds.

​

First, it is possible that some individuals may give much higher innovation effort and bring in an innovation that makes it possible to lower the amount of carbon emissions in society. It makes sense to motivate people to invest effort, particularly as the green transition will require technological changes and the way we live. Second, we need to motivate people to do the most useful activities in society, such as qualifying as specialists in hospitals. It makes sense to give people incentives to qualify for and work in certain sectors.

​

Hence, it is possible to justify higher carbon budgets for some individuals on two grounds. First, we need to incentivize people work towards lowering carbon emissions elsewhere in the economy. Second, we need to incentivize people to make an effort to do particularly useful activities they might not otherwise do.

​

One the main arguments that can be made against the current GDP growth model of the UK is that the incentive systems are not aligned with humanity’s interests. It is possible to become very rich making and selling private jets for high-net-worth individuals. It may be easier to become rich this way than creating cutting edge carbon reduction technologies or supporting others that are doing so. However, if you were to ask the government why they do not impose a massive tax on private jets, they could make two arguments. First, that the revenue from the private jet industry is necessary to fund hospitals and even some green initiatives. Second, they might say that taxes on private jets could push the industry abroad harming defence.

​

The Conservative Party in the UK has argued that Britain should abandon the 2050 net zero target in order to be able to spend money on defence so that Britain is ready for war. It could be argued that if Britain does not have decent defence and loses its influence on the global stage, a green Britain will have less ability to influence the rest of the world in a positive way, including on climate issues. On the other hand, if the British government is to motivate the population and the rest of the word to be ready to stand to its defence, the question is what is being defended.

​

In order to motivate people to be ready to stand to the defence of the British project, it is important to have a clear representation of what is to be defended. Some might argue that Britain’s raison d’etre is to promote democracy around the world. However, if British democracy is one that delivers a government simply focused on higher living standards while disregarding the impact on the environment and global warming, the question is how much moral influence it has around the world. It is possible for a country with another political system to argue that they are producing the goods required for the energy transition such as solar panels and wind farms. In a world where Britain imports goods from other parts of the world to survive, why would an African nation choose to listen to Britain rather than a country with a different political system that has supplied it with solar panels?

​

In a global world, Britain should be very clear about what it is and why. On the one hand, it could choose to elect the Green Party and cut spending on defence. It could seek to persuade the rest of the world saying this is the example it wants to set.

​

On the other hand, it might recognise some of the advantages it still has and justify emissions per capita higher than the world average on the grounds it provides benefits to the rest of world. However, this temporary situation is only justifiable in so far it does provide those benefits. And it has to be very strict about this.

​

It must do this to protect the idea that democracies do not just deliver governments that offer the highest current living standards for a selfish domestic population without concern for the impact on the world.

​

First, if it chooses to prioritize defence, it must be clear why it is doing so on moral grounds. It could constantly argue that it is preventing the idea of nuclear proliferation on the grounds that it is defending the principles that countries that have given up their nuclear weapons should not be attacked and should be protected by other countries. Britain should shape its international political and economic arrangements so that it is able to clearly state this position in all circumstances without fear that it will lose an ally that is critical to its defence.

​

Second, it still has enough of an international reputation to help to set up the global infrastructure to combat climate change. It has universities and research institutes that can publish information about opportunities to reduce climate emissions throughout the world. It could even contribute to setting up a global database of individuals with records on their personal emissions and contributions towards reducing carbon emissions throughout the world. This could form the basis for current and future taxation schemes in different countries in the world and could shape other privileges such as in international company formation and immigration. Britain may be in a unique position to influence other countries to have lower emissions in a sustainable way. To me considerations about fairness are outweighed by the urgency of the issue of climate change. If the choice is between doing nothing or using one tonne of carbon to reduce each tonne abroad by three, the question is why Britain does not do this?

​

The question is not whether Britain should be involved in reducing climate change in the developing world. There are clearly some examples when sending a specialist to Africa to install a wind farm where the benefit of the windfarm outweighs the emissions cost of the flight. The more controversial question comes when people might argue for higher emissions in the UK on the grounds that the extra tax revenue can offset those emissions in the developing world. I would argue that it does make sense to try to focus a good amount of effort on reducing emissions domestically, particularly as Britain gains expertise when transitioning to a net-zero economy which can be transferred to other parts of the world. Furthermore, the idea that a country has reached net zero is more convincing an example to motivate other countries rather than simply relying on the idea that money may have been spent on reducing carbon emissions in other parts of the world which other countries might not believe.

​

If people in Britain are producing higher than average global emissions per capita, then it must demonstrate to the world it is paying its global taxes, ideally with a net positive benefit. Not only may this give everyone in the country a better reason to get out of bed each morning. Britain can then aggressively pursue alliances abroad with a purpose. It might persuade other governments to pursue similar globally orientated projects. It is not necessary to rely on nationalism to promote this idea. Why not seek to generate the idea of global citizenship and even the idea of a global passport for those willing to commit to reporting their carbon emissions data and spending a significant amount of money or effort on reducing carbon emissions globally?