The TH Interview: Jeffrey Sachs, The World’s Sustainable Economist
by Jessica Root - Brooklyn, NY on 05. 6.08
A few years ago, I wouldn’t have known who Jeffrey Sachs was had I not walked into my university bookstore and beelined my way towards a book jacket announcing a special foreword by Bono. Always a fan of Bono’s music and philanthropic work, and intrigued by the mystery author's ambitious title—The End of Poverty—I picked up the book on a whim. Later, I’d learn that the mystery author, Jeffrey Sachs, was a world-renowned economist, special advisor to the United Nations Secretary-General, and Director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University. If I had known ahead of time about Sachs' economic whiz-kid reputation, I would’ve timidly bypassed reading his book. (I had always barely scraped by in math and sweet-talked my way out of the one calculus requirement I had in college.) Astonishingly, though, Sachs’ The End of Poverty was easy to understand and inspiring—even for someone as math-challenged as myself.
His latest book, Common Wealth: Economics For A Crowded Planet, focuses on sustainable development and it's just as impressively digestible. In less than four hundred pages, Sachs has created a comprehensible, economic blueprint for potentially solving our world’s environmental degradation and increasing population growth. We were fortunate enough to grab a few minutes of the economist’s time to ask him a few questions about his position in the energy debate and the rise in global food prices and human consumption:
TreeHugger: You’ve mentioned the need for a large-scale clean coal initiative for India, China and the U.S. What would you say to those who oppose "clean coal"?
Jeffrey Sachs: China and India are going to use vast amounts of coal-based energy with or without the blessing of environmentalists so we need to use technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration in addition to eco-sound coal mining. Another option is IGCC (Integrated Gasification Carbon Capture), which gasifies coal. Unfortunately, no prototypes yet exist for this and to make it happen we would need several hundreds of millions of dollars in government funding. There was a project called Future Gen that was in the process of developing these technologies but the Bush administration is postponed it early on so we've been at a standstill for the last eight years.
TH: You believe that nuclear power should be on the menu of solutions to climate change—a controversial stance in the energy debate. What’s your reasoning?
JS: Across the world, we have a significant nuclear sector. I believe that if we put money into researching greater security measures, it is a viable technology useful to our C02 problem. To discount it altogether would be silly considering 30 billion tons of the world's carbon emissions are produced per year with one-quarter resulting from power plants. There are also several countries harnessing nuclear energy safely. France, for example, is powered by 80% of nuclear-based energy and has been for decades. I think this is illustrative of what the U.S. and the rest of the world can do.
TH: Since I rarely have the opportunity to chat with a world renowned economist, can you explain the recent rise in global food prices in laymen's terms for folks like me who practically failed math in school?
JS: Absolutely. The simplest way to understand it is that as the human population has increased so has the demand for food. The supply of food, however, has remained stagnant due to crop failure in Europe and Australia. Grain has also been cultivated primarily for the use of ethanol instead of food.
TH: Do you think that the crop failure is a result of climate change?
JS: Several agricultural regions are experiencing weather shocks, hot temperatures and drought. I'm sure it has something to do with global warming.
TH: In Common Wealth you name six activities for managing the global carbon budget. I noticed, however, that you don't get too in depth about our over-consuming world. Do you think there's a way to monetarily motivate people to consume less or at least to consume only ethical, ecologically sensitive products?
JS: Yes, I do agree that people are eating more and consuming more and that motivating changes in individual behavior would be effective, but I often find that the wrong incentives are usually given. I think we need to focus less on consumption patterns and more on production technologies. I have no problem with the masses consuming electricity so long as the grid it’s coming from is a clean energy source. I have no problem with people shopping but the fact that most have to drive to the store—instead of walking—is an issue of poor urban design. We need to put more emphasis on production.
Sachs is the rawness. He's mad on point with his recommendation on food aid. It ain't about regulation it's about incentives and homeboy understands that. Much props.
Sachs talks a good game, but he's not to be trusted.
His 'Shock Doctrine' plan for the former Soviet Union caused immense pain and economic disruption, helping to pave the rise of authoritarians like Putin, and the concentration of the county's wealth into the hands of the oligarchs.
So far, carbon sequestration is wishful thinking. and nuclear power will never be viable. They distract us from the real work.
Right on! He makes the connection between population growth and food price rises -- few people get that.
this man will lead us to the end of the world. I admit I need to read more about him and his ideas, but from what I understand his views often fit along the lines of rich country help poor country, the problem with this is that no one seems to ask why there are rich countries and poor countries...if they did they might find out that the rich country got rich by making the poor country poor.
Basically I feel that many of his solutions only placate the problem but do not actually address the problem and why it exists...
The reason why this is dangerous, besides the fact that the long term results are nil, is that, yes it appears to help, but that help is only short term and that help can also yield other problems, but because of the initial positives, people jump behind these ideas as the savior of the world...all the while they may be helping a few over here, but maybe destroying many over there...especially through the use of GMO's and Clean coal initiatives! Long live the white american male and his grand ideas to save the world.
Yo Glen here's a recent quote from Sachs before the UN ""Rather than just shipping expensive food aid, we should be helping the poorest of the poor to grow more food."
Isn't that what you cats are all about? Local production? Stopping expensive food aid that just acts a bandage and isn't sustainable, economically, socially or environmentally?
Check another quote from the same meeting:" If you help them to grow more food rather than shipping food aid, you’ll produce an escape from poverty. If you ship food aid, you’ll meet one-fifth of the food needs, people will suffer, it will be very expensive, and you’ll do nothing to help them get out of poverty”
Sound like a smart dude to me.
The only potential beef I might have with this cat is he's interested in "climate-proof" and "drought-proof" seeds. If that means GMOs, than he's straight butt.
I caught all this on today's Democracy Now. There is also a Businessweek article.
Peep game: http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2008/gb2008056_324709.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily
Just well intentioned well doing that only perpetuates things theway they are...
Also, personally, I think radioactive contamination is something we should worry about a lot more than CO2... Defending nuclear power seems to me awfully short-sighted.
Just well intentioned well doing that only perpetuates things theway they are...
Also, personally, I think radioactive contamination is something we should worry about a lot more than CO2... Defending nuclear power seems to me awfully short-sighted.
His stance on nuclear trumps anything good he has to say. Not impressed.
Not impressed either. Treehugger, please interview Bill McKibben of Deep Economy. You've a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/book_review_deep_economy_bill_mckibben.php">reviewed the book but that was rather limited review. His main argument is about the need to change our economic model which is the fundamental problem as it assumes unlimited growth within a limited ecosystem.
Anyone who says we need to focus more on technology and less on consumption patterns clearly isn't seeing the whole picture.
We'll need a heck of a lot less technology, coal, nuclear, etc. if we can all stop and think about what we NEED versus what we WANT.
Very simply, less consumption = less manufacture = less energy required = less coal to be mined or nuclear waste to be made. I'm no economist, but even I understand less is more. (And for the record, less manufacture does not have to equal less jobs. We need to produce for quality, not quantity.)
Anyone who says we need to focus more on technology and less on consumption patterns clearly isn't seeing the whole picture.
We'll need a heck of a lot less technology, coal, nuclear, etc. if we can all stop and think about what we NEED versus what we WANT.
Very simply, less consumption = less manufacture = less energy required = less coal to be mined or nuclear waste to be made. I'm no economist, but even I understand less is more. (And for the record, less manufacture does not have to equal less jobs. We need to produce for quality, not quantity.)
I definitely agree that reduced consumption is important. Unfortunately, I am a bit pessimistic that society as a whole will make the lifestyle changes necessary to get results (although I would love to be proved wrong). I think that Sachs offers practical solutions (except for nuclear power) that should be implemented along with education and lifestyle changes. I think effective change will require a blended solution.
Glenn - In "The End of Poverty" Sachs introduces the term "clinical economics". He argues that each nation should be looked at like a sick patient and a detailed analysis should be done to pinpoint why the country is poor and what, specifically, needs to be done to escape from the poverty trap. In my opinion he offers sustainable solutions instead of quick fix bandaids. Yes - rich nations do exploit poor nations - but (and I'm pretty sure he argues this in the book) there other factors, notably geography, can significantly impact economies.
The questions above highlight some of the negative side of Sachs' work. He seems to be pro-Coal, too.
HOWEVER, Check out http://www.earth.columbia.edu/flashvideos/sachs_commonwealth/index.php
his book launch for a better view of his ideas. He's an economist, he can't see the wood for his own trees. Can't understand that to have rich countries, you need poor countries to exploit.
But I think he has something to offer. Check out the video.