This forum took place on May 2nd, details here
There were four speakers:
Martin Haese (Adelaide Lord Mayor), Giles Parkinson
(journalist, editor at reneweconomy.com.au), Heather Smith (energy and climate change specialist and blogger) and Catherine Way (industry development
manager)
Brief summary
Martin Haese spoke first, and focused on South Australia’s
leadership in the area of renewables, and Adelaide City Council’s support of
the carbon neutral Adelaide project.
Giles Parkinson spoke next, and focused on the technological
aspects and the way that renewable electricity is now the cheapest new
electricity generation.
Heather Smith spoke next and focused on industry and
employment as we transition to a renewable economy.
Finally, Catherine Way spoke about the fact that there are
likely to be fewer jobs in a society based on renewables, but that the web and
disintermediation could make up for it.
Thoughts
It was interesting that the first two speakers didn’t
mention jobs at all. Though the second pair of speakers did, I felt that overall the forum didn't underline the depth of the problem. Based on my reading at her blog, it is clear that Heather Smith understands the issues, and she mentioned it on Monday. Smith also collated community input on her website, which shows a lot of thought about jobs in new industries. Similarly, Catherine Way also articulated the problem of future jobs and clearly sees problems. Despite this, I still think it didn't get the attention it needs.
The problem (or part thereof) as I see it is this: for
renewable energy to be economic, a high-tech manufacturing sector is required.
Most of the cost reduction in renewables has come not from fundamental
improvements to the technology but from efficiency gains. In this context, efficiency means more automated
manufacturing with fewer workers, and more streamlined installation with less
labour and a preference for lower-skilled (cheaper) labour.
If we extrapolate what is already happening, we will have an
ever-larger unemployed or underemployed underclass, and a wealthy minority
whose material needs are attended to by machines.
Simply put, automated manufacturing means that we need a lot
fewer workers to deliver the goods and services we want and this can’t be
disentangled from the renewables revolution.
I think this is underappreciated by most people who are
thinking about renewables and labour in the 21st century. The reason
I think it is underappreciated is that most of the “thinkers” are middle-class
people for whom the kinds of people who make
things are largely invisible. They have an attitude based on consumption of
goods, and it doesn’t matter where those things are made or whether it’s by
humans or robots. This is why we’re so comfortable using terms like
“efficiency” to mean staff redundancies as the labour pool grows ever smaller.
A second industrial revolution? No thanks!
The other problem I had with the presentations is that some
of them glibly refer to a second industrial revolution – as though that’s a
desirable thing to have. We have forgotten how convulsive and devastating the
industrial revolution was to the people living through it. While it was great
for the emerging middle class, for most people the industrial revolution
brought poverty, immiseration, disease and death. If you want a picture of
this, read some Charles Dickens. People didn’t want to be forced from their
villages to work long days in dark, dangerous and crowded factories for poor
pay. To make them do so, the land they lived on was privatised (it had
previously been the commons) and they were kicked off their subsistence farms
where they had lived for generations leaving them the choice of moving to the
city to earn a living or staying in the country to starve. This was, of course,
very profitable to the factory owners (who now had a huge pool of desperate,
cheap labour), and is known today as the enclosures.
I think the blithe attitude to a “second industrial
revolution” speaks to the sense of entitlement that so many people have today –
as though we can realise all the benefits of cheap goods manufactured by robotic
labour, but none of the costs of unemployment or social instability.
An answer
For centuries, resources have been plentiful and humans’
ability to harvest them limited. Because of this, a strong work ethic has
developed, which views hard work and the accumulation of resulting riches as an
expression of virtue. This work ethic and “virtuous consumption” can be seen
across our society.
Today though, we have the opposite problem: resources are
scarce and humanity’s ability to harvest them far exceeds what the planet can
sustainably yield. In this environment, there is less work needed (or desired)
than what people want to do and work stops being a virtuous contribution to
society but instead a competitive scrabble (also known as a zero sum game) for what is available so that people
can gain status.
We need to change our attitude to work and recognise that
workaholics are really depriving someone else of their time at work. This
attitude-shift will need to have implications right across the labour market –
from industrial relations (the length of the working week), to welfare (perhaps
a regulated minimum income) to taxation (a stronger progressive tax system with
higher marginal tax rates for high income earners to acknowledge the costs to
society of them monopolising employment)
Conclusion
I probably sound quite critical of the forum. Overall (despite my criticisms) I thought it was excellent and thought-provoking and I support all the speakers in what they said and their endeavours. However, I think it's easy to fall into the trap of techno-utopianism, and I think that Martin Haese, Giles Parkinson and a significant proportion of the audience[1] did so on Monday.
-------------------
[1] I have no evidence to support the claim that "a significant proportion of the audience" fell "into the trap of techno-utopianism" -- is was a feeling based on the questions that were asked and the conversations I heard afterwards.
