Yale University Press

In his 2007 book, “The Bridge at the Edge of the World,” James Gustave Speth argued that true ecological reform must be preceded by bedrock changes in the way human societies think about social justice, nature and the unquestioned drive toward economic growth

When the book was first published, Professor Speth, the dean of Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and a co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council, was in a grim mood about “market fundamentalism and anti-regulation, anti-government ideology.”

In a telephone interview on Monday, Green Inc. found him with a more positive outlook about the future, and the potential for basic changes in the way consumers — and government — approach notions of growth and environmental stewardship.

*

The credit crunch has seriously impaired consumer spending, and the trade balance with China has changed dramatically. When the economy recovers, how do we ensure that we don’t revert to the kind of consumption problems you describe?

My hope is that people will be forced by lack of resources, but come to appreciate a shift away from debt-driven, endless spending, and focusing a lot more on what’s really important in life.

Positive psychologists tell us there’s a strong correlation between materialism and unhappiness. Consumerism was never as strong in Japan as it has been here, and Japanese consumerism never got back to what it was before the lost decade of slow growth. So maybe we will “grow up,” in effect, out of this crisis. It’s one of the possible silver linings.

Do you have hope for the emergence of a green economy that produces a lot of manufacturing jobs?

My book questions the overall growth-fetish in our society. But it is also very strong in noting that there are many things that do need to grow. All the industries associated with an alternative energy system for our country need to grow.

There are huge numbers of jobs that can be created with new investments in these areas. Some have been put on hold or slowed up because of the economic crisis. Given the urgency of the climate situation, it seems incumbent for government to not only right the economy but ensure these investments aren’t delayed. It would be driven dramatically not only by government stimulus programs but also by putting a hefty price on carbon.

The emerging consensus on pricing carbon seems to be moving towards a cap-and-trade system similar to Europe’s. Have we dropped the idea of the carbon tax?

[The carbon tax] doesn’t seem to have many supports and it doesn’t seem to fit as well into the international context. I wonder if the idea that a carbon tax is more simple and straightforward might have a lot to do with the fact that Congress hasn’t turned its attention to it … as it has with the cap-and-trade approach.

We have now a 648-page bill out of [Representative Henry] Waxman and [Representative Edward] Markey, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Congress could equally complexify a carbon tax. Take a look at the Internal Revenue code.

So I think we’re on the right track [with cap-and-trade]. But the bill needs to be toughened up.

Do you have some recommendations?

They’re fairly silent on this issue of the sale of the allowances. I do worry that the near-term goal for the cap is not strong enough. [And] the offset provisions in the Waxman draft seem far too generous.

Are there lessons to be learned from what happened in Europe?

They were too generous with their permits and they didn’t sell them.

(For another perspective on this, see James Kanter’s article in The New York Times last Wednesday, on the results of Europe’s cap-and-trade system.)