Why do Copenhageners ride bicycles? The key reason, says Yale economist and best-selling author (“Irrational Exuberance”) Robert J. Shiller, is that Danes are idealists who resolved, after the oil crisis of the 1970s, “to make a personal commitment to ride bicycles rather than drive, out of moral principle, even if that was inconvenient for them.”
“The sight of so many others riding bikes motivated the city’s inhabitants and appears to have improved the moral atmosphere enough,” Shiller wrote in yesterday’s New York Times, that the share of working inhabitants of Copenhagen who bike has reached 50 percent.
From “Copenhagen: City of Cyclists” (2010), a report by the City of Copenhagen.
In much the same way, Shiller argues, “asking people to volunteer to save our climate by taking many small, individual actions” may be a more effective way to bring down carbon emissions than trying to enact overarching national or global policies such as carbon emission caps or taxes.
Goodness. Rarely do smart people so badly mangle both the historical record and basic economics. I say “people” because Shiller attributes his column’s main points to a new book, “Climate Shock: The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet” by Gernot Wagner of the Environmental Defense Fund and Martin L. Weitzman, a Harvard economist. And I say “smart” because the three stand at the top of their profession. Shiller won the Economics Nobel in 2013, Weitzman is a leading light in the economics of climate change, and Wagner is highly regarded young economist.
But mangle they have (I haven’t seen the Wagner-Weitzman book but assume that Shiller represents it fairly).
Let’s start with the history, which is fairly well known to anyone versed in cycling advocacy, as I’ve been since the 1980s, when I spearheaded the revival of New York City’s bike-advocacy group Transportation Alternatives (as recounted here.) Copenhagen’s 40-year bicycle upsurge, and indeed much of the uptake of cycling across Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands, came about not through mass idealism but from deliberate public policies to help cities avoid the damages of pervasive automobile use while reducing oil dependence.
If idealism played a part at the outset it was a social idealism that instructed government to undertake integrated policies ― stiff gas taxes and car ownership fees; generously funded public transit; elimination of free curbside parking; provision of safe and abundant bicycle routes ― that enabled Copenhageners to do what they evidently desired all along: to use bikes safely and naturally.
The telltale is in the graphic. Only one in eleven Copenhageners who cycle have environment and climate in mind. The majority do it because it’s faster than other ways to travel, and around a third of cyclists say they ride because it’s healthy, inexpensive and convenient ― belying Shiller’s meme of Danes idealistically choosing bikes despite their inconvenience vis-à-vis cars.
The mangling of economics, meanwhile, is baked into the very idea of “Putting Idealism to Work on Climate Change,” as Shiller titled his article. Expecting more than a small fraction of humanity to place ideals above convenience and economy has to qualify as magical thinking under current social and economic arrangements. Market failures simply won’t allow it. Unpriced externalities, whereby carbon emitters get to pollute for free, in effect make it expensive to move off fossil fuels. The prevalence of free riders, whereby your emissions reductions benefit me and every other person as much as yourself, is a further disincentive.
Shiller touched on externalities and free riders, but only in passing. Perhaps they didn’t fit his narrative centered on Wagner and Weitzman’s “Copenhagen Theory of Change, [by which] we should be asking people to volunteer to save our climate by taking many small, individual actions.”
One wonders if any of the three economists studied the actual evolution of cycling in Copenhagen before coining that term. Did they talk with Copenhagen officials, who might have cautioned them that the individual’s decision to cycle depends on social constructions such as elaborate and continuous bike lane networks, ample and convenient bike parking, and a traffic justice system that holds reckless drivers accountable, and who could have explained that bicycle infrastructure works best in conjunction with policies to raise the price of urban driving closer to its social cost? Did they learn that the citizenry has to clamor for these measures to neutralize the inevitable opposition from car-owners and auto interests?
Concerning climate, recognition appears to be growing, if slowly, that carbon pricing, ideally delivered through transparent and robustly rising carbon taxes, is essential to correct the market failures that Shiller mentioned. The individual actions Shiller touts are important. I practice them and I constantly beseech everyone around me to try and do the same. But even more important are collective policies, like carbon taxing, that can make those individual actions possible and natural. That’s the only way our and other societies will succeed at pushing out carbon-emitting fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy and efficient use.
Big thanks for assistance on this post to Jon Orcutt, who as senior policy advisor to DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan engineered the extraordinary expansion of NYC’s bicycle infrastructure during 2007-2014.
The Sallan Foundation says
As always, a brilliant polemic. .
No, I am not damning with faint praise here. But, epistemologically I don’t buy “social idealism” v the individual kind. It’s not either/or. It’s dialectic. But more on that for some other time. Then there’s the tipping point argument about when individual behavior becomes collective action/patterns. But also, for another time.
The baby that gets thrown out with the bathwater for me in your “Climate Idealism” column is the intellectually, empirically and political important question of what makes an idea powerful and actionable? You (almost always) come down on the side of economic self or organizational interest. Necessary, but, under a range of circumstances, not sufficient in my view.
Something that fascinates me with climate politics is that unlike many other eco-battles, where the anthropological fear of pollution (think Mary Douglas) can drive or be harnessed to various campaigns, especially grass-roots activism, the pollution fear has not been a driver in the battles over climate. And the “risky business” argument/stance is still limited to an elite sliver. Ditto the precautionary principle.
Why does all this matter? Because you won’t get a meaningful price on carbon without some of this non-economic calculus propellant.
All that said, I’m glad you wrote this!
Sage Rad says
I think your arguments aren’t really true here, “Sallan Foundation”.
There is a great positive vision of a world in which we all contribute to slowing down our use of fossil fuels. A world of good jobs, good transition work, local farming, renewable local energy sources, and the like. Slowing down, building community, eating good local food, being responsible and healthy. There is a beautiful positive vision.
And, there is also the fear of the pollution that you say is not there. The fear of climate crisis, of course, is the fear of the effects of the greenhouse emissions pollution. So in a few sentences, i think i have addressed your main points of critique, haven’t i?
Yes, let’s use all our social skills and charisma to get this thing going! So please join in with enthusiasm and stop making up nonexistant critiques! Thank you!
Sage Rad says
Great article.
I can’t even believe how many seemingly serious people write about things without even the very basic semblance of economic knowledge. How many people write such totally foolish things all day long, even with the best of intentions. I think it’s counterproductive overall to be in denial of basic economics. If i were more conspiracy minded, i might even say it’s a greenwashing kind of smoke and mirrors delay tactic. But alas, i think human beings are possibly so easily fooled, and the media is often happy to go along with the simple feelgood story.
Steve Harvey says
You are dead on, Mr. Komanoff. I read the piece and had a similar reaction–we need carbon pricing, not voluntary action. Btw, I ride my bike back and forth to my law firm every day and I like the enviro- firendly aspect of it, but it’s not the main reason I ride. It’s fun, faster, cheaper, and helps me stay fit. Re carbon pricing, please check out http://www.calltothebar.org which is designed to get lawyers and the legal community on board carbon pricing.
Lynn Smith says
If only cities in the U.S. were as bicycle friendly as Copenhagen whose streets were first designed to accommodate horses and carriages, not cars.
We do need big ticket items like a carbon tax, but we also need to persuade our local cities to come up with solutions that make biking and electric vehicles easier.
In California, cities are responding to state mandates to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change: energy use, transportation and waste.
Some, like members of Green Cities California, cities that go beyond the requirements, save 10 million pounds of CO2 emission, 23 million gallons of water and 6,600 barrels of oil a year.
H Biker says
As usual, refreshing to read someone willing to take on ideas, and not shy away just because of who wrote them, and suggest some correctives in a clear tone along the way.
H Biker says
Also that link about the bike in nyc years ago is highly recommended. (maybe make click links open in a new window?
I loive the photo: April 19, 1991: 400 walkers, runners, skaters and cyclists occupy the loop road to kick off TA’s Auto-Free Central
Park campaign. The good old days when I was a member of TA.
Gernot Wagner says
Charles,
While flattered to be mentioned in the NYT column, I do have to say that it missed the main point of Martin Weitzman’s and my argument, which is, in fact, precisely yours: What we dub the “Copenhagen theory of change” is exactly this virtuous cycle (virtuous cyclists?) of individual action leading to collective action and vice versa. Individual action clearly won’t solve the climate problem for us — nor, it turns out — the cycling problem.
For a fuller account of our views, see this feature article that Salon ran over the weekend — with a mention of the Copenhagen theory of change in context: http://www.salon.com/2015/03/29/the_planet_wont_notice_you_recycle_and_your_vote_doesnt_count/
Best,
Gernot
David Collins says
Thanks for the link to your SALON essay. I cannot say it soundly convinced me, but I can say it fascinated me and set me thinking. I must agree that the subject cries out for more study.
An example. In the late 1960’s, my parents (conservative WASPs; my Dad was charismatic) were having dinner in an uppercrustian restaurant with two other couples.. Halfway thru dinner, a party of four couples (one of which was Negro) came in. The maitre d’ tried to show them out. Dad stood up and in his soft but penetrating voice asked for the tab; they were leaving. The dinner companions also stood up (altho one was very upset). In a moment the maitre d’ seated the four couples; my parents and companions sat down; all went well. The restaurant was then “open”.
How does the threshold of unacceptability change from a wall to a gate to a wide-open space?
Khal Spencer says
Spot on, Charlie.
Khal Spencer says
I should have added that water usage in many Southwest cities has not decreased out of altruism, but because cities deliberately raised the cost of using water. Altruism is highly overrated.
Paul Lauenstein says
Rising water and sewer rates in the Boston area have been accompanied by a 40% reduction in water use since the 1980’s, and water usage continues to decline at approximately 1% every year. It’s a classic example of higher prices driving down unit sales. The same would undoubtedly work with energy. We desperately need to reduce our GHG emissions. We should pass a carbon tax right away, but thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, the fossil fuel industry is free to spend whatever it takes to stop a carbon tax. That’s why we need a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics.
Bikirl says
An informative piece, thank you.
Charley says
The conclusion seems to be that Plan A should be compelling the US Congress and each state legislature to create an economically compelling incentive structure (like a carbon tax) for use of public transit and bicycles — and that Plan B is a waste of time, whatever it might be. My concern is that this places the GOP majorities in all of those government bodies squarely in the path of the solution. The only way forward is through them.
We know now that this is a path of frustration and delay. Though we are convinced this Plan A is the goal, the way to create that possibility in this dysfunctional democracy is to create the culture of a solved problem even before it is materially solved. That is, to proceed with every Plan B we can think of, invoking conscience and self-sacrifice for common good and all those hopelessly idealistic concepts, to get a head of steam for the ideas of alternative energy and transportation. We cannot wait for the GOP to awake from their trance; we must make as much of a difference as we can without them, locally, in the hope of eventually overcoming their troglodyte wing and getting a real Plan A.
The politics are discouraging now, but the radical-vs.-moderate split within the GOP, the inexorable demographic shifts, and the eventual expiration of their gerrymandered advantage all point to a significant shift in their political stance, hopefully in the next 10 years. Cyclists and environmentalists need to be ready to take advantage of that.
Josef Szende says
Resonates with me greatly based on the impressions I get from friends in the local cycling community. Number one reason people bike is to save money with pure enjoyment being a close second. I don’t think environmental idealism crosses people’s minds.
http://orkutluv.com says
Leukemia is a type of cancer that affects the blood or the
bone marrow. He is in the process of writing up the results and
is hoping to have them published in The American Medical Journal.
This industry has become an economic and environmentally-friendly alternative to unsustainable harvesting of hearts of palm, logging and
conversion of the rain forest to farming or ranching.
Tracie says
You are so cool! I don’t think I have read something like
this before. So wonderful to find another person with genuine thoughts on this subject
matter. Seriously.. thank you for starting this up.
This site is something that’s needed on the internet, someone with some originality!
beli jam tangan murah jakarta says
click rolex replica, cheap omega watches, rado watches. Swiss chocolates and Swiss watches are
included in the popular items. You have arrived at the right place, though, if
you are considering the automatic chronograph, whatever
the reason is.
Gudrun says
It might commence early and you also must make sure that you understand just how to
take care of your eyes by making certain to possess typical
protective vision checks. This coming year sees a power play between the importance of a macho appear, while outstanding
charmingly female.