In ‘Who Rules the Earth’, Paul F. Steinberg (2015) discusses how markets need rules and regulations to function properly. He argues in favor of cap and trade and regulation. “Market-based regulation can provide landowners with incentives to keep trees on the land, rather than clearing them for crops and pasture” (Steinberg 2015, 122). His point is that there are downsides to both “letting the market decide” and government intervention. For example, “In Argentina, privatization of municipal water services appears to have significantly increased public access to safe water and is associated with reduced levels of childhood disease; in Colombia, privatization has had precisely the opposite effect.” His solution is “to put in place rules that leverage the benefits and avoid the pitfalls of each”(Steinberg 2015, 125). Mike Hulme highlights arguments in favor and against policies such as carbon trading. He says that challenges to carbon trading are rooted in the questioning of the “idea that extending property rights to the atmosphere and then trading those rights through a market is the right way to manage the environment”(Hulme 2009, 259). Mike Hulme cites evidence that would support Steinberg in his assertion that carbon trading and government regulation will provide market-based incentive to cut carbon-emissions and encourage innovation. However, he also mentions that carbon trading “avoids the need to confront questions of justice and equity”(Hulme 2009, 259).
Paul F. Steinberg cites “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice”, in order to explain the reasons organizations do not properly adapt in response to climate change. “Decision making within an organization typically involves so many competing priorities that it looks less like a rational pursuit of well-defined goals and more like a garbage can filled with a mishmash of unrelated items.” (Steinberg 2015, 50) “The good ideas have not all been tried because the organization we create to advance our shared interests are predisposed to ignore entire categories of feasible changes.”(Steinberg 2015, 52) This relates to Mike Hulme’s chapter in ‘Why We Disagree About Climate Change’, “The Endowment of Value”(Hulme 2009, 114). In the same way that organizations cannot agree on ways to cut their carbon footprint, governments cannot agree on international treaties, such as the Kyoto Protocol, because of a lack of consensus on the economic viability of regulations. Hulme argues that this lack of consensus stems from the fact that “we disagree about climate change because we have different belief systems and because the values we profess seem often different to the values we act on” (Hulme 2009, 135).
In ‘Who Rules the Earth’, Steinberg (2009) is constantly referring to social rules. “Whether we are dealing with international treaties or department store return policies, all social rules can be understood in terms of these three R’s: roles (“As a customer, …”), rights (“you can return this item …”), and responsibilities (“in good condition within 30 days with proof of purchase”). The world’s nations are now haggling over the three R’s with respect to climate change, debating which countries have an obligation to control emissions of carbon dioxide and how this responsibility is weighed against rights to economic development and nation sovereignty”(Steinberg 2009, 27). Religion and spirituality play a tremendous role in establishing these social rules. In chapter 5 of Mike Hulme’s book, The Things We Believe, he stresses the importance of one’s religious and ethical beliefs in determining their stance on climate change (Hulme 2009). Steinberg believes that we must change social rules if we are to motivate masses of people to care about climate change and protecting our planet. Hulme presents a major roadblock to changing these social rules: differing religious, spiritual and ethical understandings of the world.