32 LISTENER JUNE 8 2019
able to enter some of these debates
on long-term issues, climate change,
for example, although maybe not as
quickly as we might. You make an
interesting point about the electoral
cycle, and [Wellington academic]
Jonathan Boston has written about
this. As someone looking at it from
abroad, I am sympathetic to that view.
Although we have short parliamentary
terms, our [election] campaigns are
short compared with those elsewhere.
We don’t get caught up in campaign-
ing for so long.What motivated you to write the book?
The time is right to tackle the chal-
lenge of making decisions for the
future. I set out some of the evidence
in the book to say that although
things may not be as scary as we are
sometimes told, change is coming,
and there is a window at the moment
when we can shape what happens.
I’m hoping to push that debate along.
I acknowledge my conclusions are
but one perspective. I am keen to
hear what other people think and
what future vision they have for New
Zealand as they see what is happen-
ing with technological change and so
on. I feel optimistic that we in New
Zealand can influence the future for
ourselves.Your upbringing has been steeped in an
awareness of the past, present and the
future. What was your childhood like?
I have one brother and, because
my parents separated, two step-
siblings. Nelson is a lovely place to
grow up, and I had a very happy
upbringing. I was fortunate to
have gone to excellent schools.
With the national parks so close,
going for tramps and getting out
and about in nature were a big
part of my childhood. It built
an appreciation of the natural
environment that has stuck with
me. One of the things I’ve missed
about being overseas is being able
to easily go to beautiful places.You’re from a long line of inquiring
and academic minds, including your
grandmother, May Davis, whom you
quote at the start of your book. Did you
know her?SHELF LIFE
C
limate change is a wicked
problem. Aiming for a world
with little work does not look
to me like the most effective
way of solving it. We should
not make a fetish of economic growth,
and consuming less would help reduce
emissions, but decoupling economic
activity from environmental damage,
despite slow progress so far, is the real key.
There are a few green shoots of hope on
decoupling. Both Germany and Denmark
appear to have decoupled their emissions
from growth in absolute terms, even when
taking into account
their imports. That is
a remarkable achieve-
ment. Yet to truly
address climate change
we need many more
countries to do the
same – and continue
to do it year on year –
despite being poorer
than Germany or Den-
mark. That requires
much stronger policy
support to push decoupling further and
faster, but it does not necessitate a world
with very little work.
My vision of the good life, in short,
sees us living in a wealthier society where
most New Zealanders work. This work in
turn provides them with a decent income,
social connections and, at least reasonably
regularly, a sense of purpose and flow.
Through the innovation and investment
this work supports, as well as a far more
meaningful carbon price, I also envisage
a New Zealand that massively reduces its
emissions so as to combat climate change.
Could I be wrong about some or even
all of this? Yes. Prediction is still difficult,
especially about the future. Could other
people look at the evidence and draw a
different conclusion about what kind of
future is desirable for New Zealand? Abso-
lutely. We could pursue a very different
future if we thought it preferable.
Yet there are some things we need to
do regardless of which future we prefer.
Runaway inequality, in addition to being
deeply unjust, would destabilise both afuture of continued work and a labour-light
future by making it unlikely we could afford
to buy everything the economy produces.
In the first case, this would make it harder
to keep people in work. In the second case,
it would mean lower production, making
the pie to be redistributed smaller. Someone
still needs to buy what is made, no matter
who produces it. The bottom line is that too
much inequality could beget even worse
inequality and economic troubles, taking
New Zealand further still from its egalitar-
ian roots. Keeping inequality in check is a
“no-regret move” in shaping the future of
work.
There is a second big
no-regret move: seri-
ously tackling climate
change. In the long run,
there may be real dif-
ferences between green
growth and de-growth
(shrinking the economy)
as the best way to limit
climate change. But
that should not get in
the way of the basics:
getting an effective price on carbon (and
equivalent emissions) that reflects the real
cost of carbon to the world. We are nowhere
near that right now.
The third no-regret move is to strengthen,
not weaken, social safety nets. In a future
of continued work, we are likely to see a
lot more people having to change jobs and
retrain; they need real support to be able to
do that. And if we move towards a future
of far less work, stronger safety nets would
be a first step on the way towards the kind
of redistribution needed for that future to
succeed.
As the world changes, the evidence that
has led me to conclude a world of work
is preferable might change. The trade-offs
involved in creating either of the broad
futures outlined here could be very different.
We should frequently revisit the evidence
to see if the trade-offs and possibilities have
altered and whether a more radical change
to our society and economy might be more
feasible, wiser or simply necessary.Climate change & us
Looking ahead to a world of less work.
“Both Germany and
Denmark appear tohave decoupled their
emissions from growth
in absolute terms,even when taking into
account their imports.That is a remarkable
achievement.”An extract from JOBS, ROBOTS & US, by Kinley
Salmon (Bridget Williams Books, $40).