Saving the world with Passive Houses: the role of civil society in social change

A lot of young people I know are rather skeptical of government and not very involved in the political process, but they are very active in making social change through social entrepreneurship. They feel that they can most effectively improve the world by working in associations and shared projects rather than by passing laws and regulations.

Here’s an example of the difference in perspective. The classic form of the environmental movement puts pressure on arms of government to take action against climate change. They want to change the tax structure, or to put limits on certain kinds of cars and buildings, and so on. That entire approach has now become so intensely polarized that little progress is possible. The political arena has become a battle between a side that wants to impose its view on others – that is, after all, what the environmentalists want to do – and a side that resists, trying to preserve their way of life.

But there is also a very different strand. A friend of mine (not particularly young, by the way) has built a Passive House apartment building in Boston. Passive House is a set of construction standards and technologies that reduce emissions from the built environment by 90% or sometimes more. If it is used for housing the growth of population in India and China and Africa over the next decades, it will make a huge difference to our fates. But we don’t need regulations to make that happen. The technology has been advancing with extraordinary speed. It is now possible – as of just the last year or so – to construct such a building for the same price as “regular” construction. And it brings huge ongoing benefits. The maintenance costs are much lower; energy consumption costs are hugely reduced; health of occupants is improved; it’s pleasant to live in. It simply works both in economic and human terms. Once the word is out, why would anyone not build that way?

This is a case where civil society can do some things that government can’t. It takes some of the pressure off law and regulation. In the last half century civil society has gained a lot of capacity: people can come together much more easily around projects. They are taking on big issues: health, refugees, climate change. To the extent they work, they avoid the polarization of political ideologies.

A central problem of the twentieth century was working out the relation between government and economic action: in what circumstances laws and regulations were needed, in what circumstances it was better to let contract take over. Maybe a central problem of the twenty-first century will be to work out the relation between government and civil society. Civil society isn't the whole solution, by any means, but most analysts haven’t really explored or grasped what it can bring, and how it can change the policy debates.