What's So Scary About Environmentalism?
I'm on record elsewhere as saying that the second half of Shellenberger and Nordhaus's Break Through is worth reading, even if irritating, because they make an intriguing and somewhat convincing case that progressives in the United States suffer from what I would call the politics of nostalgia--looking backward to the economic solidarity born of the depression, the social solidarity born of World War II and the G.I. bill, and the wildness of a continent yet unshaped by industrial technology.
The political weaknesses of this politics of nostalgia, they argue, affect most of the progressive spectrum. But this makes their signature argument--that there is something wrong with the environmental paradigm--hollow and unconvincing. If environmentalists look backwards because they want to protect nature, what explains the weaknesses of economic populists like Thomas Frank?
Indeed, S&N’s attack on environmentalism could, in its most important particulars, have been crafted by various voices on the right--as when they assert, for example, that environmental health problems are not terribly important or salient, or when they echo the corporate community’s plea that health standards be based on risk-management criteria.
I would argue, in direct opposition to S&N, that a reborn environmentalism is not only possible, but actually occurring, and more important, that a new environmentalism (whatever it is called), is an essential ingredient in a revived progressive politics of hope and optimism. For a hundred years those who called themselves first conservationists and then environmentalists defined their task as constraining and cleaning up after the existing industrial order. For the next hundred years our task is to shape, design, and accelerate the arrival of a new, sustainable economic order.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus line up for investments as the sole strategy to jump start this new economy. But they forfeit much of their claim to be progressives by ignoring the social and political context of those investments, and by ignoring the reality that while we need investments, we also need better social and economic arrangements. We need to get prices right, and we need to ensure that clean energy has market access.
S&N argue that to solve global warming, all we need is new technology. But twenty percent of total CO2 emissions today come from deforestation--we don't need new technology to stop illegal logging of tropical rainforests. Break Through, however, chastises environmentalists for not understanding that what is needed is broader development and institutional reform in Brazil.
Or take emissions from U.S. cars, trucks and SUVs. There is lots of technology on the shelf that could be used to make them go further on a mile of gas. S&N lament that this technology isn't used because of the problem the auto industry faces with the legacy costs of health care and pensions. While it is irksome that the authors claim this as their own private discovery--it’s a problem the Sierra Club has been working on for a decade--it is, nonetheless, true--and it has nothing to do with Detroit needing a 70 mile-per-gallon carburetor.
True, some of my environmental colleagues do obsess on getting a price established for emitting carbon into the atmosphere. But in place of that monomania S&N simply substitute another--just invest! Find new, better, cheaper, clean stuff!
Well, we need investment, but wise investment. If you throw enough money at a bad idea, someone will bite. Nuclear power exists because of huge subsidies. The same thing will happen if we have big enough subsidies for coal, or oil from tar sands in Alberta. But we also need to get prices right, and get rid of barriers to the use of clean energy, like the regulatory barriers that slow down market access for efficiency and renewables. In Pennsylvania, Gamesa's newly built wind turbine factory can't ship its turbine blades across state lines because of incompatible state highway department rules. In South Carolina, BASF can't build a photovoltaic array to power its chemical plant because the law doesn't allow it to sell its surplus summer power for a profit--it's not a utility, so it can't sell electricity. In many cities, putting solar cells on roofs is illegal.
In the end, I’m left wondering why two very bright authors make such casual and inaccurate use of their empirical data. Why do they cling so desperately to the "death of environmentalism" frame? What is it, precisely, that scares them about environmentalism? I suspect their idea of American Greatness is their ideological core--they don't want to deal with the messy reality that human societies need limits of various kind, that human hubris is still as dangerous (as Chernobyl demonstrated), and that it takes moral structures and social sanctions to persuade people to behave more like Aesop's ants, worrying about the future, and less like grasshoppers, consuming it all at once.
It may not be accidental that Nietzsche is one of their favorite authors.
I had thought Mr. Pope and the Sierra Club were firm supporters of Joe Lieberman. HE is lecturing progressives? I guess Joe does too.
October 9, 2007 6:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
hmmm.... and this is a political weakness, right? O.K., I guess I'll reform, and try very hard to look forward to an economic fragmentation born of me-first-ism on a grand scale, social disintegration born of disregard for any belief in the commonwealth, and a ravaged continent shaped by industrial and technological hubris beyond measure. I shall bow, recite the creed of William Graham Sumner, and make my confession to Ayn Rand at least once a day.
How am I doing? Why don't I feel better now?
aMike
October 9, 2007 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I may be accused of oversimplifying things here but ultimately isn't just about any argument, including the environment, really all about economics? It's all about money isn't it? It's almost a stereotype but it seems that every discussion about virtually any issue brings this movie quote my to mind -
The problem is that many people think this way. And why not? After all it fits so nicely with the faux "Rugged/Independent" meme as well as the very real "As long as I get mine" mentality - both of which are hallmark characteristics of American business and culture. Perhaps this in part explains why environmental issues seem to find the least traction in American while they receive much more attention in say Europe. And contrary to the above quote's implied far-seeing perspective, greed isn't about anything more than the right here and now with you the individual gaining at the expense of all else/others. Hardly my idea of anything involving love, knowledge or an upward direction.
And when the environment is discussed or thought about, or in those rare instances dealt with, it is nearly always framed as an economic issue. And because of the economic light that the environment is seen in I think it tends to be seen by the average citizen much like economics is - an abstract conversation among "experts". Businesses are concerned about profits so they use phantoms to scare the average citizen into believing that thinking environmentally would cost THEM too much. At a certain level this is true, as costs are passed on to the consumer. But if our form of capitalism did not have greed and only greed pumping through it's veins, issues that effect society as a whole would be given the importance they deserve. So this economic warhead is doubly effective because it obfuscates the conversation leaving the public uninformed and compliant to what, in the end, turns out to be what's in the best interest of business profitability.
Now there are certainly economic factors involved in all environmental discussions and I would never suggest otherwise but it appears profitability has taken the seat at the head of the table. And until we allow the idea that having a healthy place to live now and in the future is more important than the idea of making more money now, I see little hope for real progress. In the meantime many of the nations in Europe will continue to look to the future while nations such as America and China will continue to try and destroy it.
And in terms of "politics of nostalgia" being a progressive weakness, this is a joke correct? Progressive thought looks to try and improve things and if it can be accused of looking too intently anywhere on the timeline it's the future. No, this is merely more conservative rhetoric. The real nostalgics are of course Republicans/conservatives. It is they who hold tightly to imperialism, colonialism, aristocracy, racial division (also see white supremacy) and of course hypocritical piousness. These are all very old and very wrong ways of thinking but these also represent the current conservative movement. And which party's "politics" wishes it was the 1950's again with it's evil Communist to fight, it's exploding suburbs of homes filled with women in aprons cooking for their hard working husbands? Perhaps someone needs a dictionary? Perhaps it's me as I apparently haven't bought the newly updated one and have confused conservative (oh no not change) with progressive (this isn't working let's try something else).
October 9, 2007 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the post, which was clear and substantive. As for "indeed, S&N’s attack on environmentalism could, in its most important particulars, have been crafted by various voices on the right," well, sure. that's why we're treating them seriously at all, rather than being unaware they exist. Same with the "liberal hawks."
The media needs a fair and balanced presentation in which both liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, support the right. So they found what they need, gave them unlimited publicity, and we have to fight a defensive action against them to have even marginal space in the public discourse. And we should be angry.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 9, 2007 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is illuminating that the Bush WH, as proxies for Detroit, has recently been fighting against minimum fuel efficiency standards for new cars by 2013 or so, which has been SOP for the past 30 years, after the memories of the oil embargo era faded. In this case, like many others, conservatism equals 'I want to keep on getting mine, no matter what.'
The dirty secret of economics is that what it doesn't measure, it ignores as being not measurable, and thus, 'outside the system.' From an economics standpoint, we are fine using oil right now, because it's still cheaper than other sources of energy--if you ignore the environmental and political costs.
otoh, our current political leadership has gladly spent about a trillion dollars on the Iraq War, much of it on behalf of the US petroleum industry--money which is gone now, but realistically, never had a chance of being spent on, say, alternative energy solutions. Priorities, priorities.
The political/corporate standpoint is to fight for the status quo, because that's where the money comes from (taxpayers be damned). The sad irony is that like our current government, they are merely hoping to run out the clock on their watch, and leave the next generation holding the empty bag.
The fact is, we currently have technology to help ameliorate the problem--what is lacking, and will continue to lack until something dramatic happens, is willpower on the political level to say 'No' to entrenched corporate interests.
October 9, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI, the Sierra Club did not endorse in the Lieberman/Lamont race. Both of them have sterling environmental records.
October 9, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love the Varmint. You got big varmints, little
varmints, varmints on 2, 4, 6, 8, and 1000 legs,
varmints with no legs, but what I DON'T like
are bleeding-heart overambitious carbon-based
waterbags(mostly harmless, and that's us),
who've decided to make saving the OTHER Varmints
their sacred and holy cause.
Reasoning? Well, for one, it's a lost cause.
Unless they're going to chase down half the
populace with a case of condoms and a staple gun
(that'll work out to quite a few condoms and
staples, by the way), they're not going to
stop people from reproducing. And, the human
population growth curve is on its' way up.
We may end up at Soylent Green long before
anyone anticipates, too.
At the turn of the 20th century, the early 1900's
there were an estimated 1.5 billion people
roaming the earth. Today, there's over 6.6 billion by current estimates. That's a 'wow'
moment, considering it took all of known earth
history to come up with the first billion, then
about 120 years to get to the 6.6 billion. Not
a very long time at all, and, if WWII hadn't
happened, likely there'd be 8 billion today.
What's it all mean? Well, I take it to mean
'love your varmints' but look at the causes, too.
People are hungry, thirsty, need shelter, need
jobs, so forth and so on. Everything that goes
on in civilization-land is largely an answer
to those desires and needs. Ah, want vs. need.
Madison Avenue is gonna hate me now...LOL
October 9, 2007 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Missing the point in a major way, if you think environmentalism is about saving non-human life. The issue is preserving the environment we know how to use (the current one).
Large changes in animal, insect, and plant populations can ruin agriculture, meaning hungry humans. Large burdens of particulates like soot can mean dead humans. Sea-level rise from climate change can mean drowned or homeless humans. Climate-change-induced droughts and floods can mean more hungy humans.
Most of the population growth is not in western industrial nations. For now, multiple children are a sound approach to ensuring a family's future in large parts of the world. Improve the economies in those countries, and families will not have so many kids.
October 9, 2007 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the correction. I am sorry for my incorrect assertion about endorsing Lieberman. (I still have some partisan bones to pick, namely however good Lieberman, Snowe, or Chaffee are on environmental issues, a Congress with them as part of the Republican majority is in my opinion an anti-environmental Congress)but my assertion on Sierra Club + Lieberman in 2006 was wrong.
October 9, 2007 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink