Response to Romm
First, allow me to apologize to Joseph Romm. I did indeed misread "delayers" as "deniers."
That said, it doesn't change my argument that much. I've long been nervous about green's using the phrase "climate change deniers." The obvious political reference is to Holocaust deniers, and I don't believe the current usage matches that much more serious precedent. While some so-called deniers do seem to be acting in bad faith at a very high level, I'm still not sure it rises to the level set by Holocaust denial. And as a result, our notion of climate change politics is at risk: if all the adversaries to green programs were on the level of Holocaust deniers, we wouldn't have a political problem, which in my view, we do.
Which gets me to "delayers." I'm emphatically not calling anyone here a Leninist, but this logic does remind me of the bad old days of leftist revolutionary strategy. Many leftists argued that "reformism" couldn't be tolerated because reforms would delay the revolution. I think we can all agree that this was bad logic, at least in the western developed countries. I'd argue that this logic, which I recall still being recited in the U.S. in the '70s, seriously damaged the left.
The term "delayers" implies that we know the steps that need to be taken; opposition only delays action that would otherwise be imminent. I sincerely don't believe that is the case. Just to take one example from Romm's entry, the question of the utility of public investment is a question I'd want to study further. The debate between public investment and regulation hasn't been settled. Do we need to be massively on one side or another of that debate, or do we want to avoid making an ideological distinction between the two, allowing us some room to maneuver? That's an interesting question, and I don't think it has been settled.
So, if I want us to debate such political questions, does that make me a "delayer?" I suppose so. If the path were clear and I was somehow obstructing it, it would be correct to call me a delayer. But for now, those of us who want to talk politics aren't "delaying," since the path forward isn't all that clear.
Comments (12)
So if Mr. Chaloupka is going to forbid us to use the perfectly good English word "denier" for any but crazed anti-Semites, what does he propose we call those who seek to cast doubt on the nearly universally accepted concept of global warming? Clearly many of them *are* acting in bad faith. What do we call 'em?
October 10, 2007 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
This just misses the point. The name doesn't matter. If you're defending S&N you have to defend the notion that there is an unforseen new technolgoy out there waiting to be developed that will solve the problem. What's your evidence of that?
This is a simple debate: the technology is either out there or it isn't.
Why are we bickering abut semantics?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 10, 2007 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, destor23 misses the point. You don't need "unforseen new technolgoy" (sic), and that's not what S & N are calling for.
All you need to do is invest sufficiently in current technology--say, $30 billion per year in solar cells, as one example--and you're there. And that is what S & N are calling for.
October 10, 2007 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
S&N said:
"We proposed a major investment in clean-energy jobs, research and development, infrastructure, and transit, with the goal of achieving energy independence. The political thinking was that this agenda would win over blue-collar and swing voters and Reagan Democrats in the presidential battleground states of the Midwest, and excite the high-tech creative class at the same time. And by putting serious public investment on the table--$300 billion over ten years--we hoped we could break through the logjam that had divided business, labor, and environmental groups for years."
R&D seems like a search for new technologies to me. Or at least towards massive improvements on the technologies you spoke about. it's probably both.
Still, that's the debate. Not whether or not S&N have the best language, or even whether not S&N's policy is popular or easy to sell. We have to debate whether or not it will work.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 10, 2007 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Destor's point is well-taken: we're not hearing real justification for a new energy policy centered around the suspiciously feel-good achievements of new technology so much as sneers at those who don't get the message. This time, it appears, they're not Leninists, you see, because that'd make the speaker into a bit of an extremist akin to a red baiter himself, but they sure act that way, right?
But it's not the only point. The same tactics also appear to avoid justifying the supposed political wisdom and pragmatism on which the whole thing rests. Dan K was good this morning on that and how tied up it seems in the borrowing of right-wing talking points about the environmental movement. Once we put things in right-wing terms, sure environmentalism can't be justified without trashing it and starting over. But why should we?
If someone wants some real-world grounding on that one, how about quoting someone who's anything but an icon to what Howard Dean might have called but wisely didn't the Leninist wing of the Democratic party. Here's Thomas Friedman this morning:
Little girls get it. So why don't pundits like N&S? Perhaps deniers isn't a bad term after all, but for deniers of where people's minds are going.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 10, 2007 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It might also be noted that Chaloupka has had the idea that the environmental movement is fallacious and out of touch for a long time, indeed well before global warming appeared on the table. He's best known as co-author of a book that basically argues that environmentalists elevate nature to an abstraction apart from culture, human ends, and cultural constructs. It's sort of a pomo version of "environmentalists are tree huggers."
I can get into it, too, sometimes. Harper's loves articles in which Rebecca Solnit insists that you can't truly appreciate environmental issues unless you've personally walked across America, preferably in bare feet or sandals. But is it really the political landscape we've fought over for a long time, and is it honest to use it in conjunction with special claims about the global warming?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 10, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
This strikes me as a smear. Throwing around words like "sneer", "Leninists", and "right-wing" may get the emotions charged up, but it would help if you gave some examples of S&N's actual words.
October 10, 2007 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, just using the quote you cited above, S&N said $300B for:
1. clean-energy jobs
2. research and development
3. infrastructure, and
4. transit
Sure, R&D is part of it. But S&N are talking about breaking the logjam, which requires significant spending on all of those. Why are you focused just on the R&D? Help me out here!
Thanks.
October 10, 2007 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but you're being dishonest. I was taking "Leninist" from the post and was disturbed to see it there. Go and read it. I was not the one indulging in extreme name calling.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 10, 2007 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whoops, you're absolutely right. My apologies. I should have read more carefully.
October 10, 2007 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, all of those things are technology based. But I focus on R&D because S&N's language is clearly R&D focused. They're the ones trying to excite techies, after all.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 10, 2007 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, you and I disagree, then. It looks to me like those are your opinions about S&N, rather than fact-based. I think they're trying to excite everybody.
October 11, 2007 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink