Break Down
In another response on Grist to Break Through, the latest manifesto from Shellenberger and Nordhaus, (the opinion researchers who penned the famous Death of Environmentalism essay), NRDC's Dave Hawkens calls the duo "passionate but confused." That sounds harsh, but having read the book, I can vouch for the assessment.
At their best the authors have many smart and impassioned things to say; just as often they are vague, overreaching and self-contradictory. They argue, for example, that government has no motivation to raise energy prices, yet they blithely envision a government motivated to make massive investments in clean energy. They argue against a regulations-centric approach to combating climate change before acknowledging, as Hawkens highlights, that regulations are a requirement:
"There is an existential question at the heart of the debate over global warming," the authors write. "Can green groups transform themselves into institutions motivated by a vision of prosperity and possibility? Or will they remain grounded in the politics of pollution and limits?"
Whatever. The real existential question doesn't concern green groups. The stakes are way higher than that. The real existential question is the one confronting civilization, and so far, I'm afraid, no one can lay claim to having the answers.
At their best the authors have many smart and impassioned things to say; just as often they are vague, overreaching and self-contradictory. They argue, for example, that government has no motivation to raise energy prices, yet they blithely envision a government motivated to make massive investments in clean energy. They argue against a regulations-centric approach to combating climate change before acknowledging, as Hawkens highlights, that regulations are a requirement:
...the effort to reduce and stabilize global greenhouse gas emissions will require a major regulatory effort to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules, provide a stable investment environment for nations and businesses, and increase the cost of fossil fuels relative to cleaner energy sources.They argue against complaint-based politics and in favor of visionary leadership (as if anyone could be against visionary leadership), then write a book that amounts to one long-winded complaint. As you might guess from the title of their book, Shellenberger and Nordhaus, argue we need a breakthrough -- nothing less than a paradigm shift -- if we are to overcome our predicament. But that's a hope, not a prescription.
"There is an existential question at the heart of the debate over global warming," the authors write. "Can green groups transform themselves into institutions motivated by a vision of prosperity and possibility? Or will they remain grounded in the politics of pollution and limits?"
Whatever. The real existential question doesn't concern green groups. The stakes are way higher than that. The real existential question is the one confronting civilization, and so far, I'm afraid, no one can lay claim to having the answers.
2 Comments:
This seems pretty misrepresentative of what they're actually saying:
"In terms of birthing a new energy economy, regulation is important -- it's just not the most important thing. The highest objective of anyone concerned about global warming must be to bring down the real price of clean energy below the price of dirty energy as quickly as possible -- most importantly, in places like China."
Since massive public investment is the only way to jump-start clean tech innovation on the scale that is needed, it's just as or more important then regulation -- especially when regulation raises energy prices and is far more politically unpopular.
Thanks for the comment.
I don't have much argument with that statement you quote. In fact, as other commenters have pointed out, most self-described environmentalists have very little argument with most of what N and S are saying. But N and S do seem to pretend to have the answers, when what they all they really have in terms of prescriptions are rather vague notions and vain hopes.
Yes, by all means, let's make clean energy cheaper than dirty energy. How? Their answer is, We need a technological breakthrough. And to get that breakthrough we need massive public investment. Okay, so how do you bring that investment about? Their answer, near as I can tell: Elect visionary politicians. Oh, is that all?
It's a little like the coach who tells his team they need to score more points in order to win. Yeah, yeah, we know. Question is: How?
They point to things like the Apollo Project and the Internet (Arpanet) as precedents for this kind of major governmental effort, but those were spawned by Cold War paranoia -- not to promote progressive technologies. The Internet is a happy accident, not the result of visionary politics.
So, we know societies can be motivated by war and military threats. The question becomes how we achieve the same level of motivation here. (How to make it, in William James's words, which Gore likes to quote, 'the moral equivalent of war'?) So far, no one has succeeded. N and S can wave their hands and stomp their feet all they want, but they'e no closer to answering that question than anyone else.
Finally, if fossil fuels, and in particular coal, remain cheap (i.e. if there's no regulation to cap or tax carbon), then where is the motivation to stop burning them? The answer that makes the most sense to me and most economists is, by imposing a price on it. N and S say this is politically unpopular.
Fair enough. Sounds like a job for visionary leadership.
Post a Comment
<< Compass Main