Do environmentalists need a new politics?
October 1st, 2008Posted by: admin
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger argue in their book Break Through that environmentalists need to transition from a ‘politics of limits’ to a ‘politics of possibilities:’
Through their stories, institutions, and policies, environmentalists constantly reinforce the sense that nature is something separate from, and victimized by, humans. This paradigm defines ecological problems as the inevitable consequences of humans violating nature. Think of the verbs associated with environmentalism and conservation: “stop,” “restrict,” “prevent,” “regulate,” and “constrain.” All of them direct our thinking to stopping the bad, not creating the good.
…we must choose between a resentful narrative of tragedy and a grateful narrative of over coming.
In yesterday’s Los Angeles Times, Nordhaus and Shellenberger illustrate this argument with a practical example of how a politics of possibilities might be more effective than the status quo.
As the election enters its endgame, Democrats and their environmental allies face a political challenge they could hardly have imagined just a few months ago. America’s growing dependence on fossil fuels, once viewed as a Democratic trump card held alongside the Iraq war and the deflating economy, has become a lodestone instead. Republicans stole the energy issue from Democrats by proposing expanded drilling — particularly lifting bans on offshore oil drilling — to bring down gasoline prices. Whereas Barack Obama told Americans to properly inflate their tires, Republicans at their convention gleefully chanted “Drill, baby, drill!” Obama’s point on conservation and efficiency was lost on an electorate eager for a solution to what they perceive as a supply crisis…
In a tacit acknowledgment of their defeat, some green leaders, such as the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, have endorsed the Democrats’ pro-drilling strategy. But few of them seem to realize the political implications. The most influential environmental groups in Washington — the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund — are continuing to bet the farm on a strategy that relies on emissions limits and other regulations aimed at making fossil fuels more expensive in order to encourage conservation, efficiency and renewable energy. But with an economic recession likely, and energy prices sure to remain high for years to come thanks to expanding demand in China and other developing countries, any strategy predicated centrally on making fossil fuels more expensive is doomed to failure.
A better approach is to make clean energy cheap through technology innovation funded directly by the federal government. In contrast to raising energy prices, investing somewhere between $30 billion and $50 billion annually in technology R&D, infrastructure and transmission lines to bring power from windy and sunny places to cities is overwhelmingly popular with voters. Instead of embracing this big investment, greens and Democrats push instead for tiny tax credits for renewable energy — nothing approaching the national commitment that’s needed.
…Environmental groups, perpetually certain that a new ecological age is about to dawn in America, have serially overestimated their strength and misread public opinion. Democrats must break once and for all from green orthodoxy that focuses primarily on making dirty energy more expensive and instead embrace a strategy to make clean energy cheap.
By continuing to hew to the green agenda, Democrats have not only put in jeopardy their chance of taking back the White House and growing their majority in Congress, they also have set back the prospects of establishing policies that might effectively address the climate and energy crises.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pm
So instead of forcing consumers to pay higher prices, the answer is to make them pay higher taxes? Perhaps the problem here is that these groups always want to resort to force.
October 4th, 2008 at 7:43 am
In Canada, the Liberal’s proposal of a carbon tax raises interesting questions. The idea is to tax the oil companies, and redistribute the money as tax cuts for low income citizens, to alleviate the inevitable increase in gas prices. So, in other words, with the tax cuts, everybody can keep buying their gas as before. Higher income people won’t care for a 10 cent rise in gas prices anyway. The net result can only be no reduction in greenhouse gas emissions! But… a large increase in bureaucracy, because of the numerous exemptions to protect various interest groups.
The problem is, of course, that there is no easy way to reduce oil dependence. Low income workers already have small cars, but they can’t afford living near their workplace and need to use their cars just for going to work. In the end, there seems to be no comprehensive solution but a technological one. Indeed, energy efficiency, I believe, keeps going up because of improved technology. There is already an economical incentive to develop energy efficient technologies: who wouldn’t want a car doing 100 mpgs?!
Those pragmatic considerations aside, we are facing, as a civilization, an interesting clash, or shift, in culture. In ancient times, Nature was seen as a threat, as a Force outside of our control. The scientific revolution represents a shift towards a view where humans have the power to control that force. Some even argue that christianity was the first step towards that shift, by placing the power over Nature in the hands of a single, and external God. Gone were the many spirits animating the natural world. But environmentalism is based on the idea that WE are a threat to Nature, and not the opposite. Some have argued that the comfort and riches brought about by technological progress inevitably lead a society to technological conservatism, and eventually technological decline. I believe we are in the middle of this shift. The idea of technological progress is still strong, but the refusal of new technologies is growing. Maybe this will be followed by a geographical shift towards more dynamic societies like China?
October 4th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I wonder the claim made by Nordhaus and Schellenberger is really true;
“Instead of embracing this big investment, greens and Democrats push instead for tiny tax credits for renewable energy — nothing approaching the national commitment that’s needed.” It sounds a bit off to me, does anyone have some kind of citation for this?
I also have to point out that many DC based environmental groups are full of people whose training is in law. Their natural reaction to problems is to seek legal solutions (if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail). Just like us scientists, or preachers or whatever; it is the nature of us who have an affinity with our tools, developed through years of education and practice, to naturally propose them as solutions for whatever problem rears its head.
In discussions with those national environmental groups, I sometimes do the thought experiment- what if they hired 1/2 technologists/engineers, 1/2 lawyers, would the preferred policy approach change? The correlation between discipline and preferred policy option appears to me to be particularly high in the climate change world.
October 6th, 2008 at 3:16 am
David, can you tell us what point YOU are trying to make?
October 6th, 2008 at 8:15 am
TokyoTom,
Sure.
First off, I am curious to learn how others perceive the S&N argument in a specific context. I enjoyed reading the responses and learning the perspectives of Stan, Francois, and Docpine. Additionally, two other individuals emailed me with substantive responses. I have asked both if I can post their emails anonymously. No word yet!
Second, I think it is imperative that those of us interested in achieving our desired policy outcomes to think critically about our strategies and be able to have an open and transparent discourse. From personal discussions, it seems that many individuals miss this interpretation of S&N argument. I think their LA Times article demonstrates this position clearly. In other words, this post is about the dissemination of an idea.
October 6th, 2008 at 11:30 am
A comment via email from an individual who wishes to remain anonymous:
“Interesting observations from Schellenberger & Nordhaus. We have a federal election underway in Canada as well, and something very similar happened here too. The Liberal Party has been heavily promoting “the Green Shift”; which party leader Stephane Dion explained on a Quebec talk show the other night as “taxer la pollution, baisser les impots” (tax pollution, cut income taxes).
Conservative critics have described this as a tax grab and a wealth transfer from the energy-producing west to the “east”- ever the villain in Canadian populism- and this view seems to be gaining ground. The application of this strategy (admittedly among other factors- like Dion’s weak self-presentation in English and the hangover from recent Liberal party scandals) has resulted in sinking Liberal standing in the polls and widespread confusion about what the Green Shift actually means. The conservatives (whose current base is energy-rich Alberta) are widely expected to form the next govt, with the only question being whether they’ll hold a majority or minority of seats in parliament.
What’s striking here is the parallel. In both countries, high-level political promotional efforts to begin moving national economies beyond carbon have been effectively terminated by short-term economic pain from high energy costs (likely now compounded by economic contraction). Both countries may very likely end up with precisely the wrong policies required to have any hope of reducing GHG emissions for the foreseeable future. Of course, other problems may become a bit more pressing in the short-term (or will at least appear that way), but backburnering climate considerations invites big trouble down the road.
I think it’s more than just environmentalists that need a new narrative right now. Our whole global political/economic system is going through some very big convulsions, and we need a much more comprehensive way to identify, understand, and interact with the forces that are currently pushing the system into a whole new state. From what I can see, standard political labels and ideological perspectives are rapidly losing their old meanings, and we’d better figure out the new landscape pretty quickly.”
October 9th, 2008 at 1:03 am
Francois: “environmentalism is based on the idea that WE are a threat to Nature, and not the opposite.”
I disagree. Environmentalism is based on the ideas that (1)industry should not be allowed to freely transfer costs to others in the form of pollution, and (2) that unowned or poorly managed open-access resources and ecosystem services are valuable and should be protected.
David: Thanks for clarifying somewhat where you are coming from; otherwise, we are left with guessing that you simply want to be a mouthpiece for S&N.
My own perspective is that their arguments are really NOT at all removed from the environmental mainstream, but they are positioning themselves as outsiders to attract attention. They are in favor of having the government spend substantial taxpayer sums in picking technology winners; the difference, if any, is that they are not loudly in favor of pricing carbon via carbon taxes or emissions permits, and then letting the market work to find ways to lighten carbon footprints.
Tactically, they have been successful in drawing attention to themselves, and perhaps in spurring mainstream environmental grous to get in bed with folks like Pickens who are looking for government handouts, but otherwise it’s hard to see that they have really achieved anything.