The “Politics of Possibility”, Part 2

…the continued review of “Break Through” by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger.

Reading this book reminds me of the Design Studies course we took in the ITPD program at the University of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg. One of the class sessions was dedicated to framing an idea. I took away the lesson that the framing of an idea is at least as equal in power as the actual supporting evidence.

In “Break Through,” the authors do not deny the “traditional” evidence of the environmentalist movement, such as the destruction of the rainforest, pollution of natural resources, and extinction of indigenous species. Instead, they argue against the framing of the gradual destruction of the environment as humans imposing on Nature.

Rather than dissolving the distinction between humans and Nature, environmentalists reverse the hierarchy, arguing that humans are still separate from but subordinate to Nature. This reversal is motivated by the view that our perfectly healthy and natural desire to control out environment is a sinful desecration of Nature. But it must be asked: can human societies exist without, in one way or another, controlling Nature? (134-135)

It’s a subtle shift to say humans are a part of nature as opposed to imposing on Nature. Yet, the actions warranted by each frame are nearly opposite. If humans are imposing on Nature (aka the “natural order” of the world), then the solution to our prolonged destruction of the environment is to severely limit our use of natural resources and “reduce our impact”. However, if, as creationists and evolutionists would agree, humans are a part of nature, then the goal should be to redirect our development in a positive, less harmful direction.

The growth of human society and development of technology are not inherently bad activities, necessarily sending the whole planet towards oblivion. Rather, they are facts of human existence than can easily be pointed in a positive, healthy direction. Humans have an incredible ability to adapt to change and to use acquired knowledge to improve and grow upon the past. The recent evidence for global warming is not a harbinger of our impending doom, but rather support to focus our efforts in a new way and to consider the global impact of the technologies we develop and policies we enact.

The “Politics of Possibility”, Part 1

I’ve slipped into the bad habit of reading online reviews of books before I read them, but thought they might provide some context for a controversial book such as “Break Through” by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger. Most of the critiques of this one were similar to comments at Ted’s talk, with a stronger focus on the authors’ negativity towards the current environmentalist movement. Which probably means the commenters, like most opinionated folks on the internets, didn’t manage to actually pay attention to the book they were reading.

It’s difficult to take book taglines seriously these days, but the one for “Break Through” is appropriately “From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility”. There is a good deal of negativity in the book, but it is manifest as frustration. The authors are quite explicitly opposed to the approaches of many facets of the environmentalist movement. In that opposition, though, they offer optimism that a more holistic movement will arise:

…so long as so many Americans are fearful, pessimistic, and insecure, America’s social values ecology is unlikely to support the kinds of changes required to deal with global warming…Creating a new progressive political consensus requires paying close attention to social values, how they are evolving, and how we might create a new social contract for postmaterial American that can provide enough security and prosperity to support a new, more ecological era. (39-40)

I have been enjoying their writing and find the arguments well supported and footnoted. I’ll write next time about some of the examples they give, avoiding absurd statistics as much as possible.

Ted Nordhaus: Rethinking environmentalism

On Tuesday, I attended a talk at Powell’s by Ted Nordhaus, an author and long-time environmentalist. I recently read an article about him and co-author Michael Shellenberger in Wired that piqued my interest in their book “Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility“.

Ted’s main idea is that the current efforts of the environmentalist movement are unrealistic in their expectations and ineffective in their long-term goals. By fighting lots of little battles (cutting car emissions, capping carbon output, reducing consumerism), the movement has lost sight of the bigger picture. Without large scale, systemic change, we might be able to slow the destroying of our planet, but not prevent its untimely demise.

He pointed out that the solution of cutting back to save the environment is an appeal by the middle/upper classes of developed nations to others in a similar socioeconomic class. It’s easier to convince middle class families in Oregon to pay a slight premium for wind power than to convince a rural village in China to not build a coal power plant. Both would have similar impacts on carbon emissions, but only one would result in being left behind without electricity. It’s not that the Chinese villagers don’t care about the environment; their priorities are more centered around immediate survival and economic development.

The solution: a massive development effort to bring down the cost of alternative energy sources to a level that will compete with traditional sources. Until the price of solar/wind/nuclear/hydroelectic/geothermal power is competitive with coal, developing nations such as India and China simply aren’t going to “go green”.

There’s a lot more Ted said in his talk that I’d like to share, so I’ll continue to post while I read the book. Also, I recorded the talk, but don’t know of a good way to share it. Any ideas?