Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
A HEALTHY MOVEMENT.
I agree with, and suggest folks read, Kate's take on the "bad boys of environmentalism," Nordhaus and Shellenberger. The best way to describe their argument is that in its weak form -- we need to invest in renewable energy technologies -- it's banal, and in its strong form -- we should be so single-minded about that as to abandon efforts to limit carbon emissions -- it's really, really, wrong. Meanwhile, I suggest folks read their Salon article, where they come off as a little bit loony in their attempts to attack the environmental movement.
Environmental tales of tragedy begin with Nature in harmony and almost always end in a quasi-authoritarian politics. Eco-tragic narratives diagnose human desire, aspiration, and striving to overcome the constraints of our world as illnesses to be cured or sins to be punished. They aim to short-circuit democratic values by establishing Nature as it is understood and interpreted by scientists as the ultimate authority that human societies must obey.
Come again? I don't know what's weirder: The accusations of authoritarianism or the anti-intellectualism. I would be interested in who N&S think we should be listening to on environmental policy if not scientists, and where, given that their background is a mixture of social science and statistics, they come off deriding expertise. The whole nut of the N&S view of the world is that their survey research has shown that human nature requires a lot of happy talk to muster the courage for positive reforms, and we should trust their scientific data on how humans react rather than our own intuition/political experience. So yeah, consider me unconvinced.
Meanwhile, it's quite strange to hear criticisms of the environmental movement at this instant in time, given that I can't even recall a recent political movement that's been as successful at injecting their concerns and proposed solutions into the political debate as the environmentalists. Climate change has emerged onto the agenda from seemingly nowhere, and solutions like carbon taxes and cap-and-trade programs that would've seem laughably utopian mere years ago are now proudly advocated by presidential candidates. And this is the movement N&S have arrived to save. Sorry doctors, but the patient seems pretty healthy.
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (5)
Ezra--
1. Name one major accomplishment by the environmental lobby over the past 15 years.
2. You grotesquely, and uncharacteristically, mistate N&S's position. It's not "that human nature requires a lot of happy talk to muster the courage for positive reforms, and we should trust their scientific data on how humans react rather than our own intuition/political experience." Rather, it's that hope and inspiration work better than fear. Fear is great for getting a country to invade Iraq; after that, not so much.
Oh, and it hasn't been the environmentalists who got global warming concerns and proposed solutions into the political debate (in the US). It was Al Gore.
Posted by: vorkosigan1 | October 11, 2007 3:43 PM
Why does discussion of environmental policy and climate change almost always degenerate into name calling, where one side or the other acuses the other of being a "loony?" Could it be that the discussion is essentially theological not political? Also, on what basis is a commitment to radical reduction of CO2 emissions automatically assumed to be the "progressive" position? To me the evidence is not there. There have been self-styled leftists and self-styled conservatives on both sides of the debate over "limits" to growth. But Ezra's commentary leaves one believing that the "climate change" issue "coming out of nowhere" is by definition a victory "progressives" should cheer. Your use of words like "loony" to describe what I see as an essentially correct description of the tendency of many environmentalists to want to police other people's choices, does not make up for your lack of an argument. A full scale debate on the Left about doomsday environmentalism is vitally necessary. I have not read what Nordhaus and Schellenberger have said, but after reading these attacks on them it has risen to the top of my reading list. Readers of this blog should be very skeptical of posts that try to shut down debate on something so vital to the long-term prospects of success of progressive ideals.
Posted by: res publica | October 11, 2007 4:06 PM
One must admit that progressive goals are very frequently thwarted by the "will of the people," especially in the US with its largely narrow-minded, anti-intellectual, bigoted, and solipsistic populace. For example, why did slavery endure so long and why does racism continue to exist? A government consisting of experts (natural scientists, social scientists, etc.) exercising authority for the benefit of the whole society and doing so within certain constraints would allow for a far more progressive society--one that is more egalitarian, more prosperous, healthier, safer, and in which the potential of every single person could be realized to its fullest.
Posted by: Binder | October 11, 2007 4:48 PM
Funny, I read their book. Didn't notice their call to "abandon efforts to limit carbon emissions." In fact, they make pretty clear that they do favor a cap-and-trade regime.
Can you provide a citation?
Posted by: Jack | October 12, 2007 1:42 AM
I can't even recall a recent political movement that's been as successful at injecting their concerns and proposed solutions into the political debate as the environmentalists.
How about the folks who want to privatize Social Security? That went from fringe to mainstream far faster than climate change. And our government has actually held votes on that topic, whereas the political will on either side to take more than symbolic steps on climate change seems almost entirely lacking.
Posted by: Stentor | October 12, 2007 7:37 PM