|
In 2004 Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus (S&N) published “The Death of Environmentalism,” an essay in which they describe environmentalism as an antiquated, failing institution unable to deal with the new challenges of global warming. Many environmental leaders wrote rebuttals critiquing the essay. (See Grist, environmental news website’s series http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-intro). They were especially critical of S&N’s simplistic portrayal of environmentalism and their overall consensus was that the essay’s overheated rhetoric prevented its points from being heard. In light of environmentalism’s failure to effect any major change on global warming, however, this is perhaps an acknowledgement that environmentalism does need to reinvent itself to deal with the enormous challenges posed by global warming.
In their recent book Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility, S&N expand on their arguments and advance the politics that they believe can remake environmentalism — and progressivism in general. (They also unfortunately include two infuriating and somewhat petty chapters about environmental justice and hypocritical environmentalists.) Their book shares some of the same weaknesses of their essay — a tendency to viciously pillory environmentalists, an overly simplified picture of environmentalism, and a penchant for overstatement — but it is also an impressive and lucid articulation of a new progressivism.
A spirit of pragmatism, of finding new ways to achieve environmental and progressive goals, drives the book. The authors draw upon focus groups and surveys to make arguments about what will build support for the prevention of global warming. A main prong of their argument is the idea that humans make decisions based on emotional, social, and other factors, not just rational argument; more useful than slapping people in the face with scientific data is finding a way to make the issue relevant and helpful to them.
This same sense of pragmatism underlies their argument that environmentalists must be willing to broaden their definition of environmentalism. For instance, environmentalists create sustainable projects in the Amazon to try to stop deforestation there. S&N argue that these efforts have been ineffective and that they overlook the main factors driving deforestation: poverty and Brazil’s foreign debt. Because campaigning for debt forgiveness and working to end poverty by building the economy lie outside of environmentalism’s traditional definition, environmentalists don’t see these projects as within their purview. Broadening their self-definition and work on these projects, however, might actually be more effective in reducing deforestation than their current efforts.
Along the same lines is the authors’ critique of the “politics of limits,” the use of regulation to force industry to limit its carbon dioxide emissions. S&N argue that environmentalists actually counter their own agenda by making global warming prevention a constraint on industry. More political will would be generated by defining the problems leading to global warming as “our failure to create new economies, new patterns of development, new housing, and a new consumer culture,” as well as an opportunity for government investment in clean technology, to create new jobs, and to increase the standard of living in developing countries.
Concomitant with their disdain of the politics of limits is their dismissal of reducing personal consumption. They feel that such conservation would only marginally reduce emissions and, moreover, is unpalatable. This rejection is surprising, however, because by applying their own arguments to the “sacrifice” of decreasing one’s carbon footprint, one can offer a powerful argument in favor of doing so.
It is a simple question of reframing the debate. They define the reduction of personal consumption as ascetic deprivation, but this is the same zero-sum logic they deride. Such reductions can actually improve one’s quality of life: eating locally causes better health, buying less saves money, conserving electricity replaces television with stronger social relationships, and so on.
Indeed, journalist and author Colin Beaven made a similar argument in a debate with Shellenberger. In 2006, Beaven and his family embarked on an experiment in which they attempted to consume only what was absolutely necessary, called “No Impact Man.” After a year, he concluded that, up to a point, decreasing one’s consumption actually improves quality of life. Indeed, he writes that “using less doesn’t have to feel like deprivation…often, living a lifestyle that is better for the planet is better for the person.” (See his post on Dec. 18, 2007: http://www.noimpactman.typepad.com)
Underlying their whole discussion is the concept of the “environment.” In popular discourse, it is conceptualized as having a serene, unchanging, and natural state with which humans interfere. In fact, though, “long before there were humans, volcanoes erupted, asteroids hit Earth, and great extinctions occurred…throughout the animal kingdom there was murder and gang rape.” Indeed, the environment continuously changes as organisms shape and make use of their surroundings; it does not have any natural, correct course that humans are destroying.
This does not, however, necessitate environmental nihilism. Perfectly reasonable arguments for preserving nature can be made: for the benefit of the resident flora and fauna, for its ecological services, because it’s beautiful, and so on. It does mean — and this is S&N’s main point — that instead of claiming to speak for a singular, natural environment, environmentalists instead speak to their vision of one possible environment among many.
Such an acknowledgement may prompt deeper reflection among environmentalists. Indeed, Break Through will prompt readers not only to reconsider how to solve the grave problems that global warming poses, but what it means to be an environmentalist. |
