Lauren RabainoEnvironmentalism is dead. Well, don’t call the coroner just yet. It’s not quite dead, but it is on its very last legs. I’m referring to the old school of environmental thinking. You know, the one that pushed for those great bills way back when, a few being the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act. They did some incredible things during their prime and we are all deeply indebted. But it is now time for that school of thought to cede over their authority to the new-schoolers. All of this is in reference to the now-infamous article written by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, titled “The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World” (you can read it at www.thebreakthrough.org).
Seeing as there has been a bit of controversy brewing in this paper about the whole global warming issue, I figured I’d put in my two cents. The truth of the matter is that there is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming. The most respected scientific bodies in the world have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring and that people are causing it by burning fossil fuels.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House called “the gold standard of objective scientific assessment,” issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying: “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.”
The only real debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of these emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global climate change and we have more than enough facts about causes and fixes to implement solutions right now.
And for the record, I did not walk out of a screening of “An Inconvenient Truth” as a converted eco-warrior. All of my passion and interest in this movement comes from a deeply seeded feeling I have that we, as a society, can live better. Our species has so much incredible potential and that begins with self-management. While past societies have failed (ex: Angkor Wat) due to their own ignorance, we still have the opportunity to right our misdoings with our advanced knowledge of systems and our current technology. For a proverbial “cold shower” on where past societies went wrong, check out Jared Diamond’s “Collapse.”
Over the last two decades environmental organizations have put millions of dollars into combating global warming. What do they have to show for it? Very little thus far, I’m afraid. In the article: “The greatest achievements to reduce global warming are today happening in Europe. Britain has agreed to cut carbon emissions by 60 percent over 50 years, Holland by 80 percent in 40 years, and Germany by 50 percent in 50 years. Environmentalists are learning all the wrong lessons from Europe. We closely scrutinize the policies without giving much thought to the politics that made the policies possible. Our thesis is this: the environmental community’s narrow definition of its self-interest leads to a kind of policy literalism that undermines its power.” We need a new set of politics that focuses not on enforcing regulations, but on promoting investments.
The public overwhelmingly supports investment into renewable energy technologies and views research into renewable technologies as the best approach to achieving energy independence. A 2007 Gallup poll found investment to be the most popular (77 percent) of a set of policy responses to global warming. As a political message, when investment is framed as creating American energy independence AND fighting global warming, it proves to be tremendously powerful.
In the eyes of the average American citizen, both the cost of energy and energy independence are higher priority concerns than global warming; this should come as no surprise. It is a far more broad and abstract subject when compared to the simple tangibility of an electricity bill.
According to the IPCC, the Stern Review and most energy experts, any truly comprehensive response to global warming will include both regulation and investment in the development of new energy technologies. Those investments solve two political problems facing global climate change regulations: investments are seen as a means both to lower energy costs and to increase the strength of the national economy. An analysis by Joseph Carroll of Gallup’s April 2007 poll on global warming states, “In terms of what the government should be doing, the public supports major research efforts to develop new energy sources.”
We will soon say farewell to the era of old environmentalism. But with its death comes new life.
Ben Eckold is a business junior and a Mustang Daily environmental columnist.