Customer Reviews

Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Edit 2010707: I just noticed a soon to be available book which may be complementary to my critique of S&N. If this review of 'Break Through' was useful to you, you might check out Techno-Fix: Why Technology Won't Save Us Or the Environment. Hopefully it will be a good read.

========


I gave the authors the benefit of the doubt when I borrowed this book because their initial essay "The Death of Environmentalism", which I read a couple of years back, generated responses from significant people. While this book wasn't a total waste of time for me to read (love it or hate it, it is a part of the literature), neither did it actually provide a useful way forward, in my opinion. For those folks who don't consider themselves environmentally informed, it's likely a waste of time and will leave you with a wrong impression of the contributions and writings of others. Too much of this book is spent trying to show off their own ideas by belittling others. Nonetheless, the authors do go out of their way to show how learned they are by quoting from everyone with a high-sounding name.

The general tone of the book reminds me of Elmer Fudd. Like the arch-nemesis of talking bunnies the world over, the authors have trouble seeing straight at times while tending to shoot first and aim second. Occasionally they hit a useful target but too often miss wildly, sometimes working feverishly to cover their tracks by misrepresenting the work of others. Examples are found below. The arguments are poorly presented and sometimes you gotta wonder if you too can get some of whatever it is that they're smoking!

This review will take specific examples from the text and comment on them.

The primary point I took away is that S&N believe that, without actually stating whether or not they believe that such limits exist, nature advocacy should get away from any notion of limits.

"Few things have hampered environmentalism more than its longstanding position that limits to growth are the remedy for ecological crises [sic]. We argue for an explicitly pro-growth agenda that defines the kind of prosperity we believe is necessary to improve the quality of human life and to overcome ecological crises." p.15.

First, even if the phrase made sense, I don't recall anyone stating that "limits to growth are the remedy for ecological crises". If there are limits to growth they simply mean that there is a limit to the biophysical capacity of the planet to (re)generate natural capital that humanity (and other species) can consume or a limit to the waste products that can be assimilated. They are not a remedy for, or a cause of, anything; they just are (and as soon as one acknowledges there is a limited amount of anything on the planet -- fish, water, sunshine, arrogant authors -- then you acknowledge that such limits exist. Perhaps there is a case to be made for the existence of unlimited arrogance).

They further state, in a delightful example of their periodic immodest assertions, that:

"Many environmentalists and environmental justice advocates argue that economic growth and development are not inconsistent with sustainability and environmental health, and in this they are correct." p.88

The authors don't provide a list of 100, 20 or even 1 of these advocates and I would argue that there are brighter minds than theirs working on the (in)capacity of the planet for unlimited economic growth (e.g. Daly, Rees) so to state that "they are correct" without evidence, is rather self-important and without factual basis. There are some others (McDonough and Braungart, Cradle to Cradle) who also profess a similar growth-forever mantra made "sustainable" by eliminating the concept of waste and closing the loop on the production/waste cycle (though even M&B don't acknowledge that the closed loop in an ever-increasing economy -- i.e. more and more consumer goods -- will require ever more resources to be added).


S&N show us their philosophical side as well, quoting de Tocqueville and, elsewhere, philosophizing on pollution:

"...the overreliance of environmentalists on visual evidence of humans' degradation of nature is a consequence of the environmentalists interpretive framework; principally, the idea of pollution. Consider that the meaning of the word pollution depends on the concept of nature as pure, harmonious, and separate from humans. Pollution is this kind of contamination, or violation,, of nature, by humans. Similarly, human development is an encroachment upon nature. These are not simply analytical categories but moral ones as well. Nature has been unjustly violated by mankind." p.25

"Interpretive framework"? If we just interpreted things differently there would be no "pollution"? Maybe you get a different meaning to their comments. It seems clear to me that artificial chemicals in nature, for example, are pollutants which destroy entire ecosystems, large and small. I write this off to the authors just trying to sound important. Every species that I know of generates waste products; the thing is, over the course of billions of years of evolution nature has found ways to turn that waste into food for another process or organism. Humans, however, are both generating "known" waste products (e.g. CO2) in amounts greatly exceeding the planet's assimilative capacity, as well as creating new compounds that nature has never before had to evolve to make use of, so who knows what nature will do with these compounds, toxic and otherwise.

Then there is this gem:

"Just as prosperity tends to bring out the best of human nature, poverty and collapse tend to bring out the worst." p.35

Timely, given that that the banking crisis happened so recently, certainly an example of prosperity bringing out the best of human nature. A mind-boggling over-simplification indicative of the level of intellectual rigor throughout.

I'll close with a glaring misrepresentation (it can't have been accidental) from about the mid-point in the book, where S&N quote from Jared Diamond's book, Collapse. In the referenced section of "Collapse" Diamond discusses the likelihood of the planet's ability to support a western lifestyle of mass consumption for everyone globally:

"Diamond's tragic narrative leads him to some disturbing political conclusions.
[quoting Diamond]
People in the third world aspire to First World living standards...Third World citizens are encouraged to that aspiration bu First World and United Nations development agencies, which hold oput to them the prospect of achieving their dream if they will only adopt the right policies, like balancing their budgets, investing in education and infrastructure, and so on. But no one at the U.N. or in the First World governments is willing to acknowledge the dream's impossibility: the sustainability of a world in which the Third World's large population were to reach and maintian current First World living standards.
[end quote Diamond]
"Diamond believes he is being courageous in delivering this alleged truth. But how courageous is it for Diamond to insist that the poorest people on earth should not aspire to the same standard that he himself enjoys?" p.148

Well, let's pull back the camera a little for a little more context.

In fact, Diamond states, a couple of lines later (which S&N "conveniently" DON'T include and which belies the intent they attribute to Diamond of denying to others what he himself has):

[myself quoting from Collapse] "What will happen when it finally dawns on all these people in the Third World that First World standards are unreachable for them and that the First World refuses to abandon those standards for itself?"
[end quote]

It is that last phrase that illuminates as fraud S&N's stated conclusion. Rather than the advocating the continuation of some sort of colonial serfdom for the Third World as S&N dishonestly insinuate, Diamond is arguing for an equitable sharing of planetary resources, recognizing that the resource stash is, yes, limited.

A final comment on the limits "thang."

The authors advocate a magical motivational transformation amongst the world's populace. They assert an elixir which will serve two purposes. First, it must convince the populace that there is a problem... um... no problem...

Why would anyone think to change their lifestyles in response to climate change, environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, exaltations from S&N, or simply because it's Saturday and you have nothing better to do unless they saw two things: first, there must be personal reasons (financial, moral, imperilment of self or loved one, etc.) for not continuing progress down the current path. Second, there has to be a "better" alternative.

The first implies that people must realize that something is out of whack and needs fixing. The second implies a comparison; "better" is not an absolute, it is a judgement (i.e. values-based; normative) based on a comparison between alternatives. It seems to me one has to acknowledge the elephant before one can strategize on how to make it go away or why it is even a concern let alone provide any visions of a future "Utopia".

This book draws on themes invoked by such thought leaders as architect/designer William McDonough, journalist Thomas Friedman and venture capitalist John Doerr about inspiring human creativity and finding hope in human aspirations and nature's abundance -- and points us to a strategic vision for the next decades.

I'm the founder of The California Cars Initiative -- CalCars.org -- promoting plug-in hybrids. See a full review I posted to CalCars-News at http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/863.html .

WAYS THIS BOOK HELPED CHANGE MY THINKING
* I've been mystified about people who didn't want to see "An Inconvenient Truth." Even as I agreed with many others that this powerful and effective movie came up short in offering solutions, I still felt frustrated by those who stayed away because they couldn't face the "doom and gloom" message. By drawing on their academic backgrounds, the authors convincingly show how ear and anxiety can de-motivate and disempower many people. Break Through starts off with a contrasting story -- about Martin Luther King's 1963 Lincoln Memorial speech, which began as "I have a nightmare" -- then moved to "I have a dream."
* Until provoked to think more deeply, I felt those whose response to climate crisis was to conclude that instead of solutions we need adaptation as missing the point. Talk about "preparedness" seemed like a capitulation -- or an impulse to find a way to make money from misery. Now I see that including these people, who want to get involved rather than deny the problem, at least puts them on a continuum of action.
* The authors say that to reduce CO2 globally, you have to reduce global per capita CO2 -- that makes sense. But then they take the mental leap to say that will require working to equalize living standards globally. That's an inconceivably large challenge -- but thinking about it this way could irrevocably transform our global strategies.
* I'm also grateful for a few more catchy phrases: we've long heard "the iron age didn't end because we ran out of iron." To that we can now add: "We did not invent the Internet by taxing telegraphs nor the personal computer by limiting typewriters."

LEST YOU THINK I'M ONE-SIDED
* The book has an entire section that's highly abstract and philosophical ... some will appreciate it, some will skip over it!
* The authors' case may at times be overstated: national environmental organizations are evolving their approaches and presenting positive visions.
* The phrase "Break Through" may be problematic. The authors use it as a two-word verb: to get beyond existing social, political and technical limitations. More commonly, as a one-word noun, it implies a need to find and develop entirely new technologies and energy sources. Yet our untapped opportunities in efficiency and conservation say otherwise. Cost-effective solutions are within sight -- for instance, see http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/860.html about how Sunpower's solar photovoltaics and Ausra's solar thermal power generation could soon be cost-competitive with new natural gas and coal plants. From those who talk about breakthroughs, we hear less about the third D in RD&D -- Research, Development and Deployment. PHEVs and today's low- and zero-carbon energy technologies need a level playing field for incentives, volume production and commercialization. We're inclined to reserve the term breakthrough for developing feasible carbon capture and sequestration or the way-out "geoengineering" schemes that advocates hope could help save us if we are unable to make a rapid transition to low-carbon sustainable technologies.
* What we most appreciate about the book and the website http://www.thebreakthrough.org is that they are leading to an expanded dialogue and very healthy debates.

"Break Through" by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger is a stirring manifesto for the postenvironmentalist movement. With remarkable erudition, maturity and precision, the two veteran environmentalists condemn the failed politics of limits to the dustbin of history but go on to sketch out a bold new politics of possibility. Brilliantly conceived and passionately written, this inspiring work helps us visualize how humanity might yet achieve greatness on earth.

Mr. Nordhaus and Mr. Shellenberger remind us that post war prosperity created the postmaterialist conditions that allowed the social and environmental movements of the 1960s and 1970s to flourish. However, the authors fault the narrowly-focused, complaint-based liberalism of today for its inability to reverse the deteriorating economic conditions that are the root cause for a host of environmental ills. The authors do not shy from taking aim at some of the environmental movement's most esteemed spokespeople including Robert Bullard, Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and fault them for deploying unproductive disaster discourses to promote a largely uninspiring and outmoded pollution control agenda.

Pointing to the success of mega churches in creating community out of social and economic anxiety, the authors contend that a postenvironmentalist movement that empowers individuals to imagine and create change is required to tackle the enormous problem of global warming; in fact, they believe that only a dramatic program on the scale of the Apollo project can inspire America's increasingly individualistic and creative citizens to participate in developing a new, renewable-energy based economy and thereby reshape the world. Rewriting an exceedingly dull speech by Tony Blair on the topic of global warming in the style of Winston Churchill, the authors demonstrate how postenvironmentalists might rouse the public to face down despair and accept the challenge to do great things in service to themselves and future generations.

I highly recommend this exceptional book to everyone.

This is an important book. Certainly, for anyone concerned about environmental politics, including the politics of climate change, it is a must-read. Nordhaus and Shellenberger, long time environmental activists, challenge most of the precepts of green politics in the U.S., including its claim to draw authority from its position as "Nature's voice," its over-reliance on science as a motivator for politics, and its habitually dismal message. Following their publication of the essay, "The Death of Environmentalism," in 2004, their arguments caused considerable controversy among environmentalists. This book, an extension and refinement of the original essay, is sure to cause more controversy.

The argument here is wide-ranging, drawing on historical case studies, philosophy, public opinion studies, and more. It is hard to imagine that anyone will agree with every angle of the book's approach. But the central insight, as I take it, deserves to be taken seriously by every environmentalist. It is an explicitly political insight: the years of defeats and frustrations suffered by environmentalism cannot simply be brushed aside as a consequence of the power held by the movement's adversaries. Environmentalists need to freshly examine the movement's assumptions and habits - habits of both thought and action. Despite the recurrence of the phrase "death of environmentalism" in the subtitle, this book is not another of the long string of conservative attacks. It arises from sincere and serious contemplation by two articulate and committed activists (who, I should note in the spirit of full disclosure, are friends of mine).

The book's also a lively read, with dramatic stories and engaging puzzles. It's the sort of book you will want to debate with friends and family. It seems possible to me that the book is that rare event, a world-changer whose influence will be cited for decades.

When I originally read the book "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn back in college in 1997, it helped throw me into a huge depression as I realized the huge problem we have as a culture.

Recently I read a book called "Break Though" by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus. I wish I had had this book available to me then.

The basic message of "Break Through" is that people who are concerned about environmental/social issues spend so much of their time complaining about what is wrong with the dominant culture that they have lost virtually all impact on actually making anything better. ("Conservatives" complaining about "liberals" who complain about everything and who are not willing to work for anything is one thing you'll hear.)

The authors of "Break Through" point out that at the beginning of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech, he had told of all the oppression and all the hurting he had witnessed--it started as an "I have a nightmare" speech. Then, someone said to him, tell us about the dream! And of course, that is the part of the speech we all know today.

The authors of "Break Through" also say that most of us misunderstand the motives of Chico Mendes, the Brazilian rubber tapper who was assassinated in 1988. In fact, they talk about Brazil as a symptom of the dominant culture's problems.

The authors want to start a new Apollo project to get the United States on track with new energy efficiency technology with a $30 billion annual investment. (Compare that to the spending in Iraq....)

Daniel Quinn said we can choose to stop participating in what he calls Mother Culture by simply walking away from it. There seems to be a strong idea in those of us worried by the track of Mother Culture that "technology won't save us" and hence there is a push for organic farming and self-sustainability and local community self-sustainability, which I think is wonderful. At the same time, we as human beings are such creatures of habit that those of us who have had access to technology in the "developed" world are going to want to keep it. And those who don't have it are going to want it (in places like China and India).

Knowing as an engineer that there is so much incredible amount of waste that doesn't need to be there, and that we can do so much better with some carefully selected new energy technology along with the mindset to go with it, the new Apollo project seems to make a lot of sense to me. (As an aside, check out the Aptera vehicle.)

But agree with that or not, "Break Through" is well worth a read in my opinion because it speaks to the core of our attitude, as those who care about making life more livable for ourselves and all the inhabitants of the Earth. Read this especially if you have ever been massively depressed about environmental/social issues--and especially if you're just now entering college.

Break Through from the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility is a compelling and potent critique of the environmental movement -- and an inspiring vision for a new politics.

There are two strands that run through the book. The first is that the environmental movement has consistently advocated a narrow political agenda that results from the worldview that nature is separate from humans and requires protection from human intrusions. N&S point out that the dichotomy is fallacious -- humans are natural -- but more importantly, it is counterproductive in dealing with global ecological crises. The second strand is that economic prosperity is an essential prerequisite to social and political action to reduce pollution and protect non-human habitats.

N&S are insiders. Their frustration with the contemporary environmental movement, which is palpable through their use of clever aphorisms at the close of many sections of the book, emanates from a sense of opportunity lost.

Break Through is the authors ' attempt to catalyze a Kuhnian-like revolution. In calling for the death of environmentalism, the authors are advocating the abandonment of doomsday narratives that demonize human agency.

In Part II - The Politics of Possibility - N&S draw on their values research to examine a number of emerging socio-cultural trends in the United States. They suggest insecure affluence is a characteristic of modern America. Society is affluent in a material sense with a general abundance of food and material goods, but insecurity arises from a combination of social and economic forces.

In the economic arena N&S draw on the well documented trends towards growing indebtedness and uncertainty about health care and personal retirement in an increasingly mobile workforce. The authors suggest this economic reality is a source of opportunity by advocating polices that support individual choice and possibility. They support a pragmatic message for progressive politics that speaks to the contemporary economic reality faced by the majority of voting Americans. They are quick to point out that this message, which must speak to the desire for choice and possibility, lies in sharp contrast to class-based redistributive, New Deal, policies cherished by many liberals to this day.

One of the books most enlightening moments is the discussion of societal forces that contribute to insecurity. N&S echo the conclusion of social theorists that there has been a decline in traditional civic institutions that supported progressive social movements. In some communities, this decline has brought a sense of alienation and atomization. Rather than see these development as a detriment, the authors explore how society has adapted to the conditions stemming from modernity.

Drawing on the concepts of social capital, strong and weak ties and value networks, N&S examine the role of church in the personal life. This discussion culminates with a cogent explanation for the ascendance of evangelical ministries. The authors point to how modern congregations have become hubs of multiple social networks where weak ties are converted to strong ties through small group interaction. This examination is extremely relevant because the authors remind us that the value these institutions create is the reduction of social insecurity through interpersonal connection rather than the imposition of top-down orthodoxy associated with traditional evangelical preachers. To liberals who reflexively dismiss this constituency as uneducated bible thumpers, this passage should serve as a revelation because in the authors' words, "in order to create a politics that people want to be a part of, we need to take a step back and understand at a more fundamental level what makes people happy and fulfilled."

At this late stage of the book, the reader is well primed for a discussion of how the value networks model and a politics of pragmatism might be applied on a politically relevant scale towards progressive issues. The authors provide some useful examples at the issue level of how politics can address issues ranging from global warming to health care while speaking to our values and aspirations.

This reader was left wondering: where should the cosmopolitan citizenry be going with regards developing a ground-level institutional infrastructure that creates ties, results in fulfillment, and supports a sustainable and internally consistent politics? Whatever the answer, N&S have convinced me of the relevance this conversation, and the larger need to retool our approach to address the most important social and ecological concerns of our day.

The authors present a new more positive approach to solving problems related to environmental harm caused by humans and by global warming. Rather than the doom and gloom approach employed by environmental activists, the authors suggest that a better way to correct environmental problems is through a "politics of possibility" where technology and commerce are combined to solve environmental problems including global warming. I liked the book and recommend it to anyone interested in environmental issues.

Breakthrough by Shellenberger and Nordhaus is one of the most interesting and useful books of its kind that I've ever read. The authors took on and accomplished a truly audacious task: rewriting the history of environmentalism and prescribing a can-do approach that says we can, and must, focus on social and economic well-being and technological advancement to solve the global warming problem.

In Brazil, for example, the authors say that deforestation will continue until the debt is forgiven and social and economic stability achieved. Regarding Detroit automakers and their fuel-inefficient vehicles, they point out that the Japanese national healthcare system relieves their auto companies of the financial burden that U.S. Companies bear for employee/retiree health. That system freed up investment capital for Toyota, Honda, et al to get ahead of Detroit on hybrids.

While environmental groups usually focus on limiting the consequences of human activity, creating regulations and filing lawsuits, Nordhaus and Shellenberger ask readers to celebrate human creativity and technical achievements, and to channel the human gift of remaking the world into an international drive to get beyond fossil fuel dependency. Because the needed technologies aren't yet profitable, they advocate massive government subsidies for research, development and demonstration projects.

On an emotional level, Nordhaus and Shellenberger deliver a compelling message: that human beings need an empowering, visionary narrative to tackle something as daunting as global warming and fossil-fuel dependence. They say that environmental leaders need to give the equivalent of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech. Instead, they give "I have a nightmare" speeches, which foster despair, disillusionment and cynicism when what we need is hope, idealism and optimism.

The authors under-estimate the importance of regulations, however. Without an emission standards, renewable energy standard or other policies that create hefty compliance costs for greenhouse gas-intensive industries, renewable and low-carbon technologies will not be able to compete -- even with the investment of greater public subsidies. Think about how expensive it is to put up a new solar photovoltaic system in California, even with state rebates and federal tax credits cutting the costs by 40-50%. To level the economic playing field for renewable energy, energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage and other planet-saving technologies, the costs of emitting greenhouse gases has to go up sharply. And the only way to accomplish that soon enough is through national legislation like that now in force in Europe and coming soon to California, other U.S. States and Canada.

In spite of this weakness in their thesis, Shellenberger and Nordhaus's analysis packs an amazingly powerful punch. And their intellectual reach is remarkable. They tackle arguments and schools of thought in philosophy, economics, sociology, psychology and other disciplines and weave together a devastating critique of conventional environmental activist thinking. Then they arm their readers with a new way of looking at the history of the environmental movement and a vision for broadening and strengthening it sufficiently to take on humankind's greatest challenge.

The authors argue good points for potential changes that could be made to the green movement as a whole, though I agree with some of the other reviewers in saying that the release of Gore's movie and the IPCC Nobel Prize award has changed public interest in the environment. I did enjoy reading the book, and I think the Politics of Possibility section was the most worthwhile.

Superb! The gloom and doom and endless discussions of how we have wrecked the planet are pointless and depressing. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger make the case for a complete shift in consciousness and conversation around global warming, environmentalism and politics. A hopeful, aspiring and truly human approach to today's challenges.