A good natured tiff with an environmental big wig

A few weeks back I was noodling around the internet and I came across The Breakthrough Institute, started by Michael Shellenberger (pictured here) and Ted Nordhaus, the authors of the controversial book Break Through: The Death of Environmentalism and the Politics of Possibility, which I admire and have discussed before. I zapped off an email, never expecting to hear, but bingo! Shellenberger wrote me back.

It turned out that, given that the first half of Break Through is a critique of the environmentalist "politics of  limits," Michael was a bit incredulous that I had either a) read the book or b) agreed with much of it. So he zapped me back--and I mean zapped--and pushed on this point and others. We got into a nice little debate (and you know, debating is something I usually avoid).

We decided we'd post the exchange on our respective web sites (Michael's blog is here), and then continue the conversation in person after he and Ted appear here in New York to deliver a Focus the Nation talk at NYU on January 31. Below is the beginning of our exchange. We will continue to publish the back and forth this coming Thursday, Monday and Wednesday (every other day, in other words).

Michael: It's great when we meet people who understand the very important point that action on global warming need not be about Nature or global warming, but could instead be about economic development, energy independence or something else.

I would also be interested in your take on a) our argument against the sacrifice framework in chapter 6, and b) our contention that we can't reduce our way to 80 percent emissions reductions in the U.S. (and 50 percent worldwide) by 2050, by reducing our carbon footprint.

Colin: Well thanks for saying nice blog! I'll get back to you on your questions, but to clarify, by question b) do you mean your contention that we need to institute new technologies and need massive federal funding to get them going?

Michael: Let me put it in a more pointed way. I don't think we can convince very many Americans or Chinese to do what you're doing. And I don't think we should try because we'll only alienate them. Instead I think we need to find ways to allow people to keep on consuming without generating emissions or depleting resources. Technically, renewable energy and infinite materials recycling should make this possible. Both, however, remain expensive. Hence, the need for breakthroughs in performance and price.

Also, to be even more pointed, I don't think you are a "no impact man," as you claim. I think you're probably a "lower impact man." But that's been made possible by living in a high impact society. You've been able to reduce your emissions drastically because a) your ancestors, grandparents, and parents prospered thanks to coal and oil; b) you received a good education (judged by your writing) that required fossil fuels consumption; c) you live in an astonishingly modern city built and sustained by fossil fuels so that even if you don't directly consume fossil fuels, the garbage men, police officers, and school teachers who make your life and the life of your family possible, do consume fossil fuels; d) you pay taxes, and the government takes a portion and subsidies fossil fuels with it; and on and on.

Don't get me wrong. I try to reduce my emissions as much as the next guy. But I believe my biggest contribution to overcoming eco crises will come neither from convincing others to do the same but rather from convincing Americans that a major investment in new technologies and infrastructures, here and abroad, will make their lives better and safer, and restore America's founding purpose: greatness. That's a fairly different project than asceticism, which I think can be creative and fulfilling but not a solution to the crises we face.

And that was Michael's shot across my bow! You can be sure I answered him and was even--I hate to admit--a little rude (don't worry, I apologized). Tune in Thursday for my reply to this email (rude bits expurgated). It turns out to be a great discussion.

Comments

[Isle Dance]

I can't wait to hear the rest! :o)

[Dave]

I'm sorry, wait a minute... To quote:

"But I believe my biggest contribution to overcoming eco crises will come neither from convincing others to do the same but rather from convincing Americans that a major investment in new technologies and infrastructures, here and abroad, will make their lives better and safer, and restore America's founding purpose: greatness."

"America's founding purpose: greatness."

What does that even mean? Greatness? Does this hearken back to the old Federalist/Anti-federalist debate - or, as it was known at the time, the greatness/awesomeness debate? Or to that passage in the constitution, "We, the people, of the Greatest States of America"? Or maybe to FDR, and his famous line, "December 7, 1942 is a date which will live in non-great-nessitudity"?

As an American living abroad, I have to say I am struck by how even in left-wing circles in the US things can lapse into this kind of reflexive nationalism. We base our arguments on our national "greatness,” completely ignoring the fact that our "greatness" has been a plague on the rest of the world ever since it came into being - for the last hundred years in particular. Tell the people of Panama about our national "greatness"; tell the people of Congo about our national "greatness"; tell the people of Guatemala or the Philippines or Indonesia and ask them what they think about our national "greatness".

No solution to the environmental problem, the most significant problem of our age, is going to come from a view based on America's national "greatness" - such positions only isolate this country and alienate the rest of the world. This is a global problem, it requires a global solution, so can we all just can the rhetoric for once?

[Julia]

I've started reading "Breakthrough," based on Colin's recommendation, and I'm enjoying it very much. I'm only a couple of chapters in, but I've found it a refreshingly different take on the environmental movement.

Michael's quibble about Colin's lifestyle being "lower impact" is nonsensical, purely a way of bringing him to a further commentary on the state of the country/developed world. Of course Colin is surrounded by high-impact choices that others have made and are making. One person cannot change the whole of society, particularly when many of the high-impact choices that surround him or her were choices made in the past - like the building materials for his apartment, etc. All one person can do is make choices for their own life and try to encourage others to follow what he or she sees as the correct path; all that one person can be judged upon is his or her own choices. Hence, Colin is "no impact," not "low impact."

Speaking as another American living abroad, I have just a couple of notes about Dave's entry. 1.) I think that Americans' "reflexive nationalism" is a boon. Yes, nationalism can lead to horrible places if used badly, as can any tool. But, like almost every other tool, nationalism can also be used beneficially. 2.) I don't believe that "our 'greatness' has been a plague on the rest of the world ever since it came into being." Yes, we've had our share of bad moves, but so has every country. The British Empire; the Spanish conquistadors; the Mongol Hordes; the Vikings; the Romans. To overlook all the neutral and good things that the US has done and generalize us to "a plague" is an unneccesarily negative view and far from constructive.

[Dave]

Point taken Julia, nothing good comes out of name-calling. If a French person had posted what I wrote I would have gotten all in a huff and cursed at my computer, so I should take my own advice.

Yes we've had our fair share of bad moves, so has every other nation and empire, we’re no worse but we’re no better – I just think this is all the more reason to drop all this rambling about "greatness." I am personally at a loss to see what the advantages are of this kind of nationalism or of any kind of nationalism to be honest. But I think that's a debate for another forum.

For here, I would just say that my reasons for concern about climate change and my activism on this issue are fundamentally human reasons. People's lives are at stake in this; the poorest people on the planet are going to pay (and are already paying) a huge price for the lifestyles of the richest people on the planet. Equality, human rights, peace, and poverty have become intimately linked with the environmental problem. Approaching the issue like that, I think there is nothing less helpful to finding a solution or conveying the gravity of the situation than the people with the most destructive lifestyles proclaiming their "greatness." (Though of course, it bears note, these destructive lifestyles are the basis of the whole world economy – just take a look at what happens to the stock markets in Asia and Europe when Americans suggest they might consume less – so again, there’s mud in everyone’s eyes.)

I guess it just seems to me though that the American way of life has gotten us into this mess, and it's going to take more than a little humility to get us out of it. We need to stop thinking of nations and states and to start thinking as human beings, start giving all people a voice in finding solutions, start finally supporting the equality which we love to talk about when we’re looking in the mirror and seeing nothing but “greatness,” but which we would find so little of if we turned and looked out the window.

It might sound naïve of course, but as Colin has taught me – idealism is a form of protest.

[stephanie]

I'm not entirely sure how a good education requires more fossil fuel consumption than, say, sitting at home watching TV. Is it because schools are heated so well? Or because you have to drive an SUV to get there? (As a student, I sure couldn't afford a car, even if I wanted one. And heating a large building that houses so many people seems more environmentally sound than heating individual houses.)

And what does this argument mean, anyway? That only educated people can see the benefits of keeping the planet healthy? I find in order to live healthily in the world, especially here in the 'developed' world, one has to completely un-educate oneself and re-learn how to live. That takes awareness and sensitivity, not a PhD. I believe it's partly the way we (in the developed world) are educated that has made so many of us completely oblivious to the basic requirements of life on this planet. We have lost our sensitivity, and replaced it with "knowledge." Knowledge -- book knowledge -- might be powerful, but it is not "great."

In order to be truly great, you have to be able to admit that you do NOT know it all, that you are not even capable of knowing, and that requires honesty and humility. You need to be open, and you need to be able to listen. These qualities are not guaranteed by good education or good middle class upbringings.

There seem to be two uses for the word "greatness" -- one that I usually tune out as meaningless political jargon, and the other that I see in the real world. We need more of the real-world kind of greatness. This kind of greatness would never need to feel nationalism, nor the need to go to war.

[Jacob]

Instead I think we need to find ways to allow people to keep on consuming without generating emissions or depleting resources.

I don't know that this is physically possible. Continual consumption, almost by definition, requires a constant supply of energy and resources; i.e., constant consumption is a positive feedback loop.

Anyhow, I'm looking forward to hearing your response to all his points.

[Susan Och]

Of course:

you live in an astonishingly modern city built and sustained by fossil fuels so that even if you don't directly consume fossil fuels, the garbage men, police officers, and school teachers who make your life and the life of your family possible, do consume fossil fuels

I've been talking community here for months, and this is exactly why. We all depend on others, whether we notice them or not, whether we are curious about their lives or not.

Using less energy often means living slower. Slow Food has become part of the vernacular, referring to a more deliberate process of cooking, shopping for food, even growing your own food. The commentary about train travel centered around time -- train travel is great if you have the time for it, but if you are living at the National Normal speed, air travel is often your only choice. Colin, you have delighted us with your descriptions of Slow Parenting, the kid-directed wanderings through days that are not crunched into a daycare/commuting schedule.

In order to live the slower, less energy intensive life style, Americans are going to have to slow down and work fewer hours. The underlying assumption by most of the commenters on this blog, and by many environmentalists, is that people work long hours because we want to acquire more material goods. If everyone would just "see the light" they would all quit their jobs and start riding the train and shopping at thrift stores and gardening.

Most of us would love to do this, but we can't. One of the biggest barriers to a slower, less energy intensive lifestyle is health insurance. The only way most of us can acquire health insurance is through full time employment, and the definition of "full time" gets revised upwards all the time.

I work for a local Indian tribe, a good, worker-friendly employer, the best benefits in the area. Ten years ago, averaging more than 28 hours a week was enough to get you and your family fully-paid health insurance, with dental. The cost to the tribe kept rising and they reluctantly passed on part of the cost and raised the requirements for full time benefits until today, I must average more than 38 hours. I'm not complaining -- another business would have cut my health benefits altogether, or reclassified me as a "manager" on salary so that they could work me 50 or 60 hours a week without violating labor laws. People put up with that sort of stuff because the alternative -- being unable to afford to take your kid to the doctor -- is too awful to contemplate.

My neighbors, successful CSA farmers, cannot afford health insurance. Many of my coworkers at the casino are farmers who farm full time, but spend another 40 hours a week working as security officers or cashiers in order to get health benefits. I've often said that if you want to save the family farm, fix health insurance. Now I'm saying that if we want people to slow down and live deliberately, we need to resolve their health insurance nightmares.

Colin, I found your recent post about talking to a hypothetical PTA group to be obnoxious, but it's taken me this long to figure out why. Maybe it's your assumption that PTA parents don't think about the environment. We do. Maybe it's the idea that you are going to persuade the hypothetical PTA to sign on to your project (planting trees) instead of listening to find out what their ideas are. I'll betcha ten bucks everyone at the PTA meeting would love to live slower, drive less, eat better and hang out with their kids more. We can't, because we need those health benefits. Maybe it's your assumption that people are willfully working themselves and the planet to death, that you don't notice that many of us have no choice about working long hours at our jobs.

Michael is right. There is no such thing as "No Impact Man." We are all dependent on each other, whether we acknowledge it or not. If we want to produce wholesale change in the American lifestyle, we have to make policy that supports those changes, solving health insurance and enforcing fair labor laws for everyone.

[Dan]

Read it again, Dave:
"But I believe my biggest contribution to overcoming eco crises will come neither from convincing others to do the same but rather from convincing Americans that a major investment in new technologies and infrastructures, here and abroad, will make their lives better and safer, and restore America's founding purpose: greatness."

Note that first, he isn't talking about the sort of "greatness" that you are. You put it in quotation marks and ascribe to it only negative connotations. Secondly, he says "founding purpose". In other words, no, he isn't saying that all of the negative things you brought up are great.

The United States was founded with the intention of being a City on the Hill, a model and an ideal. That's the greatness that was intended with the founding of the country. Whether or not it has stumbled in the matter is a different point entirely.

On a more pragmatic level, read what he says about convincing Americans that actions both here and abroad will make their lives better. He isn't saying that America is great right now, let's sit back and relax at the expense of the rest of the world. No, it seems that he's saying 'c'mon, invest in better technologies, improve the infrastructure here and in other countries - that'll make America great again, just like it was intended to be when it was founded.'

Bottom line, it isn't an argument or a solution based on America's greatness, it is alternately an appeal to it - if we're so great, then let's do all of this to improve the world - or a goal to work towards - we want to be great? Then this is what we have to do.

"Hence, Colin is "no impact," not "low impact." - Julia

Actually, as Michael extensively points out, he isn't.

"Michael's quibble about Colin's lifestyle being "lower impact" is nonsensical"

Given the previous section where Michael laid out just why Colin is low-impact and not no-impact, it is a very sensible point. Colin's calling himself 'no-impact' demonstrates either a willful misrepresentation and exagerration for whatever purposes, or an ignorance of the most basic complexities of modern civilization. Either one is more than worthy of bringing to attention, and thus doing so is certainly no mere quibble.

"I'm not entirely sure how a good education requires more fossil fuel consumption than, say, sitting at home watching TV." - stephanie

It doesn't; that wasn't the point. The point that Michael was making, as I read it, was that Colin's education was just one of the many ways he still depended upon a 'high impact' infrastructure. First, consider the amount of time needed to devote to education. Six or more hours a day, five days a week, from about age six to twenty two, conservatively speaking, and on average. In pre-industrial days, such a non-productive (i.e., not working in the fields, the workshop, etc.) use of time would have been impossible for all but the highest elite.

Colin was only able to receive such an education because there were enough extra resources available to him that he didn't have to be a productive member of society as immediately as physically possible. If we didn't have the fossil fuel economy and infrastructure that we do, if we lived in pre-industrial times, there would be no practical way Colin could have obtained the level of education he uses in his everyday life.

"That only educated people can see the benefits of keeping the planet healthy?"

No, but it does mean that if you spent sixteen years in heated, air-conditioned schools, taught by paid professionals, in classrooms maintained by other personnel, and read from textbooks printed and shipped from presses around the country or beyond, you can't keep on using the education you got during that time and calling yourself no-impact. It would be like going out on December 31st and buying a year's worth of groceries, gasoline, and generator fuel, and then bragging during the next year about not buying anything.

"I find in order to live healthily in the world, especially here in the 'developed' world, one has to completely un-educate oneself and re-learn how to live."

You realize that there's a big difference between cultural mores, as injurious as they may be on a larger scale, and education, right? Growing up told to buy the latest year's fashions, or eat at McDonald's doesn't count as an education. At least, certainly not the type of education Michael was referring to.

"That takes awareness and sensitivity, not a PhD."

And if you no-one had a PhD, do you think that the impact of global warming would have been recognized, let alone understood? Awareness and sensitivity may let us realize that a winter isn't as cold as it used to be, but that's it. It isn't all or nothing - there's no reason to mindlessly impugn science and learning.

On a more general level, you seem to be misunderstanding what is being said about greatness. Also, consider World War II. Are you so sure that "greatness would never need... to go to war"? You seem to be mixing up a poor opinion of modern America with the rest of your thinking.

[Dan]

"I don't know that this is physically possible. Continual consumption, almost by definition, requires a constant supply of energy and resources; i.e., constant consumption is a positive feedback loop." - Jacob

Read the post again, Jacob. Michael specifically mentions renewable energy and recycling as necessities for continual consumption. That constant supply of energy? The sun, for one. That won't run out for, oh, several billion years. Technically not a truly 'continuous' source, but functionally the same. Thousands of years (at a minimum) of nuclear fuel? Even longer if fusion is achieved? Same deal.

(And it isn't really a positive feedback loop, per se. Population might be, in terms of a larger population giving a larger d/dt, but straight consumption? You haven't described any sort of a feedback mechanism there.)

[Andy]

I love when people nit-pick at the "no impact" title. Does it really matter that Colin still relies on fossil fuel in those ways? He has done better than anyone else I have heard of living HIGHER standards than every American would like, only with significantly lower consumpion, and greater happiness. Who is this guy to critique?

It's too bad that this guy (I admit I don't know any more about him than what I have read in this post at this point) still thinks that people will need convincing to get to the NIM-type lifestyle. Try saying that in 50 years, or 100 years, or 500 years. I doubt there will be little convincing then.

[arduous]

This is a really fantastic and thought-provoking post!!

I have to say, I'm impressed by Michael's points. As someone who started living a year of a "non-consumerist" lifestyle in August, I'm keenly aware that my lifestyle is in many ways possible because I had spent 28 years as your average crazy consumer, but I had never really thought about how everything including my education required fossil fuel consumption, but Michael is quite right.

I can't wait until the next post!

[stephanie]

"You realize that there's a big difference between cultural mores, as injurious as they may be on a larger scale, and education, right?"

"And if you no-one had a PhD, do you think that the impact of global warming would have been recognized, let alone understood?"

Dan -- I'll overlook the condescending tone of your comment, and in turn ask you: How are most university programs funded? Government bodies and private corporations, no? How much funding is there for Environmental concerns in the field of science, as opposed to say, pharmaceutical research?

I am in no way dismissing the value of education -- but I fail to see its relevance here. I do not see how it makes current life choices any less valid. You cannot choose your past, your upbringing, or the advantages your parents gave you, but you can make very real choices that affect the present.

For the record, I agreed with Michael's arguments, until I got to the last paragraph. Then I gave it some more thought.

[Dan]

"How much funding is there for Environmental concerns in the field of science, as opposed to say, pharmaceutical research?" - Stephanie

And that is relevant to this just how, exactly? Besides, it isn't clear just how you define "Environmental concerns". Would that include weather satellites, to more accurately map global climates? Agricultural and genetic research for crops? Geology and various forms of remote sensing to analyze the Earth itself? It's easy to throw out a (rhetorical) question like that, but unless you define just what you mean by "Environmental concerns", the query is meaningless.

"I am in no way dismissing the value of education"

Actually, it -

"I find in order to live healthily in the world, especially here in the 'developed' world, one has to completely un-educate oneself and re-learn how to live."

- would -

"That takes awareness and sensitivity, not a PhD."

- seem -

"Knowledge -- book knowledge -- might be powerful, but it is not "great.""

you are. At least, you argued against it a fair bit, and gave no positives, so take of that what you will.

" -- but I fail to see its relevance here."

So, knowing that burning fossil fuels contributes to atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming, and understanding how various chemicals can be concentrated as they move up the food chain, or being able to create alternative sources of renewable energy isn't relevant?

Of course, if you were referring to Colin personally, then that's wrong, too. His education is very relevant. If his current lifestyle / philosophy is borne out of an education that was provided by a high-impact system, then his no-impact experiment is equivalent to "Hey - I've got mine now, so you're on your own!" A way of life maybe sustainable for one person going forward, but if it can't be perpetuated and passed on - in this case, possibly requiring the education that he makes no allowance for - then it's bankrupt.

Alternatively, another perfectly valid criticism would be that his education is just one of the many things that Colin relies on without including on the balance sheet, so to speak. Remember when he posted about getting rid of shelves of brand-new, unread books because they weren't in the 'spirit' of the No Impact Experiment? And then ignored the fact that his education had more of an impact than the books he got rid of without ever reading? You can make all the "very real choices" you want, but if you misrepresent their - your - background, the fact of that lie is very relevant.

[Diane Gandee Sorbi]

I don't understand why some people find it necessary to argue with the No Impact title. Of course, by simply existing, one has an impact. But Colin has done far more than most people. As a reader of his column, I've learned a lot, and been inspired to do better. This blog has created an interesting community, with different perspectives and lively discussions that wouldn't be taking place if he hadn't begun his experiment in the first place. Does it really matter that the title isn't 100% literal?

I read "Break Through" on Colin's recommendation. The authors made some interesting points, many, but not all, of which I agreed with. I'll be looking forward to the rest of the discussion/debate.

[Calliope]

Stephanie - to answer your original question, a typical college education does in fact burn a lot of fossil fuels, though there are ways to mitigate that impact. And if we can reduce that impact, I think education is tremendously important in creating globally aware citizens who really understand the effect their actions have on the world around them.

As for Colin's debate, I think we are getting a bit too hung up on semantics and missing the larger point. I suspect the solution to climate change will lie in between Michael's and Colin's points of view. People will not reduce consumption unless forced to, and so we must seek alternative resources in order to avert a real disaster.

However, I'm pretty sure we will come to a point when we are forced to reduce consumption. And at that point.. well, we're a pretty adaptable species. I think there will be fewer of us, and the hot beachfront properties will be in Nevada and Tennessee. We'll do what we have to--but not until we absolutely have to.

[Annabel]

I'm sure technically he's quite right about 'no impact' but it's a very impressive start and you are pressing for changes in the areas you can't directly influence.

I see where he's coming from, but what's wrong with having it both ways? We can improve technology, AND minimise waste. You don't have to alienate people to suggest they be a bit less wasteful, although you would obviously alienate people if you suggest they have to live 'no impact' lives.

I sincerely hope we don't discover in the next installment that he drives an SUV!

[emily]

I shared Dave's reaction to the comment about the United States' "greatness." I'm not trying to reduce my impact for nationalist or patriotic reasons; I'm doing so for humanitarian and ecological ones. Does it really matter whether we are the leaders or followers in environmentalism, so long as the job gets done? What's more important in the end: one country's ego, or the whole world's well-being? If we need PR for environmentalism, maybe the "greatness argument" is something that will be politically useful at this particular moment in the US. But it made me wonder what Michael's attitude would be to, say, importing travel technology from Europe; learning how to build efficient warm-climate houses from South Africans; and so on. It would be unreasonable to assume we can think it all up ourselves--and it will slow things down.

A quick quibble, Julia (and this is not meant as a personal comment in any way): "nationalism" has an overwhelmingly negative connotation for some solid, undeniable historical reasons, so I'm not sure what its positive effects are. How about "patriotism" instead?

[Jacob]

Michael specifically mentions renewable energy and recycling as necessities for continual consumption. That constant supply of energy? The sun, for one. That won't run out for, oh, several billion years. Technically not a truly 'continuous' source, but functionally the same. Thousands of years (at a minimum) of nuclear fuel? Even longer if fusion is achieved? Same deal. -Dan

The sun is effectively a limitless energy source, but harnessing that energy is another matter. Any device that collects solar energy will require energy and materials to produce; continued energy consumption (yes, with positive population growth) will eventually reach a resource limit in the system. We won't run out of photons from the sun, but we will run out of consumables here on earth. Fusion, too, requires consumption--and though nuclear technologies might provide ~10,000 year solutions, when dealing with long-term sustainability of a species, 10,000 years is really quite short.

Renewable energy and recycling are certainly important and necessary technologies in transitioning to fully sustainable living, but they alone cannot feed our current rate of consumption (which, as you point out, necessarily increases because of population growth).

[Jon Bathly]

Is it "greatness" to commit genocide against the people who inhabited this land before the European barbarians invaded it?

[Dan]

"but we will run out of consumables here on earth." - Jacob

Hence, Michael's point about recycling. We can do that level of recycling now, the energy costs are just prohibitively high. And thus his points about energy.

"when dealing with long-term sustainability of a species, 10,000 years is really quite short."

Well, yes, 10,000 years is short in comparison to... some undefined timescale longer than 10,000 years. Of course, eventually, an extinction-level asteroid will hit the Earth, or a mega-volcano will erupt. Those start to become concerns on that sort of timescale. And to stop those, we will have to have new technologies that we don't currently possess - at the very least, radically (incredibly so) new deployments of existing technologies on unseen scales. So either we accept the current level of fully-sustainable technology, and fall prey to the next random-chance curveball the universe throws our way, or we move up to the next rung and beyond, where we can have at least a fighting chance against... chance.

The bottom line? Compared to 'forever', yes, 10,000 years is a short time. But when you consider the span of human history and civilization, 10,000 years is an eternity. Besides, dismissing a 10,000 year source of energy because it doesn't last forever is ridiculous. We burned coal so that we could get to more sustainable levels of energy - wind, geothermal, solar, and most of all nuclear. Now, if we can step up another level to fusion, or advanced nuclear designs, then that will be that much longer to develop new technologies and expand to new resources.

"our current rate of consumption (which, as you point out, necessarily increases because of population growth)."

Yeah, I pointed out no such thing. What I pointed out was that while population could be described as a positive feedback situation - assuming 2+ effective children per couple, and no resource limitations, etc. to the first approximation - consumption in and of itself wasn't such a loop. Consumption has ^happened^ to increase because of a growing population as well as increasing per capita resource use, but it hasn't ^necessarily^ increased.

"Is it "greatness" to commit genocide against the people who inhabited this land before the European barbarians invaded it?" - Jon

Look over your head. That's the point Michael was making, flying by.

[Leslie]

"We burned coal so that we could get to more sustainable levels of energy - wind, geothermal, solar, and most of all nuclear. Now, if we can step up another level to fusion, or advanced nuclear designs, then that will be that much longer to develop new technologies and expand to new resources."

Actually we burned coal, until we found oil which is a much more usable and energy dense fuel. Every barrel of crude oil represents 70 human slaves for one year per person. Nothing else comes close to that for the very cheap price of $100 a barrel. That cheap, easy to get, energy dense oil has allowed us our society today - our large middle class, our education system, our technology, and of course our over consumption, pollution, resourse depletion and global warming. I am not convinced it is going to be possible to just change over to a greener form of energy and go on as we are. Anything we have yet come up with is much harder to make and much more expensive. Recycling is expensive as it is, it will be even more so without cheap energy. Where that leaves us I am not sure, but it is a big problem and the answers are not simple. It is an intersting time we live in.

[vegetablej]

I think we already have a lot of technology that could be called renewable: solar, wind, water. What don't have is enough governments, companies, and people using them. Sure I guess they could be improved a bit so that they will be more efficient, but it seems to me that one of the reasons people aren't using them more is the cost.

For the average person, putting enough solar panels on the house to heat water and air and give enough electricity to run at least some of the appliances is either too expensive, or the technology is not accessible enough for them to do it themselves. I think the government could help here by giving enough money to households (and maybe the expertise too).

Why aren't more companies using green energy? Is it because it isn't cost-effective in the short term? What about tax incentives?

And why are more governments not supporting the change-over to green energy? Is it because it's too expensive, or are they invested in supporting the big companies supplying oil/electricity from coal or oil?
I don't know about the US but in Canada, until recently, it was the government running the electric companies.

And what about all the energy being expended overseas with the war in Iraq and the money spent on protecting the oil fields there? Seems a little loopy to be wasting all that money on non-renewable resources when it could go a long way toward providing renewable energy at home.

The point I'm making is that I'm not against technological improvements in producing energy, but who's to say that they will be used when they are developed?

I think it's going to take some of that resources-expensive education to get people and governments making better use of what we already have.

[Julia]

Emily - Hmm. I guess that I just don't share the feeling of negative connotation to "nationalism". But if that's how it's generally used, by all means, let's switch to "patriotism". Either way, what I really meant was that a sense of pride in one's nation can be a very powerful force for good or ill. I can imagine taking American patriotism and using it to really kick-start the green movement, environmental development, new technologies, etc. Not out of a need to be better than other countries in the world, but rather from an urge to really push the boundaries and see what can be done if there is a concerted, nation-wide effort. A national effort of individuals.

And I don't think it matters how Colin bills himself. Somehow, "relatively-by-world-standards-privileged-background-and-surroundings-but-trying-his-hardest-to-reduce-his-impact man" doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Dave]

Well Jon, whatever Dan says about Michael's point passing you by, I think you're right. Our "beacon on the hill" built on a foundation of genocide... what is this greatness we think this country is based on exactly?

Regardless, like I said in my second post, I don't really think this is the place for this debate. I just think any one nation's greatness (and let's keep in mind that Michael does not specify what he means by that word, no matter what you think he said, Dan, you need to review your grammar I think) should be beside the point. Any environmental progress is going to come from working together - undoubtedly from taking ideas from others (the NY Times has a piece today about the US ranking 89th or something in the world in terms of environmental quality), something which a nation hoping to restore its own greatness might have some trouble with.

But enough of this, I'm sure we can all agree that "greatness" is a perfectly cromulent word, embiggened as it is with the spirit of '76...

-Dave

[Jacob]

Compared to 'forever', yes, 10,000 years is a short time. But when you consider the span of human history and civilization, 10,000 years is an eternity. -Dan
On any evolutionary timescale, 10,000 years is relatively small. Human civilization is about 10,000 years old, but the human species is much older (~2.5 million for Homo and ~200,000 for Homo sapiens); for comparison, it takes about 40,000 years for two human populations to develop unique racial traits.

I am completely in favor of renewable technologies and recycling efforts, but I remain skeptical that pure technology will solve our long-term (read: >100,000 year duration) sustainability issues. In the next 100,000 years there is low probability that we will face total extinction from a cosmic impact; it seems likelier that our greatest threat to existence is over-extension and over-consumption.