The Death of Environmentalism?

I think they are on to something. But environmentalism doesn't need to die, it simply needs to be supplemented, which is what these new ideas by Shellenberger and Nordhaus will do. Supplement.

The individual citizen should continue to make steps toward environmentalism. But it's the Big Corporations and Nations that must take industrial & national steps toward cleaning up our act.

I'm not sure why existing environmental groups are bothered. If they simply reframe their position so that it's compatible with new perspectives, they'll find themselves stronger for it. Julia, what's the contentious issue here?

And absolutely, the bait to motivate industry is money. When Procter & Gamble can see how it's to their financial benefit to respect the earth and all its inhabitants, they'll change. (just as an example)

It comes down to whether you look at evironmentalism as a means of protecting the environment thru our current capitalistic system or protecting the environement as a means of pushing more socialism on the United States. Sometimes I think the environmental crowd mix their environmental concerns with their desire to curb America's properity. Prosperity because of our personal and economic freedoms.

Having attended the event, I found Schellenberger's dismissal of energy conservation short-sighted and economically foolish. He said, "Even environmental groups acknowledge that conservation only gets us to 30% reductions, and we need to achieve 80% reductions."

I don't know about anyone else, but 30% is more than 1/4 of where we need to get - and that's a big chunk of the way. The technology exists now, and it's cheap. Why not use the cheapest way to get an easy 30%, and while we're hedging with "the bird in hand" we can work on capturing the "two in bush," the more expensive technological stuff that still needs work?

Clearly, we need huge investments in renewable energy technologies.

But - it makes no economic sense to set aside opportunities to get something for (in essence) nothing. And I'm not talking every American installing 5 CFLs. Take a look at buildings - which are responsible for 40% of America's greenhouse gas emissions - depending on how you count, as much as 50%.

We know how to build new homes and rehabilitate homes to use nearly zero energy (net zero energy homes, passiv haus). It's standard practice to reduce building energy consumption by 30%, even 80%. Same for commercial and office buildings. This reduction is especially doable when you realize that 75% of buildings will be newly constructed or rehabilitated between today and 2035 (see architecture2030.org).

Additionally, the energy savings pay for themselves, often just a few years.

This won't get us all the way to 80% reductions in emissions by 2050, but to dismiss that sizable opportunity is both economically and global-warming wise foolish.

Great discussion last night, but if you missed it, Minnesota Monitor ran a lengthy interview with Shellenberger that covered many of the same points.

Hey Susan, Richard Branson runs 360 corporations. He has dedicated $3 billion to combat CLIMATE CHANGE (by the way - the correct term is Climate Change, not global warming) That's a symptom of the problem - too few people read IPCC reports and think about the environment from a scientific viewpoint. They watch Al Gore's movie full of half truths. And anybody who is not in lockstep with the greenie status quo is a wacko anti-environmentalist. Turn off Al and read the last 4 IPCC reports. I'd like to attend a forum where more than one point of view is presented.

Catching up:

First, if you missed the event you can still catch the audio for Policy and a Pint : The Death of Environmentalism. (Other resources include The Breakthrough Institute, The Death of Environmentalism (.pdf document), and Death Warmed Over (.pdf document).)

Susan, do you think individuals can inspire or push "Big Corporations and Nations" to "take industrial & national steps toward cleaning up our act"? Overall, my take is existing environmental organizations felt blindsided by this... imagine someone saying your entire system needs an overhaul! You presented it as a supplement, which is an interesting approach... I haven't read the book but I took that it is more of complete re-org.

Gary, can you share examples of businesses that are becoming prosperous because their service/work directly addresses environmental issues? Or perhaps is saving/making money by adopting "greener" methods?

Thanks for joining the discussion, Janne. You make a good point. Can we afford dismiss any sizable opportunity? By the way, I'll check out architecture2030.org.

Bill, I appreciate that you shared Monitor article link.

Can you share informative links to Branson's $3 billion breakdown, bill a.?