Does the environmental movement have the ability to create the political change needed to effectively stop or slow global warming?
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger have been known as the "bad boys of environmentalism" since they published their 2004 essay, "The Death of Environmentalism," in which they argued that the environmentalist movement was ineffective and had to die in order for a new approach to environmental change to emerge.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger's latest book, "Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility," further develops that idea and explores how to reframe the debate away from language of fear and limitation to that of possibility and innovation. The self-proclaimed post-environmentalists spoke Feb. 13th at the City Club of Cleveland, and Word for Word features their remarks.
During their talk, Shellenberger suggested there would be a lot more progress made if the public were approached like this:
"You know it is going to cost us something, we are going to have to pay something for it, it will be slightly higher prices for energy, but it's worth it, we think it's much more likely to have political traction than ... global warming is coming; it's gonna kill your momma, and you're going to have to pay a lot more in electricity to avoid apocalypse."
What do you think? Are Shellenberger and Nordhaus right? Is environmental activism in need of a complete overhaul? What's it going to take to change policies as they relate to global warming?
____________________
Larissa Anderson
Producer, Word for Word
MPR | APM
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 10
Automated transit.
Transit is great for the poor, the elderly and college kids. It works for suburban commuter headed into the city, but all of it, I repeat all of it, is heavily subsidized by people who do not use transit.
The day everyone wants mass transit is the day the whole house of cards will collapse.
Railroads are not, and have been automating since the 70's.
The future of transit is automation.
Enabling the car culture is not progress, and progress in sustainablity is in transit.
It appears you are mistaking government expenditures on these modes of transporation as subsidies. The reality is that gasoline taxes, registration fees, and fines pay for most other forms of ground transportation as well as the needs of automobiles.
As for the airlines, the taxes and fees generated from them, more than offsets any government expenditure.
The same can never and will never be said for "transit". Most mass transit generates less than a third of its operating budget, much less its capital budget.
That --- is the very definition of unsustainable.
The truth about "transit" is that it never was sustainable. In the Twin Cities, the trolley system was funded by real-estate developers to boost the profits on land speculation, and to sell lots. Once the specuation and lost sales were complete, the system collapsed like the house of cards that it was.
Even the bus system, a system that relied on cars to finance the road-bed it used, collapsed because the fare-box could not sustain its capital costs.
That is why cars subsidize the buses today.
What are the economics on the Hiawatha light-rail? Isn't it something like a $6 subsidy per rider? Or has that number gone up?
1) Airlines have gone from 3 people flying the plane to 2, and sometimes 1 - Automation.
2) Kiosks added to the terminal, and skyguides demoted or fired - Automation
3) Parking kiosks added, and parking attendants fired - Automation
4) The decades long introduction of baggage transport - Automation
A) Cars that will drive themselves - Automation
B) Ramp metering - Automation
C) MNPass on 35W, next in line - Automation
D) Sensor based, no stop, weigh stations - Automation
a) LOGIS (a favorite of yours) - Automation
b) DMV computerized, and downsized - Automation
c) Laser level equipment to precisely grade roads - Automation
d) Equipment that bolts permanent repairs to roads - Automation
And in the entire world of transit
1) SAFEGE monorail
That's all. The whole list.
It's not that I don't agree with you, It's an advocacy, much like LOGIS is with you. Better is better, but best is best.
Is it not a form of mass transit that cannot sustain itself from fare-box revenues, and must rely on taxes from other sources to finances its day to day operating budget?
I am not sure what this has to do with LOGIS which is consortium of municipal back office functions.
A chance of winning. Most of the solutions that I hear nibble around the edges of the problem but fall far short of a solution. It is simply not possible to conserve our way to substantially lower carbon emmisions. SLOWING THE RATE OF INCREASE IS NOT A SOLUTION. We need to actually roll back net carbon emissions. If every gallon of gas saved by Americans gets burned, along with one or two more by the emerging middle class in India or China, there is little meaningfull incentive.
With a burgeoning worldwide population, we require an every increasing source of power. While it need not come from burning fossil fuel it must come rom somewhere. The solution ultimately, is technological. The problem will be solved by the inventors or it won't be solved.
Is it not a form of mass transit that cannot sustain itself from fare-box revenues, and must rely on taxes from other sources to finances its day to day operating budget?While it need not come from burning fossil fuel it must come rom somewhere.
<a href="http://www.backup-sensor.com">parking Sensor</a>
s it not a form of mass transit that cannot sustain itself from fare-box revenues, and must rely on taxes from other sources to finances its day to day operating budget?While it need not come from burning fossil fuel it must come rom somewhere.
[url=http://www.backup-sensor.com]parking Sensor[/url]
Is it not a form of mass transit that cannot sustain itself from fare-box revenues, and must rely on taxes from other sources to finances its day to day operating budget?While it need not come from burning fossil fuel it must come rom somewhere.
parking sensor