Al Gore is wrong (for me), Part II: Investing in a bright green future
In the previous installment of this multi-part essay, I suggested that we focus our environmental attention on hope rather than fear. I argued that Americans are drawn to possibility rather than pessimism and that our individual dealings with climate change should reflect that reality. And of course, I’m not alone in thinking that. In fact, there is a growing cadre of new environmentalists promoting the same bright green future I favor.
Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus, recent authors of Break Through, are two such men. The two reached a level of fame — well, actually, infamy — among old guard environmentalists when they published the thought-provoking essay, “The Death of Environmentalism,” back in 2004.
That original essay argued persuasively that the traditional environmentalists’ decision to brand the environment as a special interest — as a “thing” — that must be protected by legislative policy (i.e., “the politics of ‘no’”) has backfired. And despite this backfiring, the movement hasn’t changed its fundamental approach to “saving the environment” in three decades.
Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that, “in their public campaigns, not one of America’s environmental leaders is articulating a vision of the future commensurate with the magnitude of the crisis.”
My own experience mirrors that of Michael’s and Ted’s. A couple of weeks ago, I was invited to a small, private dinner with the Executive Director of one of America’s largest and oldest environmental organizations. The focus of the dinner was purported to be part of a nationwide “listening tour” designed to elicit feedback from guests on the organization’s direction. After a bit of mingling, the ED presented the organization’s plans for 2008.
The presentation’s culminating slide showed the “reasons why we’re the ones to do this,” and included the historical and future lists of partners the organization claimed.
- Hunters
- Anglers
- Governments
- Non-governmental organizations
- Communities of faith
Notice anything missing? Business — large, small, or in between — didn’t warrant a mention on the list. Why? Because old school environmentalists still assume business — and the market economy in general — to be the problem, without any consideration that it may also very likely be a part of the solution.
Fortunately, a new crop of leaders are challenging that narrow assumption. Shellenberger and Nordaus are among them. So are Larry Brilliant and Vinod Khosla. Brilliant is Executive Director of Google.org, Google’s charitable foundation. Khosla was one of the founders of Sun Microsystems who now heads Khosla Ventures. Both have access to huge sums of money as a result of the tech industry. Both are using their capital to invest in clean energy companies and other “clean tech” start-ups. And both understand that if we are going to really address the issues of climate change, it must be a concerted effort that includes economic markets and the businesses that support them.
Conservation, sacrifice, and suffering on the part of citizens may be a part of the solution (Shellenberger and Nordhaus argue that negative lifestyle changes — or the perception that they’re negative — will never scale high enough in the U.S. to make much of a difference), but as Khosla writes:
we must provide services that consumers want and prefer over their non-sustainable fossil competitors, while at the same time be profitable for business. Applications that meet the engineering needs but fail to meet the commercial ones are doomed to failure.
That in a nutshell describes a bright green future rather than a dark green one. The bright green approach focuses on possibility and the potential for breakthrough change via new technology products. Those products are born out of the investment, research, and development of private firms who stand to make a boatload of money by developing them.
Old environmentalist (“no”) thinking proposes taxes on carbon-producing companies. Bright green, new environmentalist (“yes”) thinking encourages inventiveness and promotes the creation of new companies — and new business opportunities for existing companies — to solve old problems. Carrots rather than sticks.
Old environmentalists believe business is the enemy. New environmentalists hope that many, many companies are hugely successful and that their investors make tons of money with new answers to old issues surrounding power generation. Because if they do, everyone should ultimately benefit.
I really think the new guys are on to something.
Originally published: March 4, 2008
Technorati Tags: education, efficiency, engaged, environmentalism, evangelism, Inconvenient-Truth, InconvenientTruth, learners
I really like the usage of grammar you have here. Pretty good comparing to other parenting blogs which deviate from Crap to nonsense. Thank you