What do you think?
Rate this book
Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility
Current tactics can’t solve today’s complex global crises. The “bad boys of environmentalism” call for a bold and empowering new vision
Environmental insiders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus triggered a firestorm of controversy with their self-published essay “The Death of Environmentalism,” which argued that environmentalism cannot deal with global warming and should die so that a new politics can be born. Global warming is far more complex than past pollution problems, and American values have changed dramatically since the movement’s greatest victories in the 1960s, but environmentalists keep fighting the same old battles. Seeing a connection between the failures of environmentalism and the failures of the entire left-leaning political agenda, the authors point the way toward an aspirational politics that will resonate with modern American values and be capable of tackling our most pressing challenges.
In this eagerly awaited follow-up to the original essay, the authors give us an expansive and eloquent manifesto for political change. What Americans really want, and what could serve as the basis for a new politics, is a vision capable of inspiring us to greatness. Making the case for abandoning old categories (nature/market, left/right), the authors articulate a pragmatism fit for our times that has already found champions in such prominent figures as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
This book will hit the same nerve as What’s the Matter with Kansas and Don’t Think of an Elephant. But its analysis will reshape American politics for decades to come.
Environmental insiders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus triggered a firestorm of controversy with their self-published essay “The Death of Environmentalism,” which argued that environmentalism cannot deal with global warming and should die so that a new politics can be born. Global warming is far more complex than past pollution problems, and American values have changed dramatically since the movement’s greatest victories in the 1960s, but environmentalists keep fighting the same old battles. Seeing a connection between the failures of environmentalism and the failures of the entire left-leaning political agenda, the authors point the way toward an aspirational politics that will resonate with modern American values and be capable of tackling our most pressing challenges.
In this eagerly awaited follow-up to the original essay, the authors give us an expansive and eloquent manifesto for political change. What Americans really want, and what could serve as the basis for a new politics, is a vision capable of inspiring us to greatness. Making the case for abandoning old categories (nature/market, left/right), the authors articulate a pragmatism fit for our times that has already found champions in such prominent figures as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
This book will hit the same nerve as What’s the Matter with Kansas and Don’t Think of an Elephant. But its analysis will reshape American politics for decades to come.
344 pages, Hardcover
First published October 4, 2007
46 people are currently reading
476 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews
October 2, 2010
This was one of the single worst books I've ever read, and that's saying a lot. Between irrelevant parabels about Brazil, an almost complete absence of citation to actual scientific literature (rather than the popular non fiction it favors), an outright dismissal of environmental justice, a pointless chapter about Fukayama, and ample new age psychobable you almost miss the fact their overarching point is completely insane. Focusing on creating a dream and abandoning reality, which they find to be too depressing and uninspiring, will not even remotely get us closer to actually addressing climate change. There is simply no way we can continue to consume at the levels we do now, even with a shift to green energy as proposed in their new Apollo project, and focusing primarily on adaptation rather than mitigation is setting us all up for failure. The truth is depressing and scary, but constructing a dream rather than facing up to that reality is madness.
August 4, 2008
This is pretty subversive, extreme left, high order political thought in a very good and measured way. I see the basic premise of this book being very constructively humanist. I like that. I like people who are advocates for a cause because they care about people and not because they are angry at something or someone. They don't end up alienating over half of the population in their consideration of possible solutions. Yes conservation is important and perhaps their work to get us to focus away from that can be distracting to a majority of this books potential audience, but what they are saying is important. The things we need to change are how things are made, how we get people excited about caring for their space/place... we are nature, just like beavers and ants are nature, and all of us humans, beavers and ants can be very destructive to the world, but there are also plenty of ways people and animals are ecologically important to the living organism of the earth. We can't stop living here. We also can't change everybody or hate people for not changing. When you start pushing people away you are in trouble and either become marginal or despotic. I'm into this from an educator/activist/advocate stance less than a purely environmental stance, but I think these guys are saying something VERY important for people to hear and chew on, and NOT to react against, because honestly these guys are ALLIES, not some conservative (or neo con) nut jobs.
March 26, 2008
This is perhaps the most brilliant book I read all year. If you have felt that current politics are disconnected from your here-and-now concerns, this book will help you to imagine how they can be not only immediately relevant, but inspiring, unifying, and mobilizing. It offers a perceptive analysis of progressive politics in the U.S., what paradigms underlie them, and how those paradigms need to update themselves. The authors are astute about the sociological needs that political movements need to address in order to be successful, and where they often fail. They point out that a politics that resists change and growth in order to protect their competing interests is not only unsustainable, but communicates only fear and limits. Their "politics of possibility" refreshingly proposes embracing the inevitable winds of change and using them to creatively and collaboratively shape a future that we want. They offer a vision of integrated ecological, social, and economic change driven by investment in progressive new enterprise. Their arguments are well-reasoned, original, and articulate, and provide a freshly energized perspective on many tired debates.
November 19, 2007
I found myself in the position of mostly agreeing with this book while being really annoyed with it at the same time.
I think their message has merit and their plans for how to get off our asses on Global Warming are right on. Unfortunately they spend almost no time in the book outlining the plan. Instead, they spend most of their time attacking their should-be allies in the environmental movement for being short sighted. I think that makes the book much weaker than it otherwise would be.
I think their message has merit and their plans for how to get off our asses on Global Warming are right on. Unfortunately they spend almost no time in the book outlining the plan. Instead, they spend most of their time attacking their should-be allies in the environmental movement for being short sighted. I think that makes the book much weaker than it otherwise would be.
August 21, 2009
Break Through is the book-length expansion of Nordhaus and Shellenberger's "The Death of Environmentalism" essay and a 270 page fulmination against the political paradigm of post-materialist environmentalists and liberals alike. Environmentalists, in their view, have been ineffective in summoning the collective will to combat climate change, because of their preaching a "politics of limits" and narrow, misanthropic interpretations of "nature" and "the environment." What N+S believe the American public (and likely every other public) need is a message of optimism, like that embodied in their new Apollo proposal to rebuild America, boast energy independence, catalyze new industries, and protect the environment - a win-win strategy. It's fair to say that much of the environmental outreach in the last several decades has been a "politics of limits" and of naysaying, but this hasn't been for lack of imagination. Oftentimes environmental campaigns have the end-goal of simply maintaining the current situation: unlogged forests, thriving species, uncontaminated waterways, vibrant coral reefs, etc., so there's difficulty in imagining a new world, one with the power to capture the public's interest. Instead, messages have been angled to the negative, sometimes painted with scare tactics - this is what you will lose, this is what will disappear. So perhaps it's a wise suggestion to take from this book that visioning and messaging can be reshaped, though comparing the success of evangelical Christianity to the lack of any concrete successes by environmentalists as proof positive against "limits" strikes me as foolhardy. Judeo-Christianity is just as much a belief system fixated on limits and the consequences of crossing them. The measure of one's devoutness or commitment is by how far from those limits one stays, under literal readings. And just as much as the gospel proclaims a message of deliverance and promise, this can never be divorced from the threats of damnation and hellfire which are just a doorstep away.
Another message that N&S would pound on your head with stone tablets if they could is that environmental protection is a post-material aspiration. Only after basic needs have been met, can communities be expected to care about the health of their ecosystems. While never explicitly referring to the Environmental Kuznets' Curve as this phenomenon, they fail to account for why the richest countries remain the highest emitters of greenhouse gases. EKC analyses so far indicate that at per capita incomes in excess of US$70,000 will GHG levels start to drop, however, no country enjoys such high levels of prosperity (unless you include Qatar on a per household basis and we all know they're doing nothing to reduce their emissions). Second, they want to say that carbon dioxide should not be labeled a pollutant in the first place because it's odorless, colorless, tasteless, and will not immediately cause any health effects if you breathe it in, unlike CO or Pb. They then ridicule the idea that a pollutant should be termed as such only based on the effects it poses when released en masse. Getting into the chemistry of absorption and decay would only reveal to N&S the flaw in their original premise that limits are indeed real and may serve as one-half of an important awareness-raising machine. After reading Break Through, you might find more people who are emphasizing the "dream" narrative as well as the "nightmare" narrative as a way to either avoid those limits or develop new modes of living that respect both human and non-human needs.
Another message that N&S would pound on your head with stone tablets if they could is that environmental protection is a post-material aspiration. Only after basic needs have been met, can communities be expected to care about the health of their ecosystems. While never explicitly referring to the Environmental Kuznets' Curve as this phenomenon, they fail to account for why the richest countries remain the highest emitters of greenhouse gases. EKC analyses so far indicate that at per capita incomes in excess of US$70,000 will GHG levels start to drop, however, no country enjoys such high levels of prosperity (unless you include Qatar on a per household basis and we all know they're doing nothing to reduce their emissions). Second, they want to say that carbon dioxide should not be labeled a pollutant in the first place because it's odorless, colorless, tasteless, and will not immediately cause any health effects if you breathe it in, unlike CO or Pb. They then ridicule the idea that a pollutant should be termed as such only based on the effects it poses when released en masse. Getting into the chemistry of absorption and decay would only reveal to N&S the flaw in their original premise that limits are indeed real and may serve as one-half of an important awareness-raising machine. After reading Break Through, you might find more people who are emphasizing the "dream" narrative as well as the "nightmare" narrative as a way to either avoid those limits or develop new modes of living that respect both human and non-human needs.
January 10, 2008
While sometimes reading books about super-philosphical topics like the purported "Death of Environmentalism" is painful and obnoxious, reading this book won't make you suffer at the mercy of too many large words but rather at the mercy of well-thought out arguments against the status quo. If you look at environmentalists today and see a bunch of goodhearted people who are not managing to effect much change and you want to know why, read this book. If you're interested in theories behind the environmental movement and wide-ranging analysis of encompasssing theories about the direction the world is headed, this book is for you. There are no serious solutions in this book; it is not a primer on how changing three light bulbs to compact fluorescents will ensure a good future for the next seven generations. Instead, it is a warning that we are living in an ever-changing world and adhering to policies that introduce incremental change will not allow the survival of society the way it stands. Instead, the authors advocate a vision, a big dream for the future, inspiring people with dreams rather than visions of the apocalypse to push us towards a future that can be realized as opposed to a vision of the far-fetched past that we're barely hanging on to.
June 17, 2009
If you consider yourself an environmentalist, which I do, this book will ask you to re-examine the approaches that the movement has taken lately to influence people's thinking about climate change. It has a lot of good examples of instances where the current approach of imposing limits and sacrifices hasn't worked. The author's hypothesis is that if people are going to be convinced to take action on global warming, it has to be because they are inspired by the economic possibilities of a new energy economy which increases prosperity and security for all.
I don't know if he really hit the nail on the head with any of his suggestions--mostly he just shows how the current environmental movement has fallen short (hence the "death" in the title) rather than offering concrete solutions for policy makers. It is descriptive more than it is prescriptive. But policy makers would do well to consider the points the author makes if they want to make climate change a part of their party platform.
I don't know if he really hit the nail on the head with any of his suggestions--mostly he just shows how the current environmental movement has fallen short (hence the "death" in the title) rather than offering concrete solutions for policy makers. It is descriptive more than it is prescriptive. But policy makers would do well to consider the points the author makes if they want to make climate change a part of their party platform.
October 28, 2007
The main premise of this book was pretty good -- that the environmental movement needs to move away from limits and lists of no-nos and towards a more comprehensive vision including things like debt-relief for foreign countries like Brazil, and embracing (ie funding) the improvement of clean-energy technologies, etc. The main point was that people can only worry about improving non-essential things like environmental issues when they feel secure in quality-of-life issues.
This book also suffered a little bit from the fact that they assumed that anyone for environmental improvements must also be for everything else that is usually thought of as a liberal stance; even though they advocate working with conservatives, they don't seem to think any conservatives would ever read their book. Not that I'm particularly conservative, but I feel like I can understand both sides.
This book also suffered a little bit from the fact that they assumed that anyone for environmental improvements must also be for everything else that is usually thought of as a liberal stance; even though they advocate working with conservatives, they don't seem to think any conservatives would ever read their book. Not that I'm particularly conservative, but I feel like I can understand both sides.
January 24, 2008
Amazon.com: You argue that global warming is a "monumental" crisis that demands a response beyond the more limited (and limiting) environmental policies of the past. On the other, you acknowledge that, despite a great deal of press attention, "global warming" still ranks at the very bottom of voters' concerns. How do you confront a crisis that voters don't care about?
Shellenberger and Nordhaus: By getting it out of the global warming/environmental ghetto. We know that things like energy independence, getting off oil, getting out of the Middle East, and creating jobs and economic development in the new clean energy industries of the future are much higher priorities for most voters than capping carbon emissions or taxing dirty energy sources. So why not redefine our agenda as the solution to those problems? We can still cap carbon, but that needn't be at the top of the agenda that we communicate to voters. Making big investments to get off oil, making clean energy alternatives widely available and cheap, and creating millions of new jobs in clean energy industries is a winner with American voters and can carry the whole suite of policies that we need to address global warming....
More notes and comments on thirdwavestudygroup.blogspot.com
Shellenberger and Nordhaus: By getting it out of the global warming/environmental ghetto. We know that things like energy independence, getting off oil, getting out of the Middle East, and creating jobs and economic development in the new clean energy industries of the future are much higher priorities for most voters than capping carbon emissions or taxing dirty energy sources. So why not redefine our agenda as the solution to those problems? We can still cap carbon, but that needn't be at the top of the agenda that we communicate to voters. Making big investments to get off oil, making clean energy alternatives widely available and cheap, and creating millions of new jobs in clean energy industries is a winner with American voters and can carry the whole suite of policies that we need to address global warming....
More notes and comments on thirdwavestudygroup.blogspot.com
December 24, 2007
The basic proposition of this book is that environmentalists need to learn how to place their concerns in the bigger picture. The "environment" by environmentalists is seen as something "other" than us (humans, non-environment) and victim to abuse and destruction. The only way to fix our current crisis, according to most environmentalists, is to restrict or discontinue current human activities. In order to convince others of their convictions, most environmentalists employ doom and gloom and predictions of catastrophe to scare others into acting. This hasn't been working.
The authors of this book put forward the revolutionary yet simple idea that our environmental woes cannot and are not a separate issue from all the other societal woes we are plagued by. The best way to solve our environmental problems is to solve the societal ones concurrently. The solution lies not in restricting human aspirations and power, but in unleashing it.
The authors of this book put forward the revolutionary yet simple idea that our environmental woes cannot and are not a separate issue from all the other societal woes we are plagued by. The best way to solve our environmental problems is to solve the societal ones concurrently. The solution lies not in restricting human aspirations and power, but in unleashing it.
November 12, 2008
Everyone knows that carbon-based fuels are a limited resource, and that carbon emissions are warming the earth's atmosphere at an alarming rate, but the question is: how do we move past carbon? Nordhaus and Shellenberger believe that the only way to do so is to create fuel economies that are more affordable and convenient for the companies and consumers who use them, and create jobs in the process.
The authors take great pleasure in attacking some of the established stars of the environmentalist movement -- e.g. Al Gore, Carl Pope, Jared Diamond, and Rachel Carson -- and their economy-centered approach to environmental thinking is intriguing and sometimes revelatory. What impresses me less is that they seem to view themselves as the bad boys of the environmental movement, the unpopular-but-wise truth tellers, happy to shatter any paradigms you might be beholden to. But it's hard for me to argue with the meat of their thesis.
The authors take great pleasure in attacking some of the established stars of the environmentalist movement -- e.g. Al Gore, Carl Pope, Jared Diamond, and Rachel Carson -- and their economy-centered approach to environmental thinking is intriguing and sometimes revelatory. What impresses me less is that they seem to view themselves as the bad boys of the environmental movement, the unpopular-but-wise truth tellers, happy to shatter any paradigms you might be beholden to. But it's hard for me to argue with the meat of their thesis.
October 4, 2007
This is an expanded critique of the green movement by the authors of the controversial essay "The Death of Environmentalim." The authors are public opinion researchers and political consultants and, frankly, it shows. Their criticisms are often valid but their prescriptions are too dependent upon dubious focus-group wisdom and their language is hopelessly mired in the jargon. Their favorite terms seem to be pre-political and postmaterial and the two concepts (I still can't tell you quite what they mean) are often paired in a sentence with other mumbo-jumbo like 'network-centric secular self-creators'... No doubt the authors will blame readers for not understanding what they were trying to say.
May 14, 2008
While I couldn't agree with everything in this book it was certainly very thought provoking and really got me going with a lot of their ideas and ways of looking at the politics of environmentalism and government. Basically they use the book to expand upon an essay they presented at a major environmental conference that was designed to shake things up a bit and get people thinking a little differently about how they approach environmental issues and activism.
Very enlightening and a fresh seeming approach that was fairly easy to digest. Definitely a worthwhile read and will make you wonder about a lot of things.
Very enlightening and a fresh seeming approach that was fairly easy to digest. Definitely a worthwhile read and will make you wonder about a lot of things.
January 15, 2009
This book received a lot of well-deserved scorn from the environmental and progressive communities. I plan to write an extended review on Tropophilia.com soon, but suffice to say that a) it's often a good and clarifying thing to read something you disagree with, and b) some of their less obnoxious points have real value. What the environmental community rightfully objected to is actually a relatively small (though continually emphasized) part of the book; the theoretical examination of progressive issue framing is worth a read.
December 8, 2007
Potentially paradigm shifting if we could make it next month's subway read for damn near everyone. I used to be one of those people who gave the human race fifty, sixty years tops. No longer; or if the clock is still counting down I will cheerfully be contributing thought and action when it stops.
April 17, 2008
Even though it was written by liberals (who were shunned for their work) it is one of the great recent compilations of truly innovative thinking in the realm of political idealogy and democrat/republican mindsets.
August 13, 2008
This is a superb look at environmentalism - where it came from, where its going, and how the path needs to change. It offers a new way of looking at things and offers many solid critiques of the current "environmental" movement.
Sometimes it is a little bright-eyed...but so am I, I guess.
Sometimes it is a little bright-eyed...but so am I, I guess.
May 13, 2013
First things first, this book is not claiming that environmentalism is dead. It is making the equally contentious but distinct claim that environmentalism, as it currently stands, should die.
To understand why Nordhaus and Shellenberger make this claim, it is first necessary to understand what they mean by environmentalism. According to the authors, environmentalism today is based on a "politics of limits". The mode of operation for environmental organizations is to limit or prohibit activities that are seen as harming the environment. This in itself is not problematic, but what is problematic, according to Break Through, is that modern environmentalism limits itself to these sorts of activities.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger given the example of harmful development in Brazil. They describe the environmentalist approach to saving the rain forest as limited trying to pressure the Brazilian government to pass laws that are beneficial to the rain forest. However, these actions ignore the reasons for Brazilian deforestation. Brazil actually has some protections in place (e.g., some percent of land must be left in tact by the owners), but those protections are not enforced (it is not easy to police a giant remote forest). Furthermore, violations of those protections are almost encouraged by other laws which say that homesteaded land can only be kept if it is used, leading people to large scale clearing of the land to show they are "using" it.
The second issue that the authors claim is ignored by environmentalists is the widespread poverty in Brazil. Going out and destructively homesteading the rain forest is appealing to many because there are not opportunities for them to make a good living in the cities.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger do not think that laws limiting destruction of the rain forest should be completely ignored. However, they criticize environmentalists for thinking that issues such as stable governments, poverty, and enforcement of the law are outside of the interests of environmentalists. Nordhaus and Shellenberger advocate policies that get at the root cause of environmental problems, not just the symptoms.
The authors claim that the politics of limits work even worse when it comes to solving a problem like global climate change. Deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, and other traditional environmental problems are very visible and, therefore, very easy to make people aware of. However, global climate change is not very visible. There are images of the effects of global climate change, but images (however sad) of polar bears lacking ice are not nearly as visceral are images of rivers on fire or pollution over Los Angeles.
The authors also claim that the politics of limits is a politics that only work when people feel secure. When people feel their job is secure, their mortgage will be paid, and they can put food on the table, they are willing to address at issues with more long term negative effects such as pollution or global climate change. When they fear for their jobs, homes, ability to put gas in their cars, as has recently been and currently is the case in the United States, they tend to focus on those primary needs and to reject anything that could threaten those needs in the short term (such as environmental limits). Nordhaus and Shellenberger are claiming here that modern environmentalism, despite its sometimes anti-development stance, is actually a product of prosperity and security.
This is why they propose replacing the "politics of limits" of current environmentalism with a "politics of possibility". They propose that environmentalism should have a wider range of interests that appeal to people's desire to have physical and emotional security. Thus, they propose shifting some, if not most, of the focus of environmentalism from limits to things like job creation and clean energy. These are things that people can get behind because they make them feel better about their lives, and they address root problems of many environmental problems. People in developing nations are not (and should not) going to accept being told that they have to continue living in poverty so that pollution does not increase. People in those countries, will support initiatives that help get them out of that poverty, and saving the world, under hopeful conditions, will just increase support.
I really enjoyed the core message of Break Through. I do agree that environmentalism should be about assessing and addressing root causes as well as obvious problems, and I do agree that a politics of possibility has a lot more potential than a politics of limits. However, I do have some criticisms of the book. The tone the authors use often implies that those people who are part of the politics of limits did a little that was useful and are now completely useless. I disagree with this implication. It is not bad for existing organizations to feel that they should stay focused on their mission statement. Instead of criticizing them, the authors should show them that there are more effective methods and they will either change or obsolete the existing organizations (note that the authors have started the Break Through Institute, so they are doing something. It is just their sometimes tone I find off putting).
My second criticism is of their desire for the "death of environmentalism". First, I do not think they really believe it. I think it is mostly attention grabbing rhetoric. However, if they do mean it, I do not think it is called for. I think that the actions of current environmentalism have a place in a new environmentalism. That place may be less central, but the types of problems current environmentalism is effective at solving have not been completely solved, so the organizations are not obsolete.
However, overall Break Through is a very interesting and insightful read and was certainly worth my time.
To understand why Nordhaus and Shellenberger make this claim, it is first necessary to understand what they mean by environmentalism. According to the authors, environmentalism today is based on a "politics of limits". The mode of operation for environmental organizations is to limit or prohibit activities that are seen as harming the environment. This in itself is not problematic, but what is problematic, according to Break Through, is that modern environmentalism limits itself to these sorts of activities.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger given the example of harmful development in Brazil. They describe the environmentalist approach to saving the rain forest as limited trying to pressure the Brazilian government to pass laws that are beneficial to the rain forest. However, these actions ignore the reasons for Brazilian deforestation. Brazil actually has some protections in place (e.g., some percent of land must be left in tact by the owners), but those protections are not enforced (it is not easy to police a giant remote forest). Furthermore, violations of those protections are almost encouraged by other laws which say that homesteaded land can only be kept if it is used, leading people to large scale clearing of the land to show they are "using" it.
The second issue that the authors claim is ignored by environmentalists is the widespread poverty in Brazil. Going out and destructively homesteading the rain forest is appealing to many because there are not opportunities for them to make a good living in the cities.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger do not think that laws limiting destruction of the rain forest should be completely ignored. However, they criticize environmentalists for thinking that issues such as stable governments, poverty, and enforcement of the law are outside of the interests of environmentalists. Nordhaus and Shellenberger advocate policies that get at the root cause of environmental problems, not just the symptoms.
The authors claim that the politics of limits work even worse when it comes to solving a problem like global climate change. Deforestation, air pollution, water pollution, and other traditional environmental problems are very visible and, therefore, very easy to make people aware of. However, global climate change is not very visible. There are images of the effects of global climate change, but images (however sad) of polar bears lacking ice are not nearly as visceral are images of rivers on fire or pollution over Los Angeles.
The authors also claim that the politics of limits is a politics that only work when people feel secure. When people feel their job is secure, their mortgage will be paid, and they can put food on the table, they are willing to address at issues with more long term negative effects such as pollution or global climate change. When they fear for their jobs, homes, ability to put gas in their cars, as has recently been and currently is the case in the United States, they tend to focus on those primary needs and to reject anything that could threaten those needs in the short term (such as environmental limits). Nordhaus and Shellenberger are claiming here that modern environmentalism, despite its sometimes anti-development stance, is actually a product of prosperity and security.
This is why they propose replacing the "politics of limits" of current environmentalism with a "politics of possibility". They propose that environmentalism should have a wider range of interests that appeal to people's desire to have physical and emotional security. Thus, they propose shifting some, if not most, of the focus of environmentalism from limits to things like job creation and clean energy. These are things that people can get behind because they make them feel better about their lives, and they address root problems of many environmental problems. People in developing nations are not (and should not) going to accept being told that they have to continue living in poverty so that pollution does not increase. People in those countries, will support initiatives that help get them out of that poverty, and saving the world, under hopeful conditions, will just increase support.
I really enjoyed the core message of Break Through. I do agree that environmentalism should be about assessing and addressing root causes as well as obvious problems, and I do agree that a politics of possibility has a lot more potential than a politics of limits. However, I do have some criticisms of the book. The tone the authors use often implies that those people who are part of the politics of limits did a little that was useful and are now completely useless. I disagree with this implication. It is not bad for existing organizations to feel that they should stay focused on their mission statement. Instead of criticizing them, the authors should show them that there are more effective methods and they will either change or obsolete the existing organizations (note that the authors have started the Break Through Institute, so they are doing something. It is just their sometimes tone I find off putting).
My second criticism is of their desire for the "death of environmentalism". First, I do not think they really believe it. I think it is mostly attention grabbing rhetoric. However, if they do mean it, I do not think it is called for. I think that the actions of current environmentalism have a place in a new environmentalism. That place may be less central, but the types of problems current environmentalism is effective at solving have not been completely solved, so the organizations are not obsolete.
However, overall Break Through is a very interesting and insightful read and was certainly worth my time.
October 12, 2016
The doom and gloom of present day environmentalists has created a culture of fear and anxiety not conducive to progress on issues as large and complex as global warming. Environmental policy experts Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger contest this status quo with the concept of the “politics of possibility”. Break Through: From the Depth of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility is an expansion of their 2004 article “ The Death of Environmentalism” where the concept was first introduced. In the book they argue that the current strategies of the environmental movement are based off of restraint and sacrifice when instead a more prosperous life needs to be the center of new policy. Their book focuses on highlighting these flaws and outlining ways to create effective environmental policy that takes into account the evolving world.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger bring up three basic distinctions that need to be made by the environmental movement: creation vs. preservation, material vs. post-material survival, and outer vs. inner-directed needs for purpose. They make these distinctions by showcasing case studies such as the destruction of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, the misunderstood environmental justice movement within the United States, and the social structure of the rising evangelical church.
Material and post-material needs are the basis off of which the authors launch their philosophy. Poverty, the authors explain, looks a lot different in the current age of the United States and the rest of the western world than it did back in the era of the Great Depression and material scarcity. The essential material needs of food, shelter, and safety, have already been met due to our progress and evolution as a human society. Now, more complex post-materialist needs such as fulfillment and belonging are at the forefront. Caring for the environment satisfies these needs by allowing people to feel they are working towards something greater than themselves, but as environmentalists push the idea of limitation and land preservation, they are blocking creative thought and innovation and that got the western world to the place in society it is today. Basically this line of thinking is counterintuitive.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger use their first half of the book to go further in depth about the history of environmentalism and its miscalculations in the new century. By separating economics and the environment, towns from forests, and humans from nature they are bringing us further away from cohesive solutions. Skewed poll statistics and hyper-focused legislation on the generalized problem of pollution and carbon caps will not work in a time when American’s have other issues at the top of their agendas. Crude visuals and imagery of destroyed natural systems do not motivate, but actually associate stress and doom with the idea of environmentalism and result in avoidance of the issues.
Looking at the example of Brazil and environmentalists attempts to end deforestation gives a better understanding of the authors’ stance. Brazilians in the cities like Rio de Janerio are starving, without shelter, and live in violence. They seek economic growth to get out of this situation and are only more stifled by the idea that they should not be able to utilize their natural resources to meet their material needs. By separating humans from nature and seeking perfect harmony within the natural world that is doubted to have ever existed, current environmentalists are not selling their point. Without finding a way for Brazilians to meet their material needs, the environmental movement to stop the destruction of the Amazon will never prevail.
In the second half of the book Nordhause and Shellenberger flesh out a plan that involves more progressive ideas that will result in more effective policy change. Environmentalists must expand their worldview and take a good hard look at other issues that are standing in the way of reaching their goals. The authors’ plan for the Apollo project for clean energy calls for high investment in clean energy, adding jobs to the global economy, promoting innovation and creative thought, and raising private capital. Environmentalists need to work together with the groups they typically consider their enemies, get rid of their utopian view of a pristine nature separate from humans, and start celebrating the present time in history for human’s progress and recognize what has gotten society here today. The project calls for market based solutions that work with the economy to meet material and post-material needs in a globalized market.
This book is an excellent resource for academic courses and should be a required reading of anyone going into the field of environmental policy, investment, and environmental studies. The extensive bibliography provides reference to experts in sociology, economics, history, and science. In contrast to popular environmental books such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s Break Through gleams with hope. It provides a broad overview of the progression of environmentalist thought up to this point in history and gives direction on where to go in the future. Through politics of possibility, progress on climate change can be made that celebrates human kinds victories and leads to a more fulfilled life for all beings on Earth that does not discriminate by place or kind.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger bring up three basic distinctions that need to be made by the environmental movement: creation vs. preservation, material vs. post-material survival, and outer vs. inner-directed needs for purpose. They make these distinctions by showcasing case studies such as the destruction of the Amazon rainforest in Brazil, the misunderstood environmental justice movement within the United States, and the social structure of the rising evangelical church.
Material and post-material needs are the basis off of which the authors launch their philosophy. Poverty, the authors explain, looks a lot different in the current age of the United States and the rest of the western world than it did back in the era of the Great Depression and material scarcity. The essential material needs of food, shelter, and safety, have already been met due to our progress and evolution as a human society. Now, more complex post-materialist needs such as fulfillment and belonging are at the forefront. Caring for the environment satisfies these needs by allowing people to feel they are working towards something greater than themselves, but as environmentalists push the idea of limitation and land preservation, they are blocking creative thought and innovation and that got the western world to the place in society it is today. Basically this line of thinking is counterintuitive.
Nordhaus and Shellenberger use their first half of the book to go further in depth about the history of environmentalism and its miscalculations in the new century. By separating economics and the environment, towns from forests, and humans from nature they are bringing us further away from cohesive solutions. Skewed poll statistics and hyper-focused legislation on the generalized problem of pollution and carbon caps will not work in a time when American’s have other issues at the top of their agendas. Crude visuals and imagery of destroyed natural systems do not motivate, but actually associate stress and doom with the idea of environmentalism and result in avoidance of the issues.
Looking at the example of Brazil and environmentalists attempts to end deforestation gives a better understanding of the authors’ stance. Brazilians in the cities like Rio de Janerio are starving, without shelter, and live in violence. They seek economic growth to get out of this situation and are only more stifled by the idea that they should not be able to utilize their natural resources to meet their material needs. By separating humans from nature and seeking perfect harmony within the natural world that is doubted to have ever existed, current environmentalists are not selling their point. Without finding a way for Brazilians to meet their material needs, the environmental movement to stop the destruction of the Amazon will never prevail.
In the second half of the book Nordhause and Shellenberger flesh out a plan that involves more progressive ideas that will result in more effective policy change. Environmentalists must expand their worldview and take a good hard look at other issues that are standing in the way of reaching their goals. The authors’ plan for the Apollo project for clean energy calls for high investment in clean energy, adding jobs to the global economy, promoting innovation and creative thought, and raising private capital. Environmentalists need to work together with the groups they typically consider their enemies, get rid of their utopian view of a pristine nature separate from humans, and start celebrating the present time in history for human’s progress and recognize what has gotten society here today. The project calls for market based solutions that work with the economy to meet material and post-material needs in a globalized market.
This book is an excellent resource for academic courses and should be a required reading of anyone going into the field of environmental policy, investment, and environmental studies. The extensive bibliography provides reference to experts in sociology, economics, history, and science. In contrast to popular environmental books such as Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, Nordhaus and Shellenberger’s Break Through gleams with hope. It provides a broad overview of the progression of environmentalist thought up to this point in history and gives direction on where to go in the future. Through politics of possibility, progress on climate change can be made that celebrates human kinds victories and leads to a more fulfilled life for all beings on Earth that does not discriminate by place or kind.
August 3, 2018
According to Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, the current environmentalist narrative goes something like this:
Long ago the earth was in harmony. Indigenous peoples lived sustainably with Nature knowing they were part of the great dance of life. When humans invented agriculture, and later the industrial revolution, this harmony was destroyed. Landscapes were devastated, species were driven extinct and rivers were polluted. In the sixties, informed by books such as Silent Spring, a counterculture movement of environmentalism arose and activists began to speak out against this devastation. Through protests and awareness raising such as Earth Day, they fought for and won policies to protect nature.
But a more accurate version would be something like this:
The earth has always been in flux. Humans and other creatures have always altered their environments. After World War II, living standards began to rise. People had more spare time and sought more fulfilling pursuits. Outdoor activities such as hiking and camping became popular and people became concerned about the loss of wilderness and pollution of air and waterways. Sympathetic to these concerns, the governments of the day passed regulations to restrict pollution.
Understanding the narrative that environmentalists believe in is helpful in understanding the attitudes they have today, and the key mistake they make is in seeing the issue as a Pollution Paradigm.
If you characterise the problem as one of humans polluting the planet, then the obvious solution is to limit that pollution. Individuals, communities, corporations and governments all need to be urged to limit their outputs. And if you characterise the solution as one of counterculture activists confronting and challenging the system, then it’s obvious that that is what they should continue to do so, tirelessly raising awareness with scare statistics and distressing images of destruction.
The Pollution Paradigm misses the point that living standards need to rise before environmental protection can be a priority, and the only way that can happen is if there is economic growth. Pollution has always occurred, but it wasn’t until living standards rose high enough for people to have post-material desires that change happened. When change did happen it wasn’t particularly controversial, but generally agreed on across the political spectrum and by those inside and outside of government. Not only do many environmentalists not see this, they want to slow down or even reverse growth. But they have got their history wrong and are getting the future wrong as a result. This is the first nail in the coffin of environmentalism.
The second is that environmentalism is suffocating under the weight of essentialism.
Essentialism is any kind of philosophy that reduces Truth to a single concept, which is then applied to solve any problem.
"By essentialism we mean thought that reduces complex and multiple realities to a single essence. Essentialism, in this way, constitutes a metaphysics of stasis, which imagines that all things have an essential unchanging nature that can be represented objectively. The essentialist imagines that these essences represent the totality of the reality in question and are not dependent on one’s perspective."
Nature is essentialised when environmentalists characterise it as the nonhuman world of harmony and see humans as a separate and destructive force upon it. Any attempt to improve Nature is seen as destroying it. But in fact Nature is anything but harmonious, it’s constantly evolving, and humans and human settlements are as much a part of Nature as anything else.
"There is no single transcendent Nature existing outside of humans, only differing ideas of what constitutes nonhuman and human natures."
Science is essentialised when environmentalists characterise climate science as having a single meaning – that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the earth, and a single solution – we need to reduce our emissions. They downplay aspects and interpretations of Science that don’t fit within this essential meaning. For example there’s overwhelming evidence that global warming is now inevitable and even if we do reduce emissions it’s already too late, but this is seldom the focus. Science is a tool, but there are no facts separate from values and interpretations. Science is not the moral interpreter for Nature. Science is not pure and impartial.
"There is no single glorious, and transcendent Science. There are only sciences creating contingent truths, toiling away to reveal, create, and organise facts and theories until the next revolutionary paradigm comes along to reorganise entire worlds."
It’s not only the political left that is guilty of essentialism, the political right has its own Godhead – the Market. Market fundamentalists talk of “the invisible hand of the market” as if it were something sacred and beyond human control.
"The market, for conservatives, like nature for environmentalists, is a thing separate, sacred, and inviolable. Indeed, it is natural, born of human nature and iron economic law. Sins against the market, like sins against nature, will be punished."
But markets are just systems for allocating resources. Some of them work well, others don’t, they’re neither inherently good or bad in themselves. One thing that is clear is that humans create markets, they don’t exist independently. Governments set rules, legal systems and regulations in order for markets to exist. There’s nothing natural about it.
In place of essentialism, Nordhaus and Shellenberger want to create a Politics of Pragmatism. They draw on the pragmatism of American philosophers William James and Richard Rorty who said that beliefs were “tools for shaping reality, rather than mirrors for reflecting it.” Truth is contingent on what is useful at any given time.
"Pragmatist thought begins from the premise that all knowledge is perspectival and all realities are constantly in the process of changing and becoming something else. In this way, pragmatism constitutes a metaphysics of becoming. We argue for a metaphysics of becoming rather than a metaphysics of stasis not because we believe the latter is a more objective representation of nature but because we believe it is a more useful tool for describing, shaping, and adapting to the world."
"Once we abandon the belief that there exists a nature or a market separate from humans, we can start to think about creating natures and markets to serve the kind of world we want and the kind of species we want to become."
The final nail is eco tragedy. The standard environmentalist narrative is a story of resentment and grievance. Humans through greed have destroyed the planet, and because most of them are too selfish/stupid to care/understand they are bringing on an apocalypse. It’s guilt-inducing, blaming, negative, separatist, depressing and discouraging. It’s a narrative that inspires selfishness and conservatism. It’s not a constructive way of looking at the problem.
But we know that the frightening, depressing, blaming stories don’t work. People need to feel in control and empowered or else they feel helpless and don’t do anything.
In fact, there are many things we can do to prepare for the crisis. We can redesign our landscapes, reinvent our energy, production and economic systems. We can cancel the debt that stifles much of Africa and South America, keeping those countries in poverty. The poor can begin to create their own wealth. We can seek material fulfillment and also fulfillment beyond material needs. Wildness can be protected. There will be no collapse, only change. The future is whatever we want it to be.
The Politics of Possibility is to be positive. It’s to see the dream, not be overwhelmed by the nightmare. Unleash human potential. Decide that it’s not inherently bad to be a human being and to have aspirations. We need a new vision of prosperity. We won’t just survive, we’ll prosper. It’s about gratitude at how far the human race has come, not guilt about what we had to do to get here. We do not adapt to reality, we adapt reality to us.
Long ago the earth was in harmony. Indigenous peoples lived sustainably with Nature knowing they were part of the great dance of life. When humans invented agriculture, and later the industrial revolution, this harmony was destroyed. Landscapes were devastated, species were driven extinct and rivers were polluted. In the sixties, informed by books such as Silent Spring, a counterculture movement of environmentalism arose and activists began to speak out against this devastation. Through protests and awareness raising such as Earth Day, they fought for and won policies to protect nature.
But a more accurate version would be something like this:
The earth has always been in flux. Humans and other creatures have always altered their environments. After World War II, living standards began to rise. People had more spare time and sought more fulfilling pursuits. Outdoor activities such as hiking and camping became popular and people became concerned about the loss of wilderness and pollution of air and waterways. Sympathetic to these concerns, the governments of the day passed regulations to restrict pollution.
Understanding the narrative that environmentalists believe in is helpful in understanding the attitudes they have today, and the key mistake they make is in seeing the issue as a Pollution Paradigm.
If you characterise the problem as one of humans polluting the planet, then the obvious solution is to limit that pollution. Individuals, communities, corporations and governments all need to be urged to limit their outputs. And if you characterise the solution as one of counterculture activists confronting and challenging the system, then it’s obvious that that is what they should continue to do so, tirelessly raising awareness with scare statistics and distressing images of destruction.
The Pollution Paradigm misses the point that living standards need to rise before environmental protection can be a priority, and the only way that can happen is if there is economic growth. Pollution has always occurred, but it wasn’t until living standards rose high enough for people to have post-material desires that change happened. When change did happen it wasn’t particularly controversial, but generally agreed on across the political spectrum and by those inside and outside of government. Not only do many environmentalists not see this, they want to slow down or even reverse growth. But they have got their history wrong and are getting the future wrong as a result. This is the first nail in the coffin of environmentalism.
The second is that environmentalism is suffocating under the weight of essentialism.
Essentialism is any kind of philosophy that reduces Truth to a single concept, which is then applied to solve any problem.
"By essentialism we mean thought that reduces complex and multiple realities to a single essence. Essentialism, in this way, constitutes a metaphysics of stasis, which imagines that all things have an essential unchanging nature that can be represented objectively. The essentialist imagines that these essences represent the totality of the reality in question and are not dependent on one’s perspective."
Nature is essentialised when environmentalists characterise it as the nonhuman world of harmony and see humans as a separate and destructive force upon it. Any attempt to improve Nature is seen as destroying it. But in fact Nature is anything but harmonious, it’s constantly evolving, and humans and human settlements are as much a part of Nature as anything else.
"There is no single transcendent Nature existing outside of humans, only differing ideas of what constitutes nonhuman and human natures."
Science is essentialised when environmentalists characterise climate science as having a single meaning – that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the earth, and a single solution – we need to reduce our emissions. They downplay aspects and interpretations of Science that don’t fit within this essential meaning. For example there’s overwhelming evidence that global warming is now inevitable and even if we do reduce emissions it’s already too late, but this is seldom the focus. Science is a tool, but there are no facts separate from values and interpretations. Science is not the moral interpreter for Nature. Science is not pure and impartial.
"There is no single glorious, and transcendent Science. There are only sciences creating contingent truths, toiling away to reveal, create, and organise facts and theories until the next revolutionary paradigm comes along to reorganise entire worlds."
It’s not only the political left that is guilty of essentialism, the political right has its own Godhead – the Market. Market fundamentalists talk of “the invisible hand of the market” as if it were something sacred and beyond human control.
"The market, for conservatives, like nature for environmentalists, is a thing separate, sacred, and inviolable. Indeed, it is natural, born of human nature and iron economic law. Sins against the market, like sins against nature, will be punished."
But markets are just systems for allocating resources. Some of them work well, others don’t, they’re neither inherently good or bad in themselves. One thing that is clear is that humans create markets, they don’t exist independently. Governments set rules, legal systems and regulations in order for markets to exist. There’s nothing natural about it.
In place of essentialism, Nordhaus and Shellenberger want to create a Politics of Pragmatism. They draw on the pragmatism of American philosophers William James and Richard Rorty who said that beliefs were “tools for shaping reality, rather than mirrors for reflecting it.” Truth is contingent on what is useful at any given time.
"Pragmatist thought begins from the premise that all knowledge is perspectival and all realities are constantly in the process of changing and becoming something else. In this way, pragmatism constitutes a metaphysics of becoming. We argue for a metaphysics of becoming rather than a metaphysics of stasis not because we believe the latter is a more objective representation of nature but because we believe it is a more useful tool for describing, shaping, and adapting to the world."
"Once we abandon the belief that there exists a nature or a market separate from humans, we can start to think about creating natures and markets to serve the kind of world we want and the kind of species we want to become."
The final nail is eco tragedy. The standard environmentalist narrative is a story of resentment and grievance. Humans through greed have destroyed the planet, and because most of them are too selfish/stupid to care/understand they are bringing on an apocalypse. It’s guilt-inducing, blaming, negative, separatist, depressing and discouraging. It’s a narrative that inspires selfishness and conservatism. It’s not a constructive way of looking at the problem.
But we know that the frightening, depressing, blaming stories don’t work. People need to feel in control and empowered or else they feel helpless and don’t do anything.
In fact, there are many things we can do to prepare for the crisis. We can redesign our landscapes, reinvent our energy, production and economic systems. We can cancel the debt that stifles much of Africa and South America, keeping those countries in poverty. The poor can begin to create their own wealth. We can seek material fulfillment and also fulfillment beyond material needs. Wildness can be protected. There will be no collapse, only change. The future is whatever we want it to be.
The Politics of Possibility is to be positive. It’s to see the dream, not be overwhelmed by the nightmare. Unleash human potential. Decide that it’s not inherently bad to be a human being and to have aspirations. We need a new vision of prosperity. We won’t just survive, we’ll prosper. It’s about gratitude at how far the human race has come, not guilt about what we had to do to get here. We do not adapt to reality, we adapt reality to us.
February 19, 2008
this book fleshes out the authors' earlier essay of the same title - and as with the original essay, there are pieces of their argument i find compelling and pieces that seem too glossy. the touchstone argument is that "we" can be pro-growth and still care about the state of the world.
a higher-than-i'd-like percentage of the book deals with semantics (i like semantics generally, but i'm not much on wittgenstein-style "the way we say things makes things the way they are"), introducing useful but jergonistic terms like: postmaterial insecurity, postenvironmentalism, promoting the use of natures instead of the singular nature, etc. they have a point - a more precise language is needed for nature-based discussion, since nature as other is almost entirely a construct of western industrial thinking. at the same time, i dislike the tendency to think that once you've affixed a new word you've solved the problem - and the tendency to add post- to the front and count it as new. its annoying. its also annoying that they don't feel the need to freshen their political categories - there's quite a bit of conservatives this, and liberals that, speak happening.
that caveat aside, the book is well argued and well-writtn, worth reading and worth discussing. the fact that "investing in new energy sources" is code these days for nuclear and coal and republican is crap - the fact that environmentalists have done little on a broad scale to tie fighting global warming, etc, to a positive job-creating poverty-ending agenda is also crap. i don't especially buy norhaus and shellenberger's solutions, but it does give food for thought.
a higher-than-i'd-like percentage of the book deals with semantics (i like semantics generally, but i'm not much on wittgenstein-style "the way we say things makes things the way they are"), introducing useful but jergonistic terms like: postmaterial insecurity, postenvironmentalism, promoting the use of natures instead of the singular nature, etc. they have a point - a more precise language is needed for nature-based discussion, since nature as other is almost entirely a construct of western industrial thinking. at the same time, i dislike the tendency to think that once you've affixed a new word you've solved the problem - and the tendency to add post- to the front and count it as new. its annoying. its also annoying that they don't feel the need to freshen their political categories - there's quite a bit of conservatives this, and liberals that, speak happening.
that caveat aside, the book is well argued and well-writtn, worth reading and worth discussing. the fact that "investing in new energy sources" is code these days for nuclear and coal and republican is crap - the fact that environmentalists have done little on a broad scale to tie fighting global warming, etc, to a positive job-creating poverty-ending agenda is also crap. i don't especially buy norhaus and shellenberger's solutions, but it does give food for thought.
January 23, 2020
This book is a difficult read for a number of reasons. To begin with, it's terrifying because the book was written in 2009. Here we are, ten years later, with no change to the approach and in a worse environmental state than before. Secondly, from a reader's viewpoint, it is hard to read. This book was written after the authors had published an essay entitled "The Death of Environmentalism". The entire book reads like a series of essays. There is some flow but it still feels choppy. Finally, for me personally, this book came across as more of the same in tone. The current tone in everything, environmental, political, social, economical, is hysterical screaming and ranting which blocks out what others are trying to communicate. The stance from the most vocal on both sides in any issue is basically: I know better than you because you're all a bunch of morons, so shut up and do what I say. While the point of this book is that we need to change the way we approach the environmental crisis, both economically, politically and socially, the authors devolve into ranting about how wrong everyone on both sides are. They basically take the same tone as we're hearing now. Screaming your message will not get it across, even if it's a good message. We need to change how we're communicating and fast or the collapse of society may just beat out the collapse of the environment.
December 15, 2008
A scattered critique of the current state of environmentalism as well as liberalism, poverty and post-materialism. There's a lot to disagree with in this book, but also a lot to consider for those frustrated with the limited success of environmentalism since its heyday in the 1970's.
The main point of the book is particularly salient. The environmental movement is negative in its outlook. It frames issues in negative language and seeks to solve issues in terms of limits, constraints, regulation and deprivation. The authors propose instead that these organizations consider re-phrasing their argument in positive terms of challenge, opportunity, competitiveness and creativity.
Global warming is used as a prime example. Solutions to the issue are currently phrased as those of limiting CO2 emissions, constraining growth, imposition of regulations, and changing the way we live, etc. Instead, the authors propose re-framing the issue and solutions into ones which call for funding of new technology which in turn spawns grown in green jobs, and ultimately innovative energy and technological solutions.
Given that people consistently rank economic concerns over environmental ones, they make a compelling argument.
The main point of the book is particularly salient. The environmental movement is negative in its outlook. It frames issues in negative language and seeks to solve issues in terms of limits, constraints, regulation and deprivation. The authors propose instead that these organizations consider re-phrasing their argument in positive terms of challenge, opportunity, competitiveness and creativity.
Global warming is used as a prime example. Solutions to the issue are currently phrased as those of limiting CO2 emissions, constraining growth, imposition of regulations, and changing the way we live, etc. Instead, the authors propose re-framing the issue and solutions into ones which call for funding of new technology which in turn spawns grown in green jobs, and ultimately innovative energy and technological solutions.
Given that people consistently rank economic concerns over environmental ones, they make a compelling argument.
August 27, 2017
The basic message of this book is that rather than trying to conserve our way out of climate change, environmentalists should fight for clean energy, and in particular for a moon landing-like government program to leap beyond fossil fuels. The authors argue that a conservation-based strategy won't get enough support from developing countries to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that as a matter of human psychology, the American combination of prosperity and material insecurity produces people who aren't likely to want to sacrifice to benefit future generations. Rather than creating support for conservation, environmental alarmism has produced a defensive reaction among Americans.
This argument seemed strong in 2007 when this book was written. But the events of the past decade have ensured that the same attitudes that prevent "austerity environmentalism" from being politically feasible have also weakened the constituency for clean energy investment. The 2008 crash caused the federal debt to mushroom, thus reducing political support for any form of large-scale federal spending.
This argument seemed strong in 2007 when this book was written. But the events of the past decade have ensured that the same attitudes that prevent "austerity environmentalism" from being politically feasible have also weakened the constituency for clean energy investment. The 2008 crash caused the federal debt to mushroom, thus reducing political support for any form of large-scale federal spending.
October 19, 2007
I am learning from this book that a politics of hope is necessary in creating new ideas and maintaining a sense that we can solve the current environmental crisis. I just started reading it and so far, appreciate the concise, cogent writing style, and the revealings of old historical moments with a new twist, like Dr. King's speech, for example. Inspiring, thought-provoking and worth the time to read.
June 11, 2008
Very interesting and readable. I tend to get bored with a lot of non-fiction where the author just throws fact after fact at you in service of their one argument. But I thought the authors here did a good job of supporting their argument without going on and on for too long.
This was a book club pick and at first everyone was groaning about reading another depressing book. But it's actually very hopeful.
This was a book club pick and at first everyone was groaning about reading another depressing book. But it's actually very hopeful.
July 29, 2008
Fascinating book. Provides some possible explanations for why the environmental movement has succeeded in some ways and failed in others. Break Through goes on to describe how we need to consider a very different paradigm and set of ideas for dealing with climate change. Also worth checking out the website for the organization founded by the authors: www.thebreakthrough.org
December 28, 2013
I'll take the environmentalists, thank you
JDN 2456655 EDT 19:56.
Break Through: Why we can't leave saving the planet to environmentalists by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger starts out by making some fairly good points. Modern environmentalism seems to have hit a snag with global warming; the political methods used to enact pollution regulations just don't seem to be working nearly well enough at halting the change of the world's climate. Nordhaus and Shellenberger attribute this to the failure of the "pollution paradigm", the notion that human beings are interlopers who destroy the pristine perfection of nature. This is of course silly; nature is not a static equilibrium, and evolution has always been red in tooth and claw. Beavers do not dam the rivers in order to achieve some greater ecological good; they do it to make homes for their own families.
Moreover, I do think this is a mistake that many environmentalists make; they speak of "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth", which is weak even as a metaphor. The Earth is not your mother; it is a rock that our ancestors have colonized at their own peril. Volcanoes and asteroids care not for your precious equilibrium. Honestly a better image is of a "Mexican standoff" (which as far as I know has nothing to do with Mexico): A dozen men all point guns at each other, each hoping that he will not be the last to pull the trigger. Humans have upset this balance not by polluting some pristine perfection, but by inventing better guns and body armor. Sharks would as soon kill us as we'd kill them; we're just better at it. Indeed, we are more peaceful and compassionate than most other species, and this is part of our success.
Break Through also makes some good points about how cultures are influenced by economic development; the 1960s and 1970s were a time of unprecedented prosperity, and this surely does have something to do with the outgrowth of progressive politics. When people feel secure, they are more generous, more caring. When they feel insecure, they are more cautious, more selfish. The authors coin a term "insecure affluence" for the state of the American economy; I think this is basically correct. Even our very poorest are better off than most of the world's population, but our income distribution has become unequal and unpredictable. Our poor do not suffer from starvation, but from food insecurity. Our homes are lost not to natural disasters (usually), but to bank foreclosures. Capitalism was designed as a solution to scarcity, and it worked; but now that we have solved scarcity we stubbornly refuse to give up capitalism. We live in constant competition and struggle not because we have to, but because we cannot imagine any other way.
Where Break Through loses me is in the second half of the book, where Nordhaus and Shellenberger explain their metaphysics. They consider themselves "pragmatists", and not in the vernacular sense of one who thinks practically, but in the philosophical sense of someone who doesn't believe in truth and thinks we can believe whatever we like so long as it is useful. (Useful for what? I don't know, it's never actually explained.) They use scare capitalization on Science and Truth, as though one could make quantum physics doubtful by punctuation. Is 2 + 2 really, truly, equal to 4? Yes, it is, really, even if you say it in a portentous tone of voice.
They make an analogy to cognitive therapy, which they explain thus: "In the case of the clinically depressed, it is not that they are remembering or organizing the facts incorrectly. The problem is that depressed patients organize the facts into narratives that become obstacles to living happy, fulfilling, and rewarding lives." But people in depressive episodes are remembering and organizing facts incorrectly; there's a whole list of documented cognitive biases involved in depression. Moreover, the way we know that cognitive therapy works—which it surely does, better than just about any other method of psychotherapy or psychiatry—is science. Nordhaus and Shellenberger want to have their cake and eat it too: Science is true and objective when it supports my position, but it's all just the biases of your arbitrary cultural paradigm when it disagrees with me.
And this is not their unique failing; indeed, it is the universal failing of all relativists and metaphysical skeptics. It's simply not possible to coherently deny the existence of objective reality; all you can do is deny it when you don't like it and tacitly accept it when you do. Moral norms are arbitrary, except when I say that you should not impose upon other cultures. Beliefs are true insofar as they are useful for your goals, except when your goals aren't mine.
Along the way they generally strawman realism, as indeed Nordhaus and Shellenberger make sure to do. The only alternative they offer to their anti-realist pragmatism is "essentialism": "By essentialism we mean thought that reduces complex and multiple realities to a single essense. Essentialism, in this way, constitutes a metaphysics of stasis, which imagines that all things have an essential unchanging nature that can be represented objectively." Funny, I was not aware that things could only objectively exist if they never changed; I didn't realize that in order to believe that, say, a mountain is actually there I would also be required to believe that it will always be there. Clearly, since the mountain may eventually erode, it is just as reasonable to believe that it is an illusion created by a conspiracy of fairies in my ears.
That may sound in turn like a strawman of anti-realism; but I assure you, it is not straw but banana. (A strawman argument is when you make their argument sound silly by misrepresenting it; a banana argument, named for Ray Comfort, is when their argument simply is that silly even when you represent it faithfully.) I'll led Nordhaus and Shellenberger speak for themselves: "But there is no single meaning of global warming. Does global warming mean (a) we're all gonna die!; (b) we'll be growing bigger and sweeter tomatoes in northern California; (c) humans will survive but find themselves living like prehistoric cave dwellers; (d) we are being punished for our sins against nature; (e) we need better light bulbs and hybrid cars; (f) we must unite the human race around a vision for a clean-energy future; (g) finally we can build those nuclear power plants we've always wanted!; (h) we need a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions; (i) we must prepare for the worst and hope for the best; (j) the Rapture is on its way; (k) none of the above; or (l) all of the above?"
They honestly don't seem to understand the differences between these claims; thus they conflate predictions ("humans will survive but find themselves living like prehistoric cave dwellers") with policies ("we need better light bulbs and hybrid cars") with explanations ("we are being punished for our sins against nature"). Moreover, they don't seem to grasp the basic fact that those predictions either will or will not come true, objectively, and many of them are mutually inconsistent. If we all die, we aren't going to be growing any tomatoes. Nor do they seem to appreciate that some explanations are supported by the evidence and others aren't (and all the explanations they include in the list are very much in the latter category—seriously, the Rapture?). Even if it were true that the policy choices involved some degree of subjectivity (personally I doubt even that), this wouldn't mean that we are free to believe whatever we want about the future fate of humanity or the imminence of the Rapture.
Environmentalism is in need of a new approach, to be sure; and to some degree we may even want to allow political expediency to overtake scientific objectivity if it is the only way to save millions of lives. But things do not become true simply because you want them to be, or because you find it useful to believe that they are.
JDN 2456655 EDT 19:56.
Break Through: Why we can't leave saving the planet to environmentalists by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger starts out by making some fairly good points. Modern environmentalism seems to have hit a snag with global warming; the political methods used to enact pollution regulations just don't seem to be working nearly well enough at halting the change of the world's climate. Nordhaus and Shellenberger attribute this to the failure of the "pollution paradigm", the notion that human beings are interlopers who destroy the pristine perfection of nature. This is of course silly; nature is not a static equilibrium, and evolution has always been red in tooth and claw. Beavers do not dam the rivers in order to achieve some greater ecological good; they do it to make homes for their own families.
Moreover, I do think this is a mistake that many environmentalists make; they speak of "Mother Nature" or "Mother Earth", which is weak even as a metaphor. The Earth is not your mother; it is a rock that our ancestors have colonized at their own peril. Volcanoes and asteroids care not for your precious equilibrium. Honestly a better image is of a "Mexican standoff" (which as far as I know has nothing to do with Mexico): A dozen men all point guns at each other, each hoping that he will not be the last to pull the trigger. Humans have upset this balance not by polluting some pristine perfection, but by inventing better guns and body armor. Sharks would as soon kill us as we'd kill them; we're just better at it. Indeed, we are more peaceful and compassionate than most other species, and this is part of our success.
Break Through also makes some good points about how cultures are influenced by economic development; the 1960s and 1970s were a time of unprecedented prosperity, and this surely does have something to do with the outgrowth of progressive politics. When people feel secure, they are more generous, more caring. When they feel insecure, they are more cautious, more selfish. The authors coin a term "insecure affluence" for the state of the American economy; I think this is basically correct. Even our very poorest are better off than most of the world's population, but our income distribution has become unequal and unpredictable. Our poor do not suffer from starvation, but from food insecurity. Our homes are lost not to natural disasters (usually), but to bank foreclosures. Capitalism was designed as a solution to scarcity, and it worked; but now that we have solved scarcity we stubbornly refuse to give up capitalism. We live in constant competition and struggle not because we have to, but because we cannot imagine any other way.
Where Break Through loses me is in the second half of the book, where Nordhaus and Shellenberger explain their metaphysics. They consider themselves "pragmatists", and not in the vernacular sense of one who thinks practically, but in the philosophical sense of someone who doesn't believe in truth and thinks we can believe whatever we like so long as it is useful. (Useful for what? I don't know, it's never actually explained.) They use scare capitalization on Science and Truth, as though one could make quantum physics doubtful by punctuation. Is 2 + 2 really, truly, equal to 4? Yes, it is, really, even if you say it in a portentous tone of voice.
They make an analogy to cognitive therapy, which they explain thus: "In the case of the clinically depressed, it is not that they are remembering or organizing the facts incorrectly. The problem is that depressed patients organize the facts into narratives that become obstacles to living happy, fulfilling, and rewarding lives." But people in depressive episodes are remembering and organizing facts incorrectly; there's a whole list of documented cognitive biases involved in depression. Moreover, the way we know that cognitive therapy works—which it surely does, better than just about any other method of psychotherapy or psychiatry—is science. Nordhaus and Shellenberger want to have their cake and eat it too: Science is true and objective when it supports my position, but it's all just the biases of your arbitrary cultural paradigm when it disagrees with me.
And this is not their unique failing; indeed, it is the universal failing of all relativists and metaphysical skeptics. It's simply not possible to coherently deny the existence of objective reality; all you can do is deny it when you don't like it and tacitly accept it when you do. Moral norms are arbitrary, except when I say that you should not impose upon other cultures. Beliefs are true insofar as they are useful for your goals, except when your goals aren't mine.
Along the way they generally strawman realism, as indeed Nordhaus and Shellenberger make sure to do. The only alternative they offer to their anti-realist pragmatism is "essentialism": "By essentialism we mean thought that reduces complex and multiple realities to a single essense. Essentialism, in this way, constitutes a metaphysics of stasis, which imagines that all things have an essential unchanging nature that can be represented objectively." Funny, I was not aware that things could only objectively exist if they never changed; I didn't realize that in order to believe that, say, a mountain is actually there I would also be required to believe that it will always be there. Clearly, since the mountain may eventually erode, it is just as reasonable to believe that it is an illusion created by a conspiracy of fairies in my ears.
That may sound in turn like a strawman of anti-realism; but I assure you, it is not straw but banana. (A strawman argument is when you make their argument sound silly by misrepresenting it; a banana argument, named for Ray Comfort, is when their argument simply is that silly even when you represent it faithfully.) I'll led Nordhaus and Shellenberger speak for themselves: "But there is no single meaning of global warming. Does global warming mean (a) we're all gonna die!; (b) we'll be growing bigger and sweeter tomatoes in northern California; (c) humans will survive but find themselves living like prehistoric cave dwellers; (d) we are being punished for our sins against nature; (e) we need better light bulbs and hybrid cars; (f) we must unite the human race around a vision for a clean-energy future; (g) finally we can build those nuclear power plants we've always wanted!; (h) we need a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions; (i) we must prepare for the worst and hope for the best; (j) the Rapture is on its way; (k) none of the above; or (l) all of the above?"
They honestly don't seem to understand the differences between these claims; thus they conflate predictions ("humans will survive but find themselves living like prehistoric cave dwellers") with policies ("we need better light bulbs and hybrid cars") with explanations ("we are being punished for our sins against nature"). Moreover, they don't seem to grasp the basic fact that those predictions either will or will not come true, objectively, and many of them are mutually inconsistent. If we all die, we aren't going to be growing any tomatoes. Nor do they seem to appreciate that some explanations are supported by the evidence and others aren't (and all the explanations they include in the list are very much in the latter category—seriously, the Rapture?). Even if it were true that the policy choices involved some degree of subjectivity (personally I doubt even that), this wouldn't mean that we are free to believe whatever we want about the future fate of humanity or the imminence of the Rapture.
Environmentalism is in need of a new approach, to be sure; and to some degree we may even want to allow political expediency to overtake scientific objectivity if it is the only way to save millions of lives. But things do not become true simply because you want them to be, or because you find it useful to believe that they are.
Read
June 16, 2020Break Through brings a different perspective to the mainstream environmental movement. Words like "sustainability" and "green" are more common than ever before. This indicates a greater awareness of the environmental challenges we face today, but doesn't always tell the full truth or give great understanding to the complexity and layers of the challenges we face. We now have to deal with "green-washing", false organic labels, and slogans for buying green that still ignore problems of increasing consumption.
They talk about environmentalists fighting to save the rain forest, who often don't take into account the local communities that make a living through cutting down the trees. They forget traditional methods of slash and burn agriculture and only see the destruction of the forest. Because the forests in the US are already destroyed, they turn to the Amazon as the last great forest that needs to be preserved for health of the rest of the globe. They criticize many actors in the environmental movement for taking the wrong approach, or looking at the environment as something to be preserved, separate from humanity. They mention Al Gore's fixation on invoking fear in The Inconvenient Truth, without providing large scale alternatives. The book opens with Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech "I have a dream", but reveal that this speech started as "I have a nightmare", until his friend yelled from the audience for him to tell everyone about the dream. And they talk about different approaches that have worked- mentioning the successful model of evangelical mega-churches where people come to find friends, and build their community from common beliefs.
The authors call for a change in rhetoric- focusing on the many positive things that are happening to confront global warming/climate change, instead of using fear. “We know from extensive psychological research, that presenting frightening disaster scenarios provokes fatalism, paralysis and ... individualistic thoughts of adaptation, not empowerment, hope, creativity and collective action.” Their positive approach reminded me a lot of our Corps Day on asset-based development, looking at the assets rather than the deficiencies in a community. It only makes sense that people feel more connected and willing to be involved in change if they see the positive things that have already happened and see how they fit into that movement, rather than being faced with an overwhelming list of problems that need to be solved.
I'm glad I read the book because it made me look at environmentalism with a more critical eye and recognize that all actors are not equally represented. We are still a long way from an inclusive environmental movement. This book brought forward many interesting critiques but also focused on the need for a different approach in order to be successful. If you're interested in environmental issues and different approaches to community development, I recommend this book.
more on their website: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/breakt...
They talk about environmentalists fighting to save the rain forest, who often don't take into account the local communities that make a living through cutting down the trees. They forget traditional methods of slash and burn agriculture and only see the destruction of the forest. Because the forests in the US are already destroyed, they turn to the Amazon as the last great forest that needs to be preserved for health of the rest of the globe. They criticize many actors in the environmental movement for taking the wrong approach, or looking at the environment as something to be preserved, separate from humanity. They mention Al Gore's fixation on invoking fear in The Inconvenient Truth, without providing large scale alternatives. The book opens with Martin Luther King Jr.'s speech "I have a dream", but reveal that this speech started as "I have a nightmare", until his friend yelled from the audience for him to tell everyone about the dream. And they talk about different approaches that have worked- mentioning the successful model of evangelical mega-churches where people come to find friends, and build their community from common beliefs.
The authors call for a change in rhetoric- focusing on the many positive things that are happening to confront global warming/climate change, instead of using fear. “We know from extensive psychological research, that presenting frightening disaster scenarios provokes fatalism, paralysis and ... individualistic thoughts of adaptation, not empowerment, hope, creativity and collective action.” Their positive approach reminded me a lot of our Corps Day on asset-based development, looking at the assets rather than the deficiencies in a community. It only makes sense that people feel more connected and willing to be involved in change if they see the positive things that have already happened and see how they fit into that movement, rather than being faced with an overwhelming list of problems that need to be solved.
I'm glad I read the book because it made me look at environmentalism with a more critical eye and recognize that all actors are not equally represented. We are still a long way from an inclusive environmental movement. This book brought forward many interesting critiques but also focused on the need for a different approach in order to be successful. If you're interested in environmental issues and different approaches to community development, I recommend this book.
more on their website: http://www.thebreakthrough.org/breakt...
February 7, 2021
As a giant Breakthrough Institute fan girl, it's long time I read this founding text. Some of the examples they reference are understandably a bit dated, given this is from 2007, but sadly, many of the underlying cultural and environmental movement paradigms are still quite relevant. Key points:
-Increasing economic and political uncertainty disrupt the imagination, collaboration, and empathy that will be key to tackling the challenges we face, esp environmental. Environmentalists who campaign on fear and shame dig the movement's grave with their audiences.
-Understanding the drivers of behavior and having a full contextual and cultural understanding necessary to fixing challenges, including national aspirations. Example given of Western environmentalist's continued failure to embrace that with "saving the rainforest".
-Centering dialogue about expansive, prosperous postmaterial life, with thriving economy and embracing our desire for choice - pushing environmentalists to can it with the degrowth
-Environmental justice might be founded on 1) untrue claims (need to read more on that) and 2) narrow visions that don't activate on what really matters to communities, including those they claim to serve
-Interest-based institutions and groups bound to fail with interconnected problems/opportunities like climate change. They enforce boundaries between Nature/not, Us/Them, that limit our ability to solve our problems.
-Markets not inherently bad. We should ask "What values and *futures* should markets serve?" "Once we abandon the belief that there exists a nature or a market separate from humans, we can start to think about creating natures and markets to serve the kind of world we want and the kind of species we want to become"
-Increasing economic and political uncertainty disrupt the imagination, collaboration, and empathy that will be key to tackling the challenges we face, esp environmental. Environmentalists who campaign on fear and shame dig the movement's grave with their audiences.
-Understanding the drivers of behavior and having a full contextual and cultural understanding necessary to fixing challenges, including national aspirations. Example given of Western environmentalist's continued failure to embrace that with "saving the rainforest".
-Centering dialogue about expansive, prosperous postmaterial life, with thriving economy and embracing our desire for choice - pushing environmentalists to can it with the degrowth
-Environmental justice might be founded on 1) untrue claims (need to read more on that) and 2) narrow visions that don't activate on what really matters to communities, including those they claim to serve
-Interest-based institutions and groups bound to fail with interconnected problems/opportunities like climate change. They enforce boundaries between Nature/not, Us/Them, that limit our ability to solve our problems.
-Markets not inherently bad. We should ask "What values and *futures* should markets serve?" "Once we abandon the belief that there exists a nature or a market separate from humans, we can start to think about creating natures and markets to serve the kind of world we want and the kind of species we want to become"
Displaying 1 - 30 of 60 reviews