What do you think?
Rate this book
Getting to Green: Saving Nature: A Bipartisan Solution
“Regardless of your place on the political spectrum, there is much to admire in this book, which reminds us that the stewardship of nature is an obligation shared by all Americans.” ―U.S. Senator Angus S. King Jr. The Green movement in America has lost its way. Pew polling reveals that the environment is one of the two things about which Republicans and Democrats disagree most. Congress has not passed a landmark piece of environmental legislation for a quarter-century. As atmospheric CO2 continues its relentless climb, even environmental insiders have pronounced “the death of environmentalism.” In Getting to Green , Frederic C. Rich argues that meaningful progress on urgent environmental issues can be made only on a bipartisan basis. Rich reminds us of American conservation’s conservative roots and of the bipartisan political consensus that had Republican congressmen voting for, and Richard Nixon signing, the most important environmental legislation of the 1970s. He argues that faithfulness to conservative principles requires the GOP to support environmental protection, while at the same time he criticizes the Green movement for having drifted too far to the left and too often appearing hostile to business and economic growth. With a clear-eyed understanding of past failures and a realistic view of the future, Getting to Green argues that progress on environmental issues is within reach. The key is encouraging Greens and conservatives to work together in the space where their values overlap―what the book calls “Center Green.” Center Green takes as its model the hugely successful national land trust movement, which has retained vigorous bipartisan support. Rich’s program is pragmatic and non-ideological. It is rooted in the way America is, not in a utopian vision of what it could become. It measures policy not by whether it is the optimum solution but by the two-part test of whether it would make a meaningful contribution to an environmental problem and whether it is achievable politically. Application of the Center Green approach moves us away from some of the harmful orthodoxies of mainstream environmentalism and results in practical and actionable positions on climate change, energy policy, and other crucial issues. This is how we get to Green.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published April 18, 2016
11 people are currently reading
713 people want to read
About the author
Frederic C. Rich
4 books53 followersFred Rich is an author whose writing, both fiction and non-fiction, probes contemporary political and moral issues from a fresh perspective. That perspective is independent, non-partisan, and pragmatic.
His latest book, Escape from Extinction, an Eco-Genetic Novel (Vector Books, forthcoming October 1, 2020), is a retelling of the Prometheus/Frankenstein story for the age of genetics. Scientists wielding new tools for editing DNA have the power to change the blueprint for humanity, hack evolution, re-engineer nature, resurrect extinct species, and even create entirely new forms of life. We are in what Siddhartha Mukherjee in his bestseller The Gene calls “a headlong sprint into an abyss.” Escape from Extinction uses storytelling to explore this abyss. In Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, the intersection of avarice and scientific hubris gave us man-eating velociraptors. Here, the “monster” is an empathetic and charming de-extincted Neanderthal teenager, who many nevertheless believe presents the same threat to humanity as Crichton’s dinosaurs.
His first book, Christian Nation (W.W. Norton, 2013), is a work of speculative fiction that considers the political ambitions of Christian fundamentalism in America. The novel was called "brilliant" by Richard Dawkins, "well written and persuasive" by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "required reading" by the New York Post, and "riveting, provocative reading" by Booklist.
Rich's second book, Getting to Green ( W.W. Norton, 2016), tells the story of how the American environmental movement lost its way and explains how it can get back on track. The book contains a rousing call for conservatives to reconnect with their long tradition of support for conservation and for the Green movement to adopt the reforms necessary to restore bipartisan support for the environmental agenda.
Rich studied public and international affairs at Princeton and moral philosophy at King's College, Cambridge, before receiving his law degree at University of Virginia Law School. He spent his law career as a partner of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, an international law firm, before leaving at the end of 2014 to devote himself full-time to writing and teaching.
Fred lives and writes in both Manhattan and New York State’s inspiring Hudson Valley. He is currently working on a book about our national crisis of incompetence.
His latest book, Escape from Extinction, an Eco-Genetic Novel (Vector Books, forthcoming October 1, 2020), is a retelling of the Prometheus/Frankenstein story for the age of genetics. Scientists wielding new tools for editing DNA have the power to change the blueprint for humanity, hack evolution, re-engineer nature, resurrect extinct species, and even create entirely new forms of life. We are in what Siddhartha Mukherjee in his bestseller The Gene calls “a headlong sprint into an abyss.” Escape from Extinction uses storytelling to explore this abyss. In Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park, the intersection of avarice and scientific hubris gave us man-eating velociraptors. Here, the “monster” is an empathetic and charming de-extincted Neanderthal teenager, who many nevertheless believe presents the same threat to humanity as Crichton’s dinosaurs.
His first book, Christian Nation (W.W. Norton, 2013), is a work of speculative fiction that considers the political ambitions of Christian fundamentalism in America. The novel was called "brilliant" by Richard Dawkins, "well written and persuasive" by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "required reading" by the New York Post, and "riveting, provocative reading" by Booklist.
Rich's second book, Getting to Green ( W.W. Norton, 2016), tells the story of how the American environmental movement lost its way and explains how it can get back on track. The book contains a rousing call for conservatives to reconnect with their long tradition of support for conservation and for the Green movement to adopt the reforms necessary to restore bipartisan support for the environmental agenda.
Rich studied public and international affairs at Princeton and moral philosophy at King's College, Cambridge, before receiving his law degree at University of Virginia Law School. He spent his law career as a partner of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, an international law firm, before leaving at the end of 2014 to devote himself full-time to writing and teaching.
Fred lives and writes in both Manhattan and New York State’s inspiring Hudson Valley. He is currently working on a book about our national crisis of incompetence.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
January 31, 2017
Probably one of the best political books I've read. The book re-affirms that I can care about the environment and how our resources are being spent while also being for industry, capitalism, and progress. You can care about what the planet is going to look like in 20 years without coming off like a pony-tailed, burkenstock wearing, tree-hugger. This book and the solutions it proposes are a step in the right direction to getting everyone understanding how to we can continue to build a better tomorrow: both environmentally and industrially.
July 22, 2016
If I had the power to make everyone read one book, I think I might spend that power on this book. On the surface, it might seem an odd choice. Fred Rich's writing style won't move anyone to tears with descriptions of awesome beauty or powerful prose. I'd even go as far as to say it's a bit of a textbook. And yet. And yet. Because despite the back-handed nature of this introduction, I'm about to launch into one hell of a compliment.
The ideas in this book are amazing. Rich's argument about the "Great Estrangement," as he called it, had me nodding along and muttering "yeah, that's a really good point" throughout the book. It made me realize that I'm as guilty as anyone of having a short-term view of politics and political history. I may not be strident about it, but I'd fallen into the partisan rift. Rich reminded me that conservation USED to be a core tenet of conservatism, and likely still lingers just below the surface. It was a Republican that gave us the EPA, after all (even if that Republican was Nixon). Teddy Roosevelt is a legend for his dedication to conservation; the roots are there. The bones are there. It's only recently that this "drill, baby, drill" inanity has taken root.
Rich pulls no punches. He takes the left to task for alienating the right, for making it easy for Green to be dismissed. He argues that Greens have allowed their base to be broad, but shallow; that is, many people say the environment is important, but it's not on on the top of many voters' list of priorities. Most of all, however, he argues that Green lost its focus. He points to other movements that have been successful and credits at least some of that success to their laser-focus on their core issue: the Civil Rights Movement and the NRA are (perhaps oddly) his two best examples and as someone who continually despairs at the sense that the NRA and the gun lobby are unstoppable, it's hard not to agree with that point.
Rich's core argument is that we need to get back to the Center, what he calls "Center Green." It's a position I've gravitated towards my entire life, the idea that you should persuade rather than threaten, that it's more important to be a good ambassador than a ferocious militant. I remain convinced that PETA has done more harm than good, even if their hearts are in the right place, simply because their various stunts have created a reaction in people that is "those PETA people are assholes and I don't like them, therefore I do not support their position." People really do shoot the messenger; it's human nature.
Rich argues that we need to change that and that Green needs to deploy all the tools in its kit to make it happen. We need more focus on the positive work that Green has done (remember acid rain? The impending destruction of the ozone layer?) and less apocalyptic doomsaying. We need to be willing to employ language that many progressives are uncomfortable with, but would be undeniably effective in convincing conservatives to join the cause, such as making environmentalism a moral issue. The trend right now is that the facts should speak for themselves, but the reality is that the facts aren't enough. People are emotional and can be appealed to emotionally, and it's not as though there isn't plenty to be emotional about when it comes to talking about the beauty of the environment and its importance in the lives of people.
Most of all, as I read the book, I kept thinking back to a particular family member of mine. He and I don't talk politics, ever, but I know he's as much to the right as I am to the left. But he was the one who taught me how to hike, he taught me how to navigate by map and compass, he put together scavenger hunts for me out in the wood, and he, more than anyone else, shared such an enthusiastic love for the outdoors that I couldn't help but follow in his example. And yet the modern Green movement has made no room under its tent for a person like him. It has done nothing to make him feel welcome. Here's the man who is basically my environmental mentor and yet the modern Green movement does not want him, because his politics are different.
Rich argues that needs to change. Green needs to be a center issue, not a progressive one, because that's the only way anything will every get done. It's the only way we're ever going to succeed; all the greatest achievements in environmentalism's history were done by reaching across the aisle and finding common cause. And although it might seem impossible to imagine in an era of Trumpism, I think that we can rediscover the ability to work together. And this book was instrumental in helping me arrive at that conclusion. I'm ready to work towards Center Green. And I think that, if you read this book, you will most likely feel the same.
The ideas in this book are amazing. Rich's argument about the "Great Estrangement," as he called it, had me nodding along and muttering "yeah, that's a really good point" throughout the book. It made me realize that I'm as guilty as anyone of having a short-term view of politics and political history. I may not be strident about it, but I'd fallen into the partisan rift. Rich reminded me that conservation USED to be a core tenet of conservatism, and likely still lingers just below the surface. It was a Republican that gave us the EPA, after all (even if that Republican was Nixon). Teddy Roosevelt is a legend for his dedication to conservation; the roots are there. The bones are there. It's only recently that this "drill, baby, drill" inanity has taken root.
Rich pulls no punches. He takes the left to task for alienating the right, for making it easy for Green to be dismissed. He argues that Greens have allowed their base to be broad, but shallow; that is, many people say the environment is important, but it's not on on the top of many voters' list of priorities. Most of all, however, he argues that Green lost its focus. He points to other movements that have been successful and credits at least some of that success to their laser-focus on their core issue: the Civil Rights Movement and the NRA are (perhaps oddly) his two best examples and as someone who continually despairs at the sense that the NRA and the gun lobby are unstoppable, it's hard not to agree with that point.
Rich's core argument is that we need to get back to the Center, what he calls "Center Green." It's a position I've gravitated towards my entire life, the idea that you should persuade rather than threaten, that it's more important to be a good ambassador than a ferocious militant. I remain convinced that PETA has done more harm than good, even if their hearts are in the right place, simply because their various stunts have created a reaction in people that is "those PETA people are assholes and I don't like them, therefore I do not support their position." People really do shoot the messenger; it's human nature.
Rich argues that we need to change that and that Green needs to deploy all the tools in its kit to make it happen. We need more focus on the positive work that Green has done (remember acid rain? The impending destruction of the ozone layer?) and less apocalyptic doomsaying. We need to be willing to employ language that many progressives are uncomfortable with, but would be undeniably effective in convincing conservatives to join the cause, such as making environmentalism a moral issue. The trend right now is that the facts should speak for themselves, but the reality is that the facts aren't enough. People are emotional and can be appealed to emotionally, and it's not as though there isn't plenty to be emotional about when it comes to talking about the beauty of the environment and its importance in the lives of people.
Most of all, as I read the book, I kept thinking back to a particular family member of mine. He and I don't talk politics, ever, but I know he's as much to the right as I am to the left. But he was the one who taught me how to hike, he taught me how to navigate by map and compass, he put together scavenger hunts for me out in the wood, and he, more than anyone else, shared such an enthusiastic love for the outdoors that I couldn't help but follow in his example. And yet the modern Green movement has made no room under its tent for a person like him. It has done nothing to make him feel welcome. Here's the man who is basically my environmental mentor and yet the modern Green movement does not want him, because his politics are different.
Rich argues that needs to change. Green needs to be a center issue, not a progressive one, because that's the only way anything will every get done. It's the only way we're ever going to succeed; all the greatest achievements in environmentalism's history were done by reaching across the aisle and finding common cause. And although it might seem impossible to imagine in an era of Trumpism, I think that we can rediscover the ability to work together. And this book was instrumental in helping me arrive at that conclusion. I'm ready to work towards Center Green. And I think that, if you read this book, you will most likely feel the same.
March 13, 2019
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS!!! Such a measured and practical approach to reaching across the gap in terms of environmental policy, from someone who genuinely understands and considers both sides. Also a very interesting read in the context of our current political landscape. A lot of insight into a period where politics especially around environmental policy were less bipartisan and how we got to the polarized place we are today.
November 18, 2019
This was a very compelling book that convinced me there is indeed “middle ground” to be found between the left and the right when it comes to climate change policy. Despite criticism from both sides (especially the left), the author was willing to call out the failures of both parties that led to the current arrangement that exists in politics. Herein, I’ll describe the general flow of the book and the key points that I walked away with. I certainly give this book a 5 star review due to how easy it is to read (though it is a bit long and took me like a month), the great references throughout each chapter, the simple flow of the book, and fairly “easy” solutions that both sides could implement in order to find common ground. It’s a great reference book to have around too!
The book starts off explaining how unimportant climate change policy currently is in the USA. How it’s not a top concern for either major party and how most people do not even understand the full facts (on both sides). He then spends a chapter on explaining that “it wasn’t always this way”. This was one of the most informative chapters in the book in my opinion. I really wanted to know when this whole bipartisan support collapsed and who (or what party) was to blame [everyone wants to assign the blame....]. To briefly touch on the main point of that chapter, it looks like people really started to come together during the Nixon presidency. Pretty crazy huh? So many landmark legislations passed with bipartisan support during those times (1970s). Everyone always looks at Nixon in terms of Watergate and impeachment, but he really did make a huge difference in focusing on climate change (even though it was sort of inadvertently; he passed the first Earth Day!). The “Reagan Revolution” in the 1980s is when this bipartisan support started to decrease. But even all the way up to George H.W. Bush, landmark legislation was being passed (the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act of 1990).
The author explains in the following chapter how all of this momentum started to collapse. While it was easy to focus on the environment in a prospering economy, the collapse of the economy in the late 1970s caused people to start focusing more on the economy rather than the environment. Reagan felt less inclined to focus on the environment and “The Greens” started to notice this. Environmental group membership increased readily, along with radicalization of some of its members to more “extreme” viewpoints (as a reaction to the lack of caring by the right). Ultimately, this bipartisan support fell apart under Clinton/Gore when they failed to tackle any environmental legislation and were used by the right as a “icon for the failures of the left”. Fights over land use ensued, which caused the right to focus more on property rights (and thus less so about the environmental protection of those lands). In the 90s when all the major “noticeable” environmental problems were taken care of (e.g., clean water/air), the left focused more on abstract fights such as the ozone layer, biodiversity, rain forest resources, etc. This required scientific knowledge to come forth, which confused the majority of Americans (the policies were complex, not simple). People became skeptical if these policies would even fix anything. This ultimately led to where we are today with people questioning these climate change policies (the abstract and future problems are not something people can understand and deal with very easily!)! To rally up (and expand) their bases, both sides pandered to other, more extreme groups. This is why it is untolerated if you call yourself a “right-wing environmentalist”. If you don’t support all the progressive agendas of the left, then you are a hypocrite who doesn’t belong in the group. As the left drifted more and more to the left (e.g., anti-capitalist), conservatives stopped caring (or trying to care) about the environment, thus causing this major divide between left and right in politics. Even when people on the right tried to be pro-environment (e.g., Newt Gingrich), they were thrown out of the group and absolutely rail-roaded. Issues become so hyper partisan, middle ground was hard to find.
Once you learn about the history of how we got here, the book offers some good solutions on how to bring people back together. A few are as follows: (1) The left needs to stop being so apocalyptic about issues and be honest and upfront about the uncertainties. (2) The left needs to be optimistic about the future and offer effective solutions. (3) Compromising on things and allowing incremental changes to occur are necessary. (4) The left needs to accept capitalism and growth. We are not stagnating or destroying the economy over climate change. It can be had both ways. (5) The right (and left) need to focus on CONSERVATION. This is where both parties can easily agree. The right generally loves private property, limited government intervention, and hunting/fishing, etc. Conserving lands has been a cornerstone for millions on the right. The left needs to focus on this to try and get conservatives back. (6) The right needs to allow environmental regulation to occur at some times, but be prepared to compromise on certain things (e.g., emission limits, carbon tax). (7) The left should focus on simple plans, rather than comprehensive plans. These are easier to sell, and when compounded they can make a huge difference (e.g., simple carbon tax rather than a comprehensive social welfare program involving the environment, taxes, healthcare, etc). (8) Focus on reducing coal (even if it means switching from coal to natural gas). (9) The public/private sectors should focus R&D into technological advances that could help us tackle climate change. (10) Make land trusts more accessible as the right loves to put environmental protection in people’s hands and not the government’s hands. (11) Convey issues in a manner that people “feel”. Describe it like that small forest they played in growing up (instead of some plot of land in a country far away). Making things “feel” local is something both the left and the right could get behind (12) The left needs to stop saying the right is anti-science (on a general level) as most believe climate change is occurring, but they just don’t agree with the policies the left is proposing! (13) Ultimately, we should focus on making ethical choices, where both the left and the right understand we need to conserve our environment, be good stewards, and not leave future generations a broken world.
The book starts off explaining how unimportant climate change policy currently is in the USA. How it’s not a top concern for either major party and how most people do not even understand the full facts (on both sides). He then spends a chapter on explaining that “it wasn’t always this way”. This was one of the most informative chapters in the book in my opinion. I really wanted to know when this whole bipartisan support collapsed and who (or what party) was to blame [everyone wants to assign the blame....]. To briefly touch on the main point of that chapter, it looks like people really started to come together during the Nixon presidency. Pretty crazy huh? So many landmark legislations passed with bipartisan support during those times (1970s). Everyone always looks at Nixon in terms of Watergate and impeachment, but he really did make a huge difference in focusing on climate change (even though it was sort of inadvertently; he passed the first Earth Day!). The “Reagan Revolution” in the 1980s is when this bipartisan support started to decrease. But even all the way up to George H.W. Bush, landmark legislation was being passed (the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act of 1990).
The author explains in the following chapter how all of this momentum started to collapse. While it was easy to focus on the environment in a prospering economy, the collapse of the economy in the late 1970s caused people to start focusing more on the economy rather than the environment. Reagan felt less inclined to focus on the environment and “The Greens” started to notice this. Environmental group membership increased readily, along with radicalization of some of its members to more “extreme” viewpoints (as a reaction to the lack of caring by the right). Ultimately, this bipartisan support fell apart under Clinton/Gore when they failed to tackle any environmental legislation and were used by the right as a “icon for the failures of the left”. Fights over land use ensued, which caused the right to focus more on property rights (and thus less so about the environmental protection of those lands). In the 90s when all the major “noticeable” environmental problems were taken care of (e.g., clean water/air), the left focused more on abstract fights such as the ozone layer, biodiversity, rain forest resources, etc. This required scientific knowledge to come forth, which confused the majority of Americans (the policies were complex, not simple). People became skeptical if these policies would even fix anything. This ultimately led to where we are today with people questioning these climate change policies (the abstract and future problems are not something people can understand and deal with very easily!)! To rally up (and expand) their bases, both sides pandered to other, more extreme groups. This is why it is untolerated if you call yourself a “right-wing environmentalist”. If you don’t support all the progressive agendas of the left, then you are a hypocrite who doesn’t belong in the group. As the left drifted more and more to the left (e.g., anti-capitalist), conservatives stopped caring (or trying to care) about the environment, thus causing this major divide between left and right in politics. Even when people on the right tried to be pro-environment (e.g., Newt Gingrich), they were thrown out of the group and absolutely rail-roaded. Issues become so hyper partisan, middle ground was hard to find.
Once you learn about the history of how we got here, the book offers some good solutions on how to bring people back together. A few are as follows: (1) The left needs to stop being so apocalyptic about issues and be honest and upfront about the uncertainties. (2) The left needs to be optimistic about the future and offer effective solutions. (3) Compromising on things and allowing incremental changes to occur are necessary. (4) The left needs to accept capitalism and growth. We are not stagnating or destroying the economy over climate change. It can be had both ways. (5) The right (and left) need to focus on CONSERVATION. This is where both parties can easily agree. The right generally loves private property, limited government intervention, and hunting/fishing, etc. Conserving lands has been a cornerstone for millions on the right. The left needs to focus on this to try and get conservatives back. (6) The right needs to allow environmental regulation to occur at some times, but be prepared to compromise on certain things (e.g., emission limits, carbon tax). (7) The left should focus on simple plans, rather than comprehensive plans. These are easier to sell, and when compounded they can make a huge difference (e.g., simple carbon tax rather than a comprehensive social welfare program involving the environment, taxes, healthcare, etc). (8) Focus on reducing coal (even if it means switching from coal to natural gas). (9) The public/private sectors should focus R&D into technological advances that could help us tackle climate change. (10) Make land trusts more accessible as the right loves to put environmental protection in people’s hands and not the government’s hands. (11) Convey issues in a manner that people “feel”. Describe it like that small forest they played in growing up (instead of some plot of land in a country far away). Making things “feel” local is something both the left and the right could get behind (12) The left needs to stop saying the right is anti-science (on a general level) as most believe climate change is occurring, but they just don’t agree with the policies the left is proposing! (13) Ultimately, we should focus on making ethical choices, where both the left and the right understand we need to conserve our environment, be good stewards, and not leave future generations a broken world.
September 27, 2017
Getting to Green was written right before the 2016 election but for all intents and purposes it might as well have been written in 1862 on Mars.
The 2016 election and the staffing of the Trump Administration thereafter has taken a metaphorical baseball bat to any possibility of a "bipartisan" solution on a bipartisan solution for nature. At this juncture, the closest we might get to environmental is "green coal" or whatever catchy term they might come up with in order to sell coal as the best solution for our energy problems.
Getting to Green is impacted by this in a vacuum because it safely assumes the Republican nominee in 2016 and those elected around them would be more...sensible when it comes to issues concerning the environment. Clearly that notion is stripped away with the rolling back of each environmental regulation.
There are some decent ideas here, but they will definitely have to be transformed into the post-Trump world we now live in.
The 2016 election and the staffing of the Trump Administration thereafter has taken a metaphorical baseball bat to any possibility of a "bipartisan" solution on a bipartisan solution for nature. At this juncture, the closest we might get to environmental is "green coal" or whatever catchy term they might come up with in order to sell coal as the best solution for our energy problems.
Getting to Green is impacted by this in a vacuum because it safely assumes the Republican nominee in 2016 and those elected around them would be more...sensible when it comes to issues concerning the environment. Clearly that notion is stripped away with the rolling back of each environmental regulation.
There are some decent ideas here, but they will definitely have to be transformed into the post-Trump world we now live in.
May 22, 2016
I really enjoyed this book. I didn't agree with everything, but I do agree that it is important that greens try to widen the tent and draw in more conservatives in the fight to help reduce carbon emissions, preserve land, and transition to a renewable energy economy. Rich explains how environmentalism used to be more a bipartisan issue, and he dives into the whys and whens of the schism between the left and right on the environment. Would recommend to anyone interested in the environment-- liberal or conservative.
July 9, 2018
This is a clear and articulate case for pursuing Environmental goals in way that is actually possible given the current political climate and a powerful argument for broadening the environmental tent to include moderates and even--gasp--conservatives in the movement.
I love both Rich's ideals and his pragmatism. It would be wonderful to have some politicians with the guts to risk the lambasting they would take from both extremes (as I assume this book probably did) and lead out in this fashion. I could really get behind that.
I love both Rich's ideals and his pragmatism. It would be wonderful to have some politicians with the guts to risk the lambasting they would take from both extremes (as I assume this book probably did) and lead out in this fashion. I could really get behind that.
May 24, 2016
The best phrase to describe this book is the one that the author uses, “Center Green.” Rich plots a middle course regarding environmentalism, having harsh words for both the climate change deniers on the right and the equally absolutist, yet diametrically opposed people in the left. In some sense, he comes down slightly more on the side of the left, but for a logical reason.
His point is that if the left is wrong about the catastrophic consequences of climate change, then what happens on Earth will continue to progress but not be an existential threat. However, if the deniers are wrong, then there is the potential for human existence on Earth to be dramatically altered with billions at risk of death. At the very least, hundreds of millions of people will either move or die in place.
Rich is an international corporate lawyer and this is the most reasoned, rational discussion of the development of solutions to the environmental problems. Rich is correct when he describes the failures of many of the environmental groups to accept partial success and praise those that achieve it. One of the repeated points is that when a corporation reduces their carbon footprint by a number such as 10%, they should be praised rather than be told, “What about the remaining 90%?”
Rich also expresses contempt for the more radical climate change deniers and how they have taken over the Republican Party. His opinion is that the strength of the Tea Party faction will rapidly fade, to be replaced by a more moderate Republican Party that is once more willing to return to the environmentally favorable positions of people like Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.
At a time when most of the data about the changing climate is bad and frightening and the Republican Party chooses to ignore and dismiss, this is a powerful burst of fresh air. It is a positive message that raises hope, for the solutions are believable, and generally achievable. Both of the groups on the extremes should read the book and take the contents very seriously.
This book was made available for free for review purposes.
His point is that if the left is wrong about the catastrophic consequences of climate change, then what happens on Earth will continue to progress but not be an existential threat. However, if the deniers are wrong, then there is the potential for human existence on Earth to be dramatically altered with billions at risk of death. At the very least, hundreds of millions of people will either move or die in place.
Rich is an international corporate lawyer and this is the most reasoned, rational discussion of the development of solutions to the environmental problems. Rich is correct when he describes the failures of many of the environmental groups to accept partial success and praise those that achieve it. One of the repeated points is that when a corporation reduces their carbon footprint by a number such as 10%, they should be praised rather than be told, “What about the remaining 90%?”
Rich also expresses contempt for the more radical climate change deniers and how they have taken over the Republican Party. His opinion is that the strength of the Tea Party faction will rapidly fade, to be replaced by a more moderate Republican Party that is once more willing to return to the environmentally favorable positions of people like Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon.
At a time when most of the data about the changing climate is bad and frightening and the Republican Party chooses to ignore and dismiss, this is a powerful burst of fresh air. It is a positive message that raises hope, for the solutions are believable, and generally achievable. Both of the groups on the extremes should read the book and take the contents very seriously.
This book was made available for free for review purposes.
February 11, 2017
Wanted to read it, never received the copy I won in the Goodreads giveaway!
December 12, 2016
tries for balance rather than starting w/ the science and then determining a path
chp 5
anti env. republicans
chp 6
anti growth, capitalism Greens
Gus Speth Clive Hamilton (ethicist) say limits
p 85 I = PxAxT
87 'The albatross we call the politics of limits' - T. Nordhaus & M. Shellenberger
Unless Greens embrace (sustainable) economic growth, conservatives will not support enviv. movement
89 fix 'externalities' w/ Ctax
91 Rich agree there are values outside reach of the market
92 EDF, Fred Kupp, work w/ corp. Greenpeace and McD. * coke
John Cavanagh - Corp's are a problem
93 greens who point out effic not = conserv.;
Ex SC Director worked w/ Walmart
95 more carrot, not just stick, eg Ford
uncontested: 'we need massive investment in petroleum infrast. & devel for decades to come' !?
97 'relatively clean' NG
98 Sierra Club 'beyond NG' a delusion
99 Gus Speth must repudiate his views
chp 5
anti env. republicans
chp 6
anti growth, capitalism Greens
Gus Speth Clive Hamilton (ethicist) say limits
p 85 I = PxAxT
87 'The albatross we call the politics of limits' - T. Nordhaus & M. Shellenberger
Unless Greens embrace (sustainable) economic growth, conservatives will not support enviv. movement
89 fix 'externalities' w/ Ctax
91 Rich agree there are values outside reach of the market
92 EDF, Fred Kupp, work w/ corp. Greenpeace and McD. * coke
John Cavanagh - Corp's are a problem
93 greens who point out effic not = conserv.;
Ex SC Director worked w/ Walmart
95 more carrot, not just stick, eg Ford
uncontested: 'we need massive investment in petroleum infrast. & devel for decades to come' !?
97 'relatively clean' NG
98 Sierra Club 'beyond NG' a delusion
99 Gus Speth must repudiate his views
Want to read
February 19, 2016Environmental topics have never been more of a hot button issue than in today's global climate. Bipartisanship runs in short supply with Washington gridlock, leaving the journey for solutions at a standstill. Author Frederic C. Rich explores the history of cooperative politics on eco-friendly legislation for Getting to Green: Saving Nature: A Bipartisan Solution.
*Review to be updated upon receipt and completion of book.
*Review to be updated upon receipt and completion of book.
June 21, 2016
Serious topic. I wish that it was written better. Unfortunately, I found it difficult to read - could use some serious editing.
October 27, 2016
This book is on an interesting topic but I found the writing style dull.
April 16, 2017
A book for everyone. A book of practical optimism--envisioning.
April 17, 2017
Great insight to the history of the environmental movement. Makes one hopeful for the future as well
April 22, 2017
While it is a great idea to write a book mediating the green left with the ultra conservative right, doing so in the most inaccessible English is beyond me. If the author tries to find an amicable way to unite people of all parties into conservation of this planets resources, why does he do this in sentences, where you forgot at the end what the beginning was about. Why choosing difficult words, which you may have learned in AP English.
I guess it is written by a politician, for politicians.
I guess it is written by a politician, for politicians.
April 26, 2017
The conservative author gives countless instances where the conservatives were once more environmentalists than possibly the liberals of today. He also shares a plethora of historical and science based insights which reinforce where each side starts to drift apart during the Great Estrangement and how we can move back together. He wrote this before the Trump MAGA phenomenon but it is interesting how the author's ideology rings with the sentiments of Make America's Land and Waters Great Again. I recommend no matter where you fall on the political spectrum to give this book a try if you are concerned about your children and grandchildren's prospects. He will make liberals, progressives, fiscal and social conservatives uncomfortable with his unique take on "inconvenient truths" but hang in there because he has a lot of great things to say about each factions contributions to getting to green. I do have a caveat about the Tea Party ideology which he takes a very "do not suffer fools" approach throughout the book. It is not like they will read this book anyway but if you sympathize with them he will make you feel bad for even given them the merest thought.
January 6, 2018
This was a slightly more challenging read for me specifically because I have never really been interested in politics. I knew that, when picking up this book, it would be hard to get myself to read it because of my dread for political discussion, but I wanted to engage in it anyway. I do love the position the author takes in this book and his view upon us as humans and aiding our environment, but would recommend this book for only a select crowd of people.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews