The new Harper's (June 2007) contains a stunning and powerful "Notebook" essay titled "Climate, Class, and Claptrap," by Garret Keizer -- a minister, if I recall correctly. Keizer writes as well as Wendell Berry, but with a kind of righteous anger that the more ponderous Berry tamps down. This essay is about the contradictions inherent in the environmental community's fast embrace of "green capitalism" and wondertoys.
The intestinal tipping point came for me when a contingent of students from Middlebury College (annual tuition and fees $44,330) found both the gas money and the gall to drive to the town of Sheffield (annual per-capita income $13,277) in order to lecture the provincials on their responsibility to the earth and its myriad creatures. Not to be outdone, a small private school in our area (annual tuition and fees $76,900) has challenged the wind projects as a source of noise disturbance for its special-needs students. This could actually turn the tide. Like a bookie assessing the hindquarters of horses, I've learned to place my bets with a sharp eye on tuition and fees. Don't tell me where you went to school; just tell me what it cost.
Alas, the issue is not yet available online, but like every issue of Harpers, is well worth a read at your library or newsstand. (There is also a nice series of short pieces, including one by Bill McKibben -- of Middlebury College, I seem to recall -- on what needs to be done to repair the damage after W is impeached or limps home in disgrace in 2009.)
To whet your appetite, I'll further shred my carpal tunnels to share more of this powerful piece:
This pretense of not knowing what every idiot knows has increasingly come to define our national discourse. ... It also characterizes the burgeoning acknowledgment of global warming, the willingness to grant that a crisis exists even as our key players scramble to guarantee that every systemic cause of that crisis remains intact. It characterizes our farcical debate over the timetable for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq even as permanent bases are constructed in that country to oversee the flow of its denationalized oil to our national snout.
More than anything else, it characterizes our official take on wealth and class, a blind spot as large as any hole in the ozone. ...
...
But I shall be accused of dancing around the most important issue of our time, the issue at the name of which every knee shall bow. Global warming, we are told, will have its most devastating effects on the worlds' disadvantaged. Therefore, we need not care so particularly about the world's disadvantaged; we need only care about global warming -- as mediated, of course, by those who stand to make a bundle off it ...
...
Am I too irreverent? Am I not aware that polar bears are drowning in the Arctic? I am very much aware, and very grieved as well. I am also aware, thanks to book after book by Jonathan Kozol, that children are drowning in our inner-city schools and have been drowning there year after year and decade after decade, but I do not recall anything like the universal lament that has met the drowning scene in An Inconvenient Truth. Then again, the polar bear depicted in that movie has two incontrovertible advantages over Kozol's kids: it's digital and it's white ...
...
Gore speaks of the need for a different perspective ... But this is the old perspective: the race to the moon, the triumph of the will, the forward march of progress on a goosestep and a prayer. The unquestioned belief that the answer to every human dilemma and desire is a gizmo -- in short, the very attitude that gave us global warming to begin with. Those measuring the ice shelf in Greenland would do well to spend a few weeks measuring the time that typically elapses between any mention of conservation and the quick segue to something sexier; that is, to something you can buy or sell. The abolition of obscene excess, the equitable distribution of finite resources -- these have the same appeal for our movers and shakers as adopting a crack baby has for the infertile members of their club. We have all these wonder-working technologies, all these clever schemes for producing the golden eggs -- or you could always take home little Bernice. But that's going to be a lot of work.
The bottom line here is, as always, the bottom line, already being parsed out in prospectus form for the eco-savvy investor. ... Gregg Easterbrook, writing in the April issue of The Atlantic, is less of a prig. The question he invites us to ask in regard to climate change -- "What's in it for me?" -- is "neither crass nor tongue-in-cheek," he assures us. Much of what's in it for you (that is, if you happen to be affluent, educated, etc.) will come in the form of carbon trading, a shell game allowing polluters to purchase "offsets," in green-energy production, which may or may not come to include nuclear power ...
...
Presumably this is not the same greed that inspired ExxonMobil to wage a campaign of disinformation about climate change. Presumably we might also consider redirecting the primal human impulse of hate. We could get the Ku Klux Klan to buy "offsets" for lynchings in Mississippi ... It's the Devil's old remedy: If you're being poisoned to death, try taking more poison.
...
... It is not enough to acknowledge that global warming exists; we also need to ask what global warming means. Surely one thing it means is that a culture that has as its highest aim the avoidance of anything remotely resembling physical work must change its life ...
But that is only half a meaning, less than half. We're told that "that science is all in on global warming" and that it's just about unanimous. ... But the science has also been in, and in for a while, and is every bit as unanimous in concluding that we are members of a single species, descendents of common ancestors -- family in every conceivable sense of the word. How can we imagine that we will address one overwhelming consensus of scientific opinion without having acted fully on the other? ...
To put that as succinctly as possible, the days of paradise for a few are drawing to a close. The game of finding someone else in some convenient misery to fight our wards, pull our rickshaws, and serve as the offset for our every filthy indulgence is just about up. It is either Earth for all of us or hell for most of us.
‘Localwashing’ in pictures—bogus marketing at its finest
Our addiction to cheap stuff has become very expensive, new book argues
Comments
View as Threaded
Robert Delfs Posted 3:54 pm
12 May 2007
I hope Harpers will eventually see fit to post this. In the meantime, I'd like to respond to the extended quotes you provided. While I very much enjoy Keizer's insights into the often treacherous interplay of environmentalism and class politics, one wonders where he is going with this.
It's easy be scathing about Middlebury students decked in green sweat shirts driving cars their daddies bought them to Sheffield to lecture small town working class people on their environmental responsibilities. Does the fact that children are drowning in our inner city schools mean that nobody should worry about polar bears or climate change until we've brought injustice to an end? Does the fact that some people will make money through trading carbon offsets (they already are) or that some corporations will be able to reduce overall costs render the whole approach invalid or immoral? (Keizer, comparing carbon offsets to selling "lynching offsets" to the Ku Klux Klan, clearly thinks so.
The closing Keizer quote in your posting...
To put that as succinctly as possible, the days of paradise for a few are drawing to a close. The game of finding someone else in some convenient misery to fight our wards, pull our rickshaws, and serve as the offset for our every filthy indulgence is just about up. It is either Earth for all of us or hell for most of us.
... reads as an ultimatum, presumably intentionally, but betrays a dangerous illusion. Keizer isn't the only person who imagines that where Marx, Mao, and liberation theology have all failed, climate change might yet deliver us into a post-capitalist world, a class free kingdom of Heaven on Earth.
Keizer's position is not unrelated to the views of transformational environmentalists such as Curtis White, who believes..
"Even when we are trying to aid the environment, we are not willing as individuals to leave the system that we know in our heart of hearts is the cause of our problems. We are even further from knowing how to take the collective risk of leaving this system entirely and ordering our societies differently. We are not ready. Not yet, at least." (See DR's posting Two Kinds of Environmentalism.)
Sadly, Keizer's apocalyptic vision of a post-global warming era that will be "hell for most of us" may be correct. If we imagine for a moment that future history turns out closer to the more pessimistic projections, such as James Lovelock's vision of a new Dark Age beginning in the mid-21st Century as isolated bands of "hot arid world survivors" struggle to reach the last surviving Arctic centres of civilization - it is certain that some who now count themselves among the wealthy and privileged will share in the suffering of the masses. For example, those who mistime their conversion of California beachfront real estate and S&P Index funds into well-stocked, bunkers in Colorado and Idaho, for example.
If it ever came to that, I wouldn't be surprised if Bill Gates and his heirs have a very good of making it to Greenland and finding people to help htem defend their new estates against all comers, at least a better chance than I and mine. When the Keizer's Neo_Christian ChildrenChildren's Crusade launches its first attack across the tundra against Gates' New Seattle mercenary forces in the name of the New World Order, I'm afraid I wouldn't even consider betting against Microsoft.
Robert Delfs
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:12 pm
12 May 2007
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
planetthoughts Posted 8:39 pm
12 May 2007
So, what am I saying? Don't try to paint the current world situation, or people who take on various roles, in black-and-white. Subtlety always prevails, people surprise us, change can happen suddenly - in the climate but also in people. Let us each do what we can to improve things, and hope that this gradual world-awakening will make a difference when we start to pay the price, to whatever extent that is, for past foolishness by the developed nations.
David Alexander
PlanetThoughts.org
Love your Planet.
Permalink
Billhook Posted 9:56 pm
12 May 2007
but IMHO without anything particularly substantial as a proposition.
That the offspring of wealthy parents are prone to getting involved in reform movements is a given of history,
and much successful reform is the result of their idealism and efforts.
In the present case, where planetary ecology is being destroyed
and a massive genocide is being prepared by culpable negligence of the duty of care of the climate,
the Left, and the "working" class of western societies,
have been noticeable by their near total absence from campaigning on ecological issues
over the last three decades.
At this point a standard rebuttal warrants refutation -
that working class people are too busy trying to scratch a living to get involved -
which, given the hours spent of average on TV, seems like sheer partisan bullshit.
I note that it was McKibben working at Middlebury College,
not a Keizer-clone working in an inner city public college,
(let alone the multi-million dollar corporations known as WWF, FOE, Greenpeace, Sierra Club etc),
who was appalled by the fact that in 2006 the largest ever demo on GW in the US was 1,000 strong,
and so took the decision to launch Step It Up.
And McKibben's team for developing that outstandingly successful event ?
They were just students at Middlebury, working for a stipend of $100 a week for the months of its preparation.
So did Keizer's article have something constructive to say which I missed ?
Or was he just getting paid for putting down those who are trying,
from whatever station they are born into,
to generate some real change for the common good ?
Regards,
Billhook
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 10:07 pm
12 May 2007
We are a nation with a split personality.
Our culture glorifies the ruthless captialist. Yet we declare that there should be "justice for all" and find nothing wrong with the concept that "you get what you pay for" -- including legal representation. We can't make up our collective minds whether or not to cheer for the underdog so we mostly just ignore him.
It appears to me that there are indeed two kinds of environmentalists -- those who see ecological issues tied inextricably to social justice issues and those who view ecological issues as a hindrence or boost to their own economic situation. There are those who think in terms of "we" and those who think in terms of "me".
I doubt very much that "the days of paradise for a few are drawing to a close." And it already is "hell for most of us" (well an awful lot of us around the world). Warnings of increased suffering for the world's less fortunate as a reason for doing something to stem global warming falls on many deaf ears. Most people don't expect "life to be fair". And many don't really want it to be fair as long as they stand a chance of "winning" or at least getting ahead of the other guy.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:12 pm
12 May 2007
Keizer's take-home point for Grist readers is in challenging "the unquestioned belief that the answer to every human dilemma and desire is a gizmo -- in short, the very attitude that gave us global warming to begin with."
Warning signs, people: major shifts in consciousness ahead, whether we like it or not. In Keizer's phrase... "It is not enough to acknowledge that global warming exists; we also need to ask what global warming means. Surely one thing it means is that a culture that has as its highest aim the avoidance of anything remotely resembling physical work must change its life ...
Sadly, even many Gristers seem unwilling to heed this message.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 12:10 am
13 May 2007
Most of us humans do not view ourselves as part of nature -- we see ourselves as separate and "above". For thousands of years we've thought our role was to tame and control nature and use it/take from it. Our entire outlook & sense of being will shift dramatically once we realize we are part of the planet's ecology.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:48 am
13 May 2007
My big discovery is not spending money on anything to the greatest extent possible. The overhead of money is enormous - taxes, interest, waste, carbon, time, ethics, and poor health.
Physical work is good for the sole. Money is bad for the sole.
My one wish is for everyone to stop spending so much money.
Not spending money could become a silver bullet for North America's carbon footprint, and certainly a change for American consciousness.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:07 am
13 May 2007
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:56 am
13 May 2007
This is the ultimate economic impracticality.
I would say spend more money, but spend it on the right things. Spend it on investments in innovation that boosts productivity. As measured by the amount of work input by each human compared to the standard of living of each human. Standard of living measured not in consumption, but rather in quality of life.
I say we need a huge wave of spending instead of a depression caused by folks sitting on their wallets. A renewable energy and energy conservation technologically driven boom.
We are in an emergency situation with GHG problems and oil and nuclear proliferation wars.
Increase growth, increase jobs. just like in WW2 war production. People need to make more money and spend it on investing in their own energy saving technology to benefit their own quality of life.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:09 am
13 May 2007
Joe has enough extra income to buy a serial plugin hybrid, like the gM Volt, that saves him hundreds of dollar in gasoline costs every month.
Joe's standard of living keeps going up. He invests more extra income into more renewable energy, maybe a wind machine, a greenhouse. Pretty soon a lot of the family food is from the greenhouse.
And so it goes. Cash going from oily corporate monopolies to local businesses that install renewable energy equipment and progressive corporations that manufacture cars like the Volt and better solar panels, wind machines, and so forth.
As Joe's investment path goes so does the path of the rest of the economic culture at all levels. Every mall and fasctory and apartment complex fitted out with renewable energy, everyone's standard of living boosted. Great jobs with long term prospects.
Who suffers in this picture? Exxon, halliburton,peaboddy coal, cheney... who cares?
There will be jobs waiting for the former employees of these oily dinosaurs, better jobs with better karma, and reliable pensions and healthcare plans. Retirement based on a sounder footing.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:29 am
13 May 2007
Thanks also to Robert Delfs and Billhook, for standing up for students at expensive private schools, and for Middlebury students in particular. My husband and I are fond of Middlebury, and are hoping to stay at the Middlebury Inn at some point, now that we know that they have dog-friendly quarters.
It is just a cliche', to point out that high-end schools are elitist. It no doubt is true that in the US, where we either foolishly or wickedly pretend that there are no class distinctions, these very expensive schools do indeed support a system of upper-class privilege.
"School" is ultimately derived from Greek "schole'," the last E being an Eta and so pronounced, and the word itself rhyming with Spanish "!Ole'!" "Schole'" means "leisure." I.e., not having to labor in the fields or in the shop all day. Therefore, people who go to school belong to a much more comfortable class than do the farmers, laborers, artisans, shop-keepers, etc.
On the other hand, our civilization recognizes that the education of certain citizens can benefit the entire society, if students are encouraged to dedicate their learning and talents to something socially useful. We should be grateful to the Middlebury students referred to in this story, for example, for trying nobly to do something good, in spite of their unquestioned sense of entitlement in certain matters.
On the other hand, it would be unfortunate, if they in fact offended the good people of Sheffield. Did their mission to Sheffield really involve "gall"? My guess is, the students at Middlebury, although they are children of parents much richer than are the residents of Sheffield, nevertheless do not think at all that they are "better" than the residents of Sheffield.
Or perhaps I am being naive.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:33 am
13 May 2007
When I think about SIU, I'm reminded of a zen parable where a monk suffers a series of misfortunes and fortunate events, and his students alternately say "Isn't this horrible?" and "Isn't this great!" to which the monk always replies "It's too soon to know."
I'm curious about the metrics people are using to evaluate actions like SIU or others--amount of publicity, number of participants, number of stories, number of petitions signed, or changes in greenhouse gas emissions, or ?
As I recall, SIU was hailed here as a replacement for Earth Day, which had become like all holidays, the opposite of what it was intended to do (Mother's Day for Peace becomes a political-content-free spending extravaganza; the nominal birthday of Christ becomes a spending extravaganza to enrich the money lenders; no one remembers anything on Memorial Day, and Labor Day has been turned into a celebration of capitalist excess drained of all political content, etc.).
So, just wondering--why do you say Step It Up was a success?
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:28 am
13 May 2007
Amazing - Your story would read better if Joe saved money using a clothesline, carpooled in an old car, found firewood, grew a vegetable garden, and then used the savings to attach a greenhouse and window shutters made from low-cost recycled materials. Good for his health, wallet, and sole.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 8:07 am
13 May 2007
Permalink
Billhook Posted 10:55 am
13 May 2007
This action seemed to me highly successful for a number of reasons.
1/. It triggered, and co-ordinated, many times the original target number of events, and thus of active participants.
2/. It demonstrated a previously hidden level of public concern right across America, and had this made public by quite extensive media coverage, including the front page of the NYT.
3/. Its key demand, of an 80% cut by 2050, was promptly taken up by a candidate for the presidency, John Edwards, thus setting the bar for other candidates on the issue.
4/. Its strong synergy with Gore's film, in demonstrating tangible public concern, will allow policy makers to consider more stringent options than had previously seemed credible.
This is not to suggest that SIU has, by itself, transformed US politics on the issue - the dollar hegemony underpinning empire rests of course on global oil sales being priced in dollars,
so stepping away from oil dependence may still appear somewhat problematic to the establishment.
Regards,
Bill
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 10:57 am
13 May 2007
Hey, all:
There is something of a parallel thread going on ("How do we restrain global warming?"), as both address the mentality that it is others who are causing the problem, while at the same time we don't realize what we do individually and collectively in our own lives. There is also an element of narcissism and pretentiousness.
One thing about children of privilege is often true that because of their privilege they may live lives in a bubble, or assume that everyone lives the way they do. They in their immaturity and zeal can be rather narcissistic.
GlobalMakeover: I hope that a lot more of us aware of things than you suggest. I do agree with much of what you said otherwise, but also, much of what you say is more of a long-term solution, since such as rebuilding cities and other changes to completely re-order society and infrastructure. I also think that there is a lot each of can and should do without government action, since we do agree government action is an oxymoron.
Interesting topic.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 11:16 am
13 May 2007
Bravo.
This is why I created "The Guillotine".
http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?t=511
If 3% of the people own 84% of the wealth, then the only rational exercise is to curtail the activities of the 3%.
For myself, I'm a Global Warming Denialist. I think this is not a "Warming" but a readjustment to some type of reasonably sane temperature.
However, if we look at what breeds privilege in our society, it's based on Ice Age scarcity.
The rich control: food, energy, transportation, materials, information.
The great thing about a hotter temperature is that we, the general public, become less dependent on these resources. We need less heat, less energy, and so on.
That is why the richies are running scared and trying to convince us it's all a bad thing.
It's like that Dr. Seuss book where originally a few have little stars on them, and then this guy comes along with a star printing machine and suddenly it's not so special any more.
That's what Global Warming does -- it turns Canada and Germany into the Riviera.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 11:51 am
13 May 2007
We commoners are a more mixed bag, and some amongst us are very prone to think we can buy our way out of this one. I guess it's obvious I do not share that view. I nevertheless appreciate the opportunity that Gristmill offers to see divergent views on these immensely critical issues respectfully expressed and discussed by experts and laypersons alike.
In that vein: AmazingDr, if Joe can save hundreds a month on gas by buying a Volt he's just plain driving way too much. By my figuring, unless he's driving a Bradley he's got to be cranking at least 20K a year. Are we really going to want Joe to use our precious wind and solar juice to keep up that dumb habit? Don't we as a society have more critical uses for all that energy? Joe really really needs to be persuaded to change his attitude first and his car second.
And GM is a "progressive corporation"?
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
falsecast Posted 12:00 pm
13 May 2007
"But I think that the gravity of the problems we face indicates that we need to construct an entirely different energy and transportation infrastructure, which cannot be done except collectively via governments, at as local a level as possible."
Wasn't the government, in unholy alliance with the car manufacturers, the road builders, the developers, etc, etc, that gave us the interstate system, and the suburbs, and the suburban industrial park, and the commutes, and the strip malls, and the new developments, which led to the hollowing out of our urban centers and the paving of rural America? I agree completely with point that anything that is to be done ought to be done at the most local level possible, but I'm not sure that I would trust any level of government to reverse 60+ years of complicity in creating and promoting the car culture.
"Even suggesting government programs seems to off-limits after 26 years of conservative rule, I realize, but the sooner we realize this is needed, the better."
Not to get into a roll about labels, but as a person who would still describe himself as a conservative (albeit a highly qualified species: conservatism as a disposition, rather than as a position, or a collection of political views - pace Michael Oakeshott), I find very little about the rule of the Republic since 1981 that would qualify as either conservative or anti-government in any meaningful way. Certainly the rhetoric of the Reagan/Bush I administration and that of W that I can comprehend is occasionally anti-gov, sometimes stridently so. But, what about the reality beyond the rhetoric: massive increases in the size, scope, and spending of the government, particularly in the areas that some libertarians would call the welfare/warfare state. Bill Clinton may one day be viewed as a president who governed more "conservatively" the either of his immediate predecessors and his successor, despite the fact that he would probably describe himself as some sort of progressive or another, and the others all claim or have claimed the mantle of conservative- whatever that means.
All I know is that when I think of turning to the government to solve problems, at any level, I look at the nightmares in Iraq and Afghanistan (and South America, etc), I look at the mess multiple states have made and continue to make of the Chesapeake Bay, and the ongoing inability of my own county to operate something as simple as a public school system, and I wonder why we trust these clowns with anything, let alone the critical process of transforming the relationship between the people of this country and the environment in which we exist.
I think it needs to start with people choosing, rather that having their choices made for them.
"The conjunction of ruling and dreaming generates tyranny."
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:01 pm
13 May 2007
Without government the people have no power. Without government the rules for the endgame of human culture will be set by warlords and corporations. Never cease to demand better government.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 1:42 pm
13 May 2007
Clinton and Obama picked up the 80% by 2050 goal right after Edwards did, too. Safe to say that one of these 3 folks will win the Democratic nomination, and also safe to say that they'd not have included this goal or any climate goal in their platforms if not for stepitup.
Even Gore took up the idea, and called for 90% by 2050 when he was testifying in Congress recently.
So it's been heard in DC, which is one key place that change on this issue's got to come from.
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1000+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:06 pm
13 May 2007
There are many people much smarter than you or I who believe that we can innovate and design our way past the problem of global warming without radically downsizing our economy or lifestyles. There are also many people much smarter than you or I who believe that climate change makes a massive global economic crash unavoidable. And there are people smarter than you or I with positions all along the spectrum in between. I wouldn't presume to say that I have the right answer.
When you start talking about a club of the enlightened that "gets it," I am flooded with the urge to flee Grist. I can't, because I work here. But if I ever presume to be in a position to separate those who get it from those who don't, I hope -- and trust -- that the community here will set me straight. We're all groping in the dark, just like everybody else.
grist.org
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:10 pm
13 May 2007
If Erik is right, then my guess is that the next president is going to be someone who has committed to -80% (referenced to what, I wonder--1990?) by 2050.
'Course, we already have a "president" who promised to regulate CO2 throughout his first campaign in 2000, so I guess I would say that the trick is in making sure that this particular campaign promise is so deeply embedded into their campaign that they can't back out the way Chimpy did.
In other words, I think that if Step It Up wants to actually be successful, it has to translate all that energy into Congressional and Senate races, picking up any sane Republicans possible and making sure that every single Democratic candidate is on board and understands that this is THE issue, at least as far as their political future is concerned.
We get one chance at this--we cannot afford another Clinton BTU tax (which was actually a pretty dang good proposal -- ah well, another pearl lost to the "Keep the Gays Out of the Military" swine).
If we elect one of Erik's three top tier candidates and there are Democratic majorities (which seems all but certain), then we have to get a very serious (many will say draconian) Energy Policy Act of 2009 (EPACT 09) through as perhaps the first priority.
Meaning that this has to be a central issue in the campaign, not an "oh by the way" tossed out for enviros.
In order of how easily I think Erik's big 3 would pull another Bush and fail to do this, I think it would be Hilary, Obama, and then Edwards -- that is, I think Edwards is the most likely one to actually nail this down and refuse to budge.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:46 pm
13 May 2007
I disagreed with Global's last contention in this paragraph, believing it's well demonstrated that this particular viewpoint (of the need for systemic change as well as technologic development) is well represented on Gristmill, and not just by Gar. That's the only point my first sentence was trying to make. I was not suggesting a Manichean divide between the sinners and the saved, far from it. And I'll repeat the sentence that came hot on its heels: I nevertheless appreciate the opportunity that Gristmill offers to see divergent views on these immensely critical issues respectfully expressed and discussed by experts and laypersons alike.
I don't have the habit of prefacing my thoughts as some do with IMHO's, and maybe I should - I've always taken it for granted that expressing an opinion, as opposed to sharing factual information, was just that. Opinions and facts are both essential to discussion and few here seem to have trouble distinguishing the one from the other. But I too would abandon Grist if every comment here exactly reflected everything I already think I know.
And David, in my considered but seldom humble opinion, you do a demanding job with intelligence, humor, talent and grace. Please don't leave Grist.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:17 am
14 May 2007
I understand that some people recoil at the idea of government doing something, and of course governments, like other organized activity (such as corporations) have been the source of much of history's evils. However, the question is, what are the best alternatives? Winston Churchill famously said something to the effect, "Democracy is a terrible form of government, it's just that it's better than the alternatives". So, in the spirit of many different points of view, I think it is constructive to discuss a range of possibilities in terms of solving our global solutions. Dave Roberts, as far as I can tell, does an excellent job of reporting on what is politically possible (or even a little outside the possible). In my writing, I try to explore what makes sense logically, even if it seems politically insane. Al Gore has pointed to the problem that what seems politically possible is not good enough to solve the crises we face, so I think that the paradox of huge problems and (relatively) small solutions will be plaguing us for quite a while.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:30 am
14 May 2007
I take it that regular readers see the absurdity of Globalmakeover's remark -- "Grist doesn't seem to aware of any of this, except for Gar Lipow, true?" The need for better public transit and walkable cities is a regular theme here, and indeed within a year or so there will be a whole section of the site devoted to it. Something to look forward to!
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 1:45 am
14 May 2007
Looking forward to the new part of the site, sorry about my ignorance, but I have been spending a fair amount of time looking around the internet, and I'm glad to hear about the multiplicity of views here.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:00 am
14 May 2007
Seattle mayor Greg Nickels said that cities import 80% of their needs. Cities like Seattle may reduce energy and water requirements by 50% but will still need to import 80% of their needs. People in the countryside will supply those needs. Hopefully, people in cities will supply the guidance and the engineering needed for a sustainable future. Isolated urban self reliance is most likely utopian.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 3:05 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:08 am
14 May 2007
;^)
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
Gary Gifford Posted 3:18 am
14 May 2007
Wasn't the government, in unholy alliance with the car manufacturers, the road builders, the developers, etc, etc, that gave us the interstate system, and the suburbs, and the suburban industrial park, and the commutes, and the strip malls, and the new developments, which led to the hollowing out of our urban centers and the paving of rural America? I agree completely with point that anything that is to be done ought to be done at the most local level possible, but I'm not sure that I would trust any level of government to reverse 60+ years of complicity in creating and promoting the car culture.
No...it wasn't. It was unrestrained capitalism that caused these things to occur. Blaming government "complicity" in causing urbal sprawl, gas guzzlers, etc. is a false arguement. Government sets limits and regulations on these types of activities. To remove government regulation would be to promote more of what you say is a bad thing. To have a more effective government that does a better job at regulating these activities would bring about the policies that you desire.
Cheers,
Gary Gifford
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:18 am
14 May 2007
I will say in my defense that it was an attempt at sociological analysis, not separating the enlightened from the benighted.
There are, as it happens, two kinds of people in the world: those who realize that coal is the enemy of the human race and those who don't!
grist.org
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:22 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:22 am
14 May 2007
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 3:27 am
14 May 2007
grist.org
Permalink
eriqa Posted 4:12 am
14 May 2007
This is not likely to happen, for the same reasons that other historical attempts to eliminate class distinctions have failed - most people don't want to live under communism. On the other hand, many European countries have managed to provide much more of a social safety net for their citizens, while still maintaining a basic capitalist model. These are imperfect systems but do ensure that no kids in Sweden suffer the kind of deprivation and exclusion of the poorest US kids.
Realistically, the only way for the U.S. and other rich countries to reduce our fossil fuel energy consumption is to make that energy more expensive. As with any other market-traded good, that means the rich will be able to afford more of it - more plane trips and exotic vacations for Middlebury College students than for the people of Sheffield. This has to do with the nature of capitalism and scarcity rather than anything uniquely "environmental."
However, if the tax system for GHG emissions is humanely designed, it will include subsidies at a level that can provide an "energy safety net" to ensure that everyone can afford a basic level of energy consumption - meaning both things like subsidized heating oil and state-led investment in renewables. The global post-Kyoto regime could (and I would argue, should) be constructed so as to guarantee everyone a sustainable level of energy consumption. A.K. Reddy puts this level at 2.3 gigajoules per capita, about 1/10 the current Western European consumption. All carbon tax revenue should go first to sustainable renewable electrification to bring everyone up to this standard. After this level, energy consumption should be taxed as income is, at progressively higher levels. The rich would still be able to afford more energy, and the superrich would still be able to afford jet-setting lifestyles; but distribution would be much more equal than under a flat tax.
I won't go into the potential details of such a progressive energy taxation system as I am hardly a tax policy expert. I would just like to point out that history does offer this example of a compromise between "savage capitalism" and total communist equality. If ever we muster the political will to incorporate the true cost of GHG emissions into the price of fossil fuel energy, progressive taxation is a possible "third way."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:20 am
14 May 2007
Like it or not. Human energy, economic growth, and innovation all peaking.
Try changing this GHG/energy situation by advocating sacrifice and economic depression alone. Whoops, you have been doing that. Ok fine, proceed. Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:01 am
14 May 2007
But let us not try anything so Esperantoid in the future.
JMG gets just a bit too clever, rephrasing that old bit of barroom philosophy, and so dulls the exquisite logic. More originally it goes something like: "All of humanity can be divided into two classes: those who divide all of humanity into two classes, and those who don't."
I believe Robert Benchley was the author, but would not stake my life on it.
As for JMG's Baroque additions, about trusting or mistrusting coal, well, sure.
Nevertheless, I support Shapeshifter's (?) suggestion, wherever he/she made it, that JMG, Gar (despite his sloppy writing) and Ron Steenblik are among the wisest of posters/commenters in Gristmill.
Delightful, however is the ever-underestimated Amazing's last shot on sacrifice. We must most certainly be reminded, since it was cast into some momentary doubt, that Gristmill readers have of course been keenly aware of social-justice issues. To accuse us of being classist or elitist or blind to social injustices is a grave calumny.
Of course, we do not all belong to the school of Curtis White and the Reverend Doctor Garret Keizer. Gristmill includes plenty of hard-nosed types. But I for one have at least one foot in the door of the White/Keizer institution, and I am glad that it gets some publicity here.
Thanks also to Shapeshifter, for recovering a positive message from Keizer's article.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 5:30 am
14 May 2007
There is an advantage to proposing government programs to solve problems, as tinny as that sounds after decades of Republican talking points, but if done well, the advantage is that you can propose a vision or image of the future, while with policies such as taxes and hitting percentage targets (e.g., "20% by 2020"), you're stuck with numbers and a negative approach of taking something away. People respond better to positive images than to numbers and declining.
If I may be so bold, let's say we had a program that would build rail systems between and within cities, put solar energy systems on every building, wind farms in every community, and permaculture local farms around every town and city. The Federal government provides the funds, the local governments spend the money. With the solar and wind farms paid for, coal is uneconomical, with trains everywhere, millions could do without cars, with local organic food, no fossil fuel agriculture. Now we've solved global warming and a host of other problems. If we specify that all of this building be done with goods manufactured in the U.S., using machinery from the U.S. (with employee-owned firms ideally so they don't move abroad), we have such a huge demand for labor that the people in Keiser's lower-class town are too busy working to listen to the Middlebury students.
The market is still operating most of the economy, and people have a positive vision of where we are going, and equally importantly, it sounds like a program that is serious enough to actually solve the problem. Sure, there are lots of "gizmos", but, and this would take too long to argue adequately here, humans do "gizmos". If the government and economy are run democratically, "government programs" need not sound like a horror-film.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:40 am
14 May 2007
grist.org
Permalink
falsecast Posted 6:48 am
14 May 2007
This country has never had anything resembling unrestrained capitalism. Our government, for better or worse, and to be fair, there has been a great deal of both, has intervened substantially in the economy going back at least to the transcontinental railroad. How is it a false argument to blame the government for things in which it has been directly involved? The corporations pay the lobbyists, the lobbyists buy our representatives, and what we get is a regulatory regime that benefits the few to the detriment of the many. While there are certainly plenty of regulations that one could point to for examples of success, there are also many that are mere face-jobs, eviscerated and/or amended to the point of ineffectiveness by legislators already bought lock, stock, and barrel. Some one had to sign off on the public land sales, the zoning regs, the development plans, the weaker CAFE standards, the Farm Bills, etc.
I did not mean to suggest that government limits or regulation are bad, or that we would be better off with fewer of these restraints. Only that I wouldn't expect any fast or substantive action from an institution that has repeatedly shown itself to be more concerned with corporate welfare than the general welfare with which it is constitutionally charged. Someone further up the thread said we get the government that we deserve. I agree. Get the money out (not sure how to do that!) and things might change for the better.
Best,
"The conjunction of ruling and dreaming generates tyranny."
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:50 am
14 May 2007
Government has it place, as does the free market. It is when government starts distorting the market (other than regulating its excesses) that we get big problems.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
falsecast Posted 7:18 am
14 May 2007
Good points. How about western expansion, the related atrocities committed against indigenous peoples, the dead zones in our rivers caused by government subsidized agriculture, WWI, Iraq,next Iran? ethanol, dams...need I go on?
I'm not sure that we can push harder than those who are already pushing with lots of $$$. The corporations will spend as much to game the system as they think they will gain from rigging it in their favor. Simple economics: MC=MB.
With our present government, that the people have the power is an open question. I'm not sure that warlords and corporations (the MI complex that Ike warned us about) aren't running the show already.I know that it is early, perhaps too early to tell, but has anyone noticed anything different from Blue DC beyond some changes in the window dressing? The exciting things seems to be coming from the state and local levels these days. A change for the better - please sir could we have some more?
"The conjunction of ruling and dreaming generates tyranny."
Permalink
falsecast Posted 7:20 am
14 May 2007
"The conjunction of ruling and dreaming generates tyranny."
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 7:43 am
14 May 2007
Permalink
timothybryce Posted 2:51 pm
19 May 2007
To paraphrase The Big Lebowski: "The war is over Mr. Keizer and your side lost! The bums lost Mr. Keizer!"
It will be entertaining to look back on essays like Keizer's in 20-30 years when we've seen that the warnings about global warming were grossly overstated to promote a radical environmentalist/socialist/communist agenda like Keizer's.
Permalink