Comments View as Flat

1. 

   naturescene Posted 9:18 am
   18 Sep 2007

   not a bad essay

   It's good to see the major environmental groups converging around the idea that they should embrace markets rather than attack them.

   I think there is more depth to the commons issue than Pope writes on.  

   Social commons, like the Internet, differ in several aspects from natural commons.  For one, the Internet absolute capability to support human demands is growing daily; meanwhile natural resources are being depleted.  Secondly, the Internet acts just as much as a framework for the free market of e-commerce as it does a common resource in the sense that we talk about natural resources.

   Ownership isn't just the key to profit (owning what you sell) it's also the key to conservation.  The issue over public resource vs private remains too ideological, on both sides.  No one is getting into the grit and talking about how ownership institutions should operate, regardless of if ownership is public or private.  The legal frameworks of these ownership schemes determine whether they benefit humans and the environment and cause problems.

   Also, we too often ignore the distinction between a commons and a public good or resource.  A commons has no owner, while public goods are theoretically owned by citizens, although the citizens generally allow governments to control and manage public goods on behalf of the citizens.  Without mechanisms that allow citizens to employ their rights over public goods, we are essentially giving away these rights to the government -- a government doesn't always face incentives for proper management of public goods.

   Community, neighborhood, and individual rights to a clean environment and other public goods must be  defined and enforced.

   Permalink

2. 

   TerraPassTom Posted 12:35 pm
   18 Sep 2007

   The "E" label. Am I one?

   This is a welcome breath of fresh air from an institution that could transform itself from an aging demographic and revitalize a generation of Americans.

   Our members also show us that a whole generation of Americans concerned about climate change shudder to label themselves with the "E" word. And its pretty telling that many of them will tell you they want to help build the low carbon Economy.

   And yet environment and economy are two words that I doubt have been used in many Sierra Club meetings.  

   Your vision is admirable, but how can we translate this into action at Sierra Club chapters nationwide? And how fast can a highly distributed semi-autonomous organization change? As far as I can tell, Sierra Club's day to day is anti cap-and-trade, anti offsets, anti-markets and most of all, concerned with perfection over progress. Or put differently, these are solutions oriented times and the Sierra Club organization is wired for activism and constricting times.

   Carl, we need your help to put us on the pathway to a new economy that you are visualizing. Not everything will be perfect from the get go, but if we are going to harness the energy of Sierra Club, we'll need your sustained leadership to push your vision out into something that helps move the ball forward on our journey to a low carbon economy.

   Tom Arnold Chief Environmental Officer TerraPass

   Permalink

3. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 3:04 pm
   18 Sep 2007

   Great quote

   from the essay:

   the task of environmentalism in the 21st century is utterly unlike that which it defined for itself in the 20th. For a hundred years, those who called themselves first conservationists and then environmentalists defined their task as being to constrain, and clean up after, an existing industrial order. For the next hundred years, our task is to shape, design, and accelerate the arrival of a new, sustainable economic order.

   However, I'm not sure if the Sierra Club and other large enviros should be the organizations that build this new world; perhaps they should join to create a different vehicle.  They are very good at what they are designed to do: protect the environment.  Maybe a new set of organizations is needed -- with their help -- because as Nordhaus and Schellenberger point out, or at least i think they point out, we need to expand the umbrella beyond protecting the environment.  We need to link up with other proressive forces, or at least what's left of the unions and progressive religious groups, with the African-American, Latino, Gay communities, women's groups, peace groups -- for instance, nowarnowarming.org is trying to link peace and global warming activism -- and it seems to me that the Sierra club et al would be important as part of a coalition, because      an entire new political formation will be required for the vast task of moving toward a sustainable and necessarily more just world.

   Permalink

4. 

   Bart Anderson Posted 3:52 pm
   18 Sep 2007

   The consultants of yesteryear

   I dunno... seems like a lot of brainpower (Carl Pope and Bill McKibben) to be spent on very little substance.

   Nordhaus and Shellenberger seem more like consultants who have found a shtick, rather than intellectual heavyweights. I haven't found anything of interest in their first essay or in their ideas as expressed in reviews of their book.

   Lomborg even more so - a predictable lapdog.  Worse than being wrong, he's boring.

   I really don't think they represent the future. The glory of markets is a strange thing to be trumpeting as the housing markets implode and a recession is looming. There are some promising ideas about markets and the commons floating around, but I think they are only a small part of the picture.

   I think it's much more important to look at the big trends.  Awareness of global warming is gathering momentum. Especially as the effects become apparent, there will be political shockwaves.  We can get a hint of that from the UK as the Conservatives (the party of Maggie Thatcher) issue a report that wins plaudits from environmentalists.  Or the August demonstration against the expansion of Heathrow airport. (Might be time for the Sierra Club to back away from its programs involving air travel.)

   Another storm on the horizon is peak oil. At a conference this week in Cork, Ireland, James Schlesinger said that the concept of peak oil has been accepted by industry executives and many politicians as well.  (Schlesinger was the ultimate insider - Secretary of Defense under Nixon and Ford, the first Secretary of Energy under Carter.)  How peak oil will affect environmentalism is a big topic, but one thing is for sure - it will change the political landscape.

   Trends like these are what we need to pay attention to. not the consultants of yesteryear.

   Bart
   Energy Bulletin

   Permalink

5. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 12:27 am
   19 Sep 2007

   They push public investment...

   ...if you look at their New Republic article, as well as other recent writings, they make the very good point that people will support public investment, that is, investment by the government; for instance, building mass transit (at least, that's my example).  The enviromental community tends to be more interested in general policies, such as cap-and-trade and carbon taxes, which often rub people the wrong way, while according to their polling, people are more accepting of large public projects.

   However, in their New Republic piece, they sort of shoot themselves in the foot by advocating, of all things, a new military-industrial-research complex that will allegedly develop new energy technologies.  The problem (among others) is that much of the wealth that could be used for the public investment is currently being wasted in defense budgets.

   Permalink

6. 

   Bart Anderson Posted 2:07 am
   19 Sep 2007

   Triangulation vs original thought

   Thanks for the pointer to the TNR article, Jon. So, it's boondoggle capitalism they are pushing!

   The real problem I have with S&N is that there isn't much original thought there. It's triangulating among other people's positions and labeling it a "Manifesto."  That sort of strategy can work well when things aren't changing very much, such as the last few decades. But when big changes are coming, one needs to pay attention to the underlying trends.

   And then there is the opportunism - telling people what they want to hear, rather than the truth. For example, it is true that spending more on alternative energy sources is probably a good idea. But... as you say, we are spending $$$ on military adventures.  Even worse from an economic standpoint, the tax cuts for the rich have made the surpluses evaporate. It may be difficult for Americans to realize, but we may not be able to afford the huge World War II-style investments.

   Also (with a tip of the hat to conservatives) you may not be able to solve the energy problem by throwing money at it. Corn ethanol is the poster child for this dysfunction. But many other alternative energy sources as well look like dead-ends or hype.

   The truth is - and energy experts will admit it - efficiency and conservation are BY FAR the best investment.

   Unpalatable as it may be, the deep truth is that energy use will decline. It's already happening in many Third World countries which have been hit by rises in the price of fuel.

   How do we deal with making the transition to a low-energy future? That's a challenge which will call for creative thought and solutions. S&N are still stuck in the past.

   Bart
   Energy Bulletin

   Permalink

7. 

   elasticsoul Posted 7:48 am
   19 Sep 2007

   Conservation needs to become 'cool' again

   We really do need to change our whole way of thinking; it's not enough to throw money at alternative energy.

   First, we must look at how to use less but have more when it comes to our standard of living. For example, a solar-heated house can cost about the same to build, yet can cost much less (obviously) to heat and cool. It can also be far more comfortable to live in (because of the thick walls that hold heat) and can hold its value much better (because if you build a house out of cob rather than 2x6s, it can easily last 500 years or more).

   Every decision must take into account how to live in harmony with the environment, and progressives must stop being 'protestors' and instead become leaders. There are countless examples around the world of better ways to do things - we must show and tell how we can implement those ways in our country as part of a 'new green economy,' as I've been calling it.

   * Inconvenient Truth presenter * Green Party of Canada candidate

   Permalink

8. 

   Bart Anderson Posted 8:07 am
   19 Sep 2007

   Pluses, minuses

   Thinking more about S&N. On the plus side:

   1. They are thinking about how to connect with the public, about a strategy that could be politically successful. They are thinking about developing alliances.

   2. They have identified energy as a key issue that underlies many other problems.

   3. They attempt to put their discussion in an historical context.

   Their position seems similar to that of many in the Democratic Party, and potentially some Republicans. That's fine, as far as it goes, but I just don't see much new there.  

   What seems to set S&N apart is the aggressive language towards environmentalism and the idea of limits. They seem to be playing up to the anti-environmentalist attitudes fomented by industry and the right wing.

   Weaknesses of their approach:

   1. Energy issues are more complicated and require more thought than the easy-to-sell policies that S&N offer.  Gar and many others here at Gristmill are struggling with these issues.

   2. Uncertainty about their principles.  Do they really want to be on the side that attacks environmentalism? Are they environmentalists or not?  In the long run, one needs principles to be credible.  

   Bart
   Energy Bulletin

   Permalink

9. 

   Josh Dorner Posted 3:22 am
   20 Sep 2007

   Squatting on the biosphere's commons

   Dear Tom,

       In September 2005 our grass-roots leadership -- the leaders of our distributed, semi-autonomous organization -- met in San Francisco after four months of local deliberation, and voted for change -- among the changes they called for was for us to shift our focus towards "visionary solutions."  They told us that after 115 years of stopping bad ideas -- at which we have become, we think, very adept -- we needed to emphasize making good things happen, because climate change would not be curbed by resistance alone.

        Yes, change is hard, but sometimes getting others to notice change is even harder.  We are explicitly and vigourously in favor of one version of cap-and-trade, which we call, "cap and auction", because we believe that in real markets, people pay for what they take, and that giving away or allocating permits to emit carbon dioxide, as the EU mistakenly did, is a license to steal and a reward for polluting.  We were, I think, the first large national environmental group to make the "pay for what you take" principle central to our view of cap-and-trade.  We have struggled with the reality that no form of energy production is environmentally benign, and that most communities have grown accustomed to externalizing and exporting the costs of their energy consumption to places like Appalachia, New Mexico, Wyoming or the Persian Gulf.  So we are resisting our tendency to say, "not here" -- we have set a very high bar for our local entities if they want to oppose wind or solar, for example -- and supported both Cape and Delaware Wind. (No, we don't think geothermal belongs at Old Faithful.  But we think a wind turbine might improve the National Observatory where Dick Cheney lives.)

      As for markets, we believe in them, ferociously -- but we do wonder whether most businesses do. (So did Adam Smith.)   After all, it is not a market if I go into the Safeway and walk out with a gallon of milk without paying -- it's shop-lifting.  But the US Chamber of Commerce seems fine with trade agreements that allow the continued reliance on the importation of mahogany from Peru, 90% of which was logged without paying for it.  (Pay for what you take.)  And if I go into your back yard and dig up the plants and sell them off a pick-up-truck,  it's fencing. (Own what you sell.)  But Exxon-Mobil seems quite willing to sell you CO2 in a gas tank that will flood the Maldives -- even though I am reasonably sure that the corporate vaults in Irving, Texas, do not include a deed to that nation.

      Gettting real markets in natural resources will be very hard, because global capital  has become used to squatter's rights on the biosphere's commons -- are you ready to join us in calling the sheriff to kick them off?

   Carl Pope

   Permalink

10. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 4:28 am
    20 Sep 2007

    Carl --

    (just to show that you can't please all of the people all of the time), what has me flabbergasted about the Sierra Club and other environmental groups is not their attitude about the market, but their attitude about the government, specifically, and to hopefully pick up on a positive point of Schellenberger and Nordhaus, government investment, and even more specifically, government investment in public transit -- high speed rail, light rail, even freight rail (much more efficient than long-haul trucks), subways, buses -- things that will actually take cars or at least vehicle-miles off the road and lead us toward a more sustainable future.   I don't see how the global warming (and peak oil) problem is solved without a well-thought-out, well-financed, massive public transit system.  Will Sierra Clug help move that vision along?

    Permalink

11. 

    pcarbo Posted 7:10 am
    20 Sep 2007

    A great essay...

    ... raises more questions than it answers.

    This one got me thinking.

    Permalink

12. 

    lorna salzman Posted 10:22 am
    20 Sep 2007

    Comments on Pope, Nordhaus, Shellenberger

    The comments on Nordhaus  and Shellenberger appall me, being little more than purely technological and materialistic approaches to global warming. It is as if thinkers and philosophers like Dave Brower, David Ehrenfeld, Kirkpatrick Sale, George Sessions, Dave Foreman and David Suzuki never existed. It is as if global warming's heat were the only problem, rather than the impact on the rest of the earth's species and systems. It is as if the biodiversity crisis did not exist. What is glaringly absent is any reverence for the eons-long evolutionary history which brought our own species into existence as well as those species and natural systems on which we depend . Truly, the lack of an ecological, ethical and philosophical grounding for the debate on global warming is in the full sense of the word blasphemous, in that by stressing a purely instrumental attitude towards environmental problems it ignores the methodical shredding of the earth's systems and the web of life which evolution so magnificantly wove.

    Lorna Salzman

    Permalink

13. 

    TerraPassTom Posted 10:51 am
    27 Sep 2007

    I Agree

    Carl:

    Yes, I agree -- its greatly preferable if allowances are auctioned instead of given away.  In fact, maybe TerraPass can get in line and retire some of those allowances, making it an even lower cap!

    Personally, I'd trade a firmer cap over a lighter one with allowances, but maybe that's a policy discussion best had at Berkeley Bowl (my treat).

    As to the vision and substance of your original essay, I think what you're saying is great, and in just reviewing your site and blog, I am noticing the change. We're on the same side, and I do think that if Sierra Club follows the solutions oriented path you have outlined, I have great hopes about what we can accomplish together.

    As personal aside, I am not a Sierra Club member, but I am marrying one on Saturday. So here's to one step closer to working together...

    Cheers,

    Tom

    Tom Arnold Chief Environmental Officer TerraPass

    Permalink

14. 

    Marcos Posted 2:20 pm
    24 Oct 2007

    Carl Leads Off On the Wrong Foot

    At the very outset of his lengthy review/criticism/response to Nordhaus and Shellenberger, Carl Pope commits an error that epitomizes much of the mis-read of the so-called Bad Boys of Environmentalism.

    Carl writes that the authors "predicted that the cause in which I've worked most of my life was about to gasp a grim last breath." No, importantly, the Bad Boys didn't say it would die, but that it should die.

    But what should die? They suggest that fundamental aspects of the political philosophy that underlie the movement and a whole series of tactics must die so that, like a Phoenix rising from the ashes, a more expansive and effective movement can continue to emerge.

    Clearly the way they frame their argument is designed to provoke. Yet, I think the point of the provocation isn't to denigrate the movement, but to provide a jarring hook that: A. captures attention and causes us to hear their deeper arguments and B. creates a shock to the system that unfreezes our thinking and causes us to question taken for granted assumptions that inform how we think about and carry out our work.

    Permalink