I appreciate this view of the positive economic impact of environmental intervention at the macro level. Meanwhile on the street a further economic bonus which we are likely to see from congestion pricing in particular is to push a little business outside the congested core. Downtown continues to thrive, the economic joy gets spread a little further. The cost of downtown vehicle access is easily adjustable for optimal balance of economic push and stability. Win/win.

The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

The success of congestion pricing is a sign that something is beginning to change in the way politicians and businesspeople think about the environment. They are beginning to see that pollution is waste, waste is an indicator of inefficiency, and inefficiency is the enemy of profit.

Forgive me if I sound cynical, but the above seems like an incredibly naive statement that only a social-think-tank academic could make.  

Where to begin?  As much as I'd like to believe that making the right environmental decisions will lead us to some kind of economic nirvana, I'm realistic enough to realize that our current humming economic engine is predicated, basically, on the abundance of cheap fossil fuels.  Moreover, changing that paradigm will likely entail at least some inconvenient changes to our happy-motoring lifestyles, and that can only happen if bold politicians make some unpalatable decisions that -- forgive me for raining on this parade -- won't  automatically be a win-win for every capitalist and his precious investment portfolio.

While industries and businesses and households do indeed have a vested economic interest in improving their efficiencies in burning those fossil fuels and lowering their cost of converting them into cheap crap for the masses to consume, what possible incentive do they have to reduce their production of that crap?

The subtext of the above quote is that we still worship at the Altar of the Almighty Profit.  That goes hand-in-hand with unbridled capitalism, and that will be our ultimate downfall.  

As long as it's more profitable to produce Wal-Mart crap from fossil fuels rather than not produce it; as long as it's more profitable to harvest the last fish from the ocean than not harvest it; as long as it's more profitable to drive to work rather than ride public transit because it saves the rider 30 minutes of precious time each direction, we're not gonna be saved by the efficiencies of capitalism alone.  Sorry, Steven.  Sorry, Victor.

We're just gonna become more efficient at producing the Wal-Mart crap, more efficient at driving our cars 10 miles to buy the crap, and more efficient at harvesting that last fish from the ocean.

Methinks a more fundamental change in our thinking and our livestyles is necessary here.  But then, I'm not the director of a high-falutin' think tank.  So what do I know?

In terms of this being both good for the people and for the economy, it is crucial that we not forget the effect that smog has on the health of New Yorkers. Over 500,000 New Yorkers have asthma, or 6% of the population, which is much worse than the rest of the country. 35,000 New Yorkers go to the hospital each year with asthma attacks, twice the national average. A majority of these people are poor majority children, whose health care is paid by the state.

I agree that a fundamental change in our thinking is necessary.  You apparenlty think that the schemata presented above is too reformist to get the job done; what do you have in mind as an alternative road map?

I get the impression from your comments that your "theory of social change" has a strong "either/or" quality to it -- that there is one best way, and it is distracting for folks to explore a multiplicity of approaches.  Did I interpret you correctly?

By the same token, I gather that in the long-standing debate between "realtos" and "radicals," you believe that the latter should determine the direction of the environmental movement.  True?

One more question:  Do you think that moderate reformers (like the original posters here) and radicals have anything to learn from each other?  Or do you think they are so fundamentally at odds that they should not stop throwing rhetorical eggs at each other?