Why We Are Losing the Global Warming Battle

by: Rockridge Institute

Thu Apr 03, 2008 at 19:30


By Joe Brewer, Rockridge Institute Fellow

The climate crisis is huge. We know this. And we are at a critical juncture. Will we continue to corrode our environment until it cannot sustain us? Or will we look to the future and build communities that thrive on nature's abundance?

Right now, things don't look very promising. It isn't just that we've reached the tipping point, as James Hansen suggests. (warning - large PDF file) It isn't just that the first-ever climate bill is about to arrive DOA on the Senate floor--maybe not such a bad thing since Lieberman-Warner is built on the wrong ideas. The real problem is in the way we think about the problem and, therefore, the solutions.

Rockridge Institute :: Why We Are Losing the Global Warming Battle

Maybe it's a no-brainer to say that we got into this mess because of our ways of thinking - resources are infinite, the world's too big for little ol' us to make a dent, quality of life is improving so we must be doing things right, etc. So it should be clear enough that we need new ways of thinking to clean things up.

This is a serious situation. Going on four decades now, conservative think tanks have built a massive communications infrastructure to shift the common sense of America. They have been so successful that even many progressives reason with their ideas - to the detriment of our efforts. This is tragically the case with global warming. Consider this sampling of Big Ideas conservatives have pushed into public discourse:

  • Nature is a resource to be exploited.
  • Wealth is measured simply by money.
  • The economy and environment are distinct and inevitably in conflict with one another.
  • Polluting is a right, so companies should be compensated for the cost of clean-up.
  • Markets are natural and naturally good.
  • Government is distinct from markets and intrudes upon them.

These ideas are at the heart of the climate debate. We desperately need to challenge them with our own ideas. But first, we need to recognize the strategic differences between ideas and policies. We are caught up in a battle between carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and energy investments. All the while, conservative ideas continue to spread unchecked.

This has got to change.

Here are a few ideas that we at the Rockridge Institute offer to get the conversation rolling:

Nature is the basis of our survival. We depend upon breathable air, drinkable water, and other "environmental services" in order to live. If we destroy the life-support systems that nature provides, we'll need to sink some serious money into building them on our own (sounds like an April Fool's Joke to me).

Wealth is well-being. This includes the empowerment that comes with monetary wealth, but it is significantly broader: emotional and physical health, having good friends, living in a flourishing community, etc. All of these are forms of wealth because they increase our well-being.

A healthy economy depends upon a healthy environment. Our wealth and prosperity are intimately bound to (1) our survival capacity and (2) all that makes flourishing possible. Markets cannot exist where there are no people. People can only exist where there is a capacity for life.

We all own the air. It is our right to have it clean. Companies have been damaging our air without paying the full cost of doing business. This has to change if we are to survive, let alone thrive. The environment is inherently valuable because it is a source of wealth (as the basis of our well-being). Companies should pay for damage to this collective wealth. This is the fair thing to do.

Markets are tools for achieving societal goals. Markets must serve our purposes. We construct them to do so. Solving the climate crisis is not a matter of "waiting for the market." It is a matter of shaping markets so that they generate wealth in the broad sense.

Government makes markets possible. Markets cannot function without rules of operation, courts to enforce those rules, banks to secure financial transactions, stock markets to manage the exchanges, and more. All of these features come from government. It is ironic that conservatives talk about shrinking government, but they never mention these functions. This is because conservatives fundamentally do not understand how markets work! Their worldview makes them blind to it.

We know the facts. Hell, we knew them all along. But our facts only make sense when people understand what is really going on. We need a new common sense.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Choose our terrain... (4.00 / 2)
One of the signs of a great military leader is the ability to select the site of a battle so that strategic geographic advantages can be utilized in advance.  Maybe it's time we ask ourselves if the idea landscape we're battling on is an uphill fight.

Whatcha think?

- Joe Brewer


Yup. (4.00 / 1)
I've been wrestling with how to better measure the economy than using things like GDP, which values pollution as much as ecology.

Also the ideology of market fundamentalism needs to be gutted.


[ Parent ]
"Sustainable Capitalism" by John Ikerd (0.00 / 0)
A must read book if you want fresh eyes on the situation.

Though the original "Wealth of Nations" is really very revolutionary and humane. Adam Smith wouldn't recognize what we've got now as coming from his philosophy.


[ Parent ]
Deep Economy by Bill McKibben read it. n/t (0.00 / 0)


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Al Gore nailed it in his movie Inconvenient Truth (0.00 / 0)
I liked the scene in An Inconvenient Truth when Al Gore puts up the slide with a scale balance, and on one side is the Earth and on the other side is a pile of gold bricks. Al stands there going, "Which one should I choose? Hmmm. Hmmm."

That got a chuckle from the audience. It put the point across instantly. We need a lot more like that.


It's the economy, stupid. (0.00 / 0)
Frankly although nature and stuff sounds good to a certain part of the population the one issue that everyone cares about more then anything else is the economy. We are in a recession and most people don't think band-aids will fix it.

Simply put the single biggest economic opportunity that we could have would be a green economy. Pour half a trillion dollars into it over 10 years and we will see a boom in the economy. But one that will last longer.

We must frame it as a great economic opportunity that also helps the Earth. That is the winning message. IMO.

Thanks for coming by Joe. The posts from Rockridge have been very interesting.

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power


Externalized Costs (0.00 / 0)
Your point:
We all own the air. It is our right to have it clean. Companies have been damaging our air without paying the full cost of doing business. This has to change if we are to survive, let alone thrive. The environment is inherently valuable because it is a source of wealth (as the basis of our well-being). Companies should pay for damage to this collective wealth.

I still think is something we need to start discussing a lot more. People (not us, but regular people) tend to shrug off consequences when they are not monetized.

Why can we sue tobacco companies when cigarettes cause cancer, but we can't sue the local coal plant for cancer-- or at least we do not?

I think people don't think about the externalized cost enough. Imagine if a politician said I am going to save the community money long term by investing in green energy now. If we start hammering externalized costs-- cancer to drought to global warming this type of narrative could take hold.

Joe- by the way this DavidP

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


No. (0.00 / 0)
Markets are natural and naturally good.
Government is distinct from markets and intrudes upon them.

I find these two to be completely irrelevant to the climate change debate. You did not explain how these link to climate change in the text. In fact you restated them significantly differently, and I find this distressful.

Socialism won't give us a healthy economy and/or ecology. While it is true government props up the market, the rest of the work is done by us, the producers and consumers.

I wholeheartedly support your first four criticisms of authoritarian conservatives. But your assumption that we free marketeers are bad for ecology is naive.  


Well (0.00 / 0)
Markets aren't "naturally good" because they can produce externalized costs like climate change, lead to the violation of basic liberties, and lead to other social costs like dramatic inequality. The market is only as "good" as we force it to be.

Government is not something distinct from markets because our democratically decided laws set the framework in which markets operate.

Changing those constraints shouldn't be seen as intrusion on the market, it should be seen as one of the many tools we can use when problems, like climate change, arise.

I can't really imagine how you would begin to deal with climate change if you accepted that markets are natural, naturally good, and that government cannot "intrude" upon them. Changing the nature of the market is the whole game, and that requires recognizing that they operate within the rules we choose as a society.

Heck, if you think markets are naturally good, how do you explain climate change in the first place?

Finally, "socialism"? Yeesh. Next you'll tell me that child labor laws are a socialist intrusion on the naturally established and naturally good labor market?

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.


[ Parent ]
Maybe (0.00 / 0)
Rereading, maybe this is just a terminology problem. I don't think the text is trying to suggest that markets are inherently bad, if that is what you are worried about. Just that they aren't inherently good either. They are what we make them.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Reading too much Ayn Rand (0.00 / 0)
Socialism won't give us a healthy economy....Your assumption that we free marketeers are bad for ecology is naive.

Your two separate points here suggest that you are reading into this post want you don't want to see here.

A) There is nothing about socialism in the post above. In fact it is arguing that we must recognize that markets would not exist without governments and we need to rethink the construction of certain particular markets. There is nothing here about removing markets. Right now there are incentives and disincentives for every market, and markets are drive by that as much as they are driven by consumers. Take medicine--I want affordable prescriptions as a consumer and yet the politicians and drug companies have yet to negotiate  lower prices, and they want to make it harder for me to get drugs from Canada. There is nothing free or natural about that, and there is nothing about consumers there--"free" trade is as much as a construction as a piece of policy which hits the senate floor.

B) "Free" markets are neither bad nor good for the environment. They behave according to how they are constructed. Right now we have a market failure--markets are failing to address global warming, and environmental issues because they are focused on short term profit. The environment thinks in very long terms. We as consumers and citizens must think past profit margins into a long term and reconstitute our markets so they think more long term.

Based on the assumptions you are superimposing onto the post, I think you have been reading a bit too much Ayn Rand and the like.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  


[ Parent ]




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search