Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility

Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility | Michael Shellenberger; Ted Nordhaus | Thoughtful, provocative read

books:

Break Through: Fro...

	Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility Michael Shellenberger; Ted Nordhaus Houghton Mifflin Co, 2007 - 256 pages average customer review:based on 23 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Environmental insiders Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus triggered a firestorm of controversy with their self-published essay, "The Death of Environmentalism." In it, they argued that global warming is far more complex than past pollution problems. American values have changed dramatically since the environmental movement's greatest victories in the 1960s, yet environmentalists keep fighting the same battles without realizing that the battle field has changed. Noting a connection between the failures of environmentalism and the failures of the entire left-leaning political agenda, the authors point the way toward an aspirational politics that will resonate with modern American values and be capable of tackling our most pressing challenges.

for more information click here

A New Conversation

Superb! The gloom and doom and endless discussions of how we have wrecked the planet are pointless and depressing. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger make the case for a complete shift in consciousness and conversation around global warming, environmentalism and politics. A hopeful, aspiring and truly human approach to today's challenges.

Thoughtful, provocative read

As opposed to myopic, one-dimentional rants about climate change, its causes and purtianical tirades, this expanded essay offers insightful (as opposed to rote) rationale as to how we got here and where to go from here. Makes you want to pass it on...

for more information click here

accurate and necessary but incomplete

I believe the authors are correct, but to get a full picture one must read the constructive criticism in earlier reviews here at Amazon.
The authors say the trouble with environmental movements is they tend to be too limiting (you must make your life more inconvenient or uncomfortable) or have too narrow a focus (focusing on pollution or species extinction on another continent instead of more immediate concerns about outsourcing jobs). They also discuss what motivates people and successful movements of the past, saying that Martin Luther King's "I have a dream," speech was much more effective than a "I have a nightmare," speech.
My personal experiences match those of the authors. All too often environmentalists love to complain about how miserable life is, do not do their homework on either politics or the environment, are hostile to outside expertise, and regard capitalism in general and the United States in particular as evil. This gets in the way of achieving their goals.
Nonetheless, I am optimistic. Environmentalism does not have to die. It has to change and I see hopeful signs that it is changing. Recently an organization changed its name from "No New Coal for Georgia" to "Clean Energy for Georgia." Carl Pope of the Sierra Club, whom the authors respectfully criticize, has shown by his actions that he does truly get it.
We do not have the time or resources to remake environmental movements more in the authors' image. I am not giving up my Sierra Club membership. It is better to work for change from within and to work on other projects when environmental movements stray.

for more information click here

No action plan, but fresh point of view, worth reading anyway

The trouble is, every authority wants us to "think big," and do so in the direction they want, but offering little useful roadmapping for driving there. "Break Through" is not exception. Maybe the authors plan a Part II to publish this road map. Hopefully the style of this unwritten sequel would be easier to navigate than found in "Part I." Reading this book can be like reading a long string of Time Magazine essays, sophistication coming across as intellect. The difference is that authors Nordhaus and Shellenberger ARE very intellectual. It's just that the reader will find it hard to follow their conclusions from page to page. This is unfortunate, because their persuasion points are different enough from the "average" polemic to deserve a good hearing.

Apparently the theme of this book is that we badly need to tackle environmental (and several other large) problems from a stance of gratitude, competence, and confidence; rather than from the more usual stance of guilt, limits, and revenge. The authors write plenty of criticism of both political Left and Right to describe the ineffective "usual stance," but mostly of the Left. More usual, they credit the fundamentalist and evangelical religious Right for being for have stolen a march on the Left for their promotion of optimistic, fix-it-ourselves approach to life. You do not usually hear things put this way. True or not, their thesis provokes thought.

What does "Break Through" want to DO, though? Most of these kind of books fade off into hand-wringing "ain't it awful" rants. This book does not do that. The authors persist in what NOT to do to the end, and this deserves commending. Also deserving commendation is their insistence that far too many on the Left and Right treat their truths as "religious" or legend-like; not as science or objective observation. However, their own stated views on such topics as the current war in Iraq and global warming are told as assumed truth - religious-like! "Break Through" was written a couple years ago, and actual events have made these views somewhat obsolete. In spite of all this, the book presents enough fresh viewpoint to make it interesting and worth reading. Oh yes - the endnotes are much too long, so ignore them.

for more information click here

Thought Provoking but Misses the Mark

Nordhaus and Shellenberger, in urging a "pragmatic" approach, completely miss one of pragmatism's main tenants: flexibility. Dewey's philosophy centered around experimentation--trying different approaches to solving society's problems and avoiding dogmatic thinking. In narrowly promoting a politics of "possibilities," Nordhaus and Shellenberger unnecessarily deny any role for talk of limits. It is hard to believe that there is no role for public debate of such limits when limiting emissions is precisely the point of all the new technology the authors' approach is supposed to encourage.

The authors are correct that folks need to have full bellies before they worry about the long-term habitability of the planet, but they voice no serious objection to the bloated consumer habits of the world's elite. I can almost hear the gears grinding in these marketers' heads: global debt "forgiveness" seems so much more palatable than "redistribution" of scarce resources. Yet won't those whose appetites and activities require the most resources and produce the most waste have to give something up so that those with the least can meet their first-order needs, even with whatever green technologies are on the foreseeable horizon. In other words, economic growth (and the throughput of resources that fuel it) make it possible for individuals to look beyond their own immediate needs. But without any consideration of limits, growth itself becomes the problem.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger are on the right track when they call attention to higher-order human needs--acceptance, belonging, fulfillment. However, their dogmatic aversion to anything that smacks of negativity prevents them from denouncing patterns of extreme consumption that contribute so little to happiness.

One way or another, we're going to have to curb our consumption. Any policy that has a chance to mitigate global warming has to pursue this goal. Attempting to distract people from this fundamental goal is bad marketing. Telling people it's all about possibilities and not at all about limits is an approach that's bound to backfire. Critics have only to say, "Aha, this policy is limiting growth." Better to acknowledge the need for limits and show people the good things that will result from doing so.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

products you might be interested in