The two authors spend most of the Introduction to their book making the case that King’s speech was so powerful because he took us into the Nightmare but then quickly lifted us up with the Dream of a brighter tomorrow. This is exactly what many environmentalists fail to do. They spend so much effort “educating” the American people about the tremendous dangers of climate change and talking about the impending global warming apocalypse.

Think about “An Inconvenient Truth,” the most highly praised and visible example of the efforts of environmentalists and global warming activists to “wake up” the American people by getting them to truly understand the dangers we face. But where in the Nightmare scenarios of “An Inconvenient Truth” is the Dream? The film ends with a short statement that we have the tools we need to avoid climate chaos, and all you need to do is screw in a few light bulbs, try to drive less, or buy a hybrid car. In fact, Al Gores’ inconvenient truth is not the fact that climate change is occurring, but that it will require us to change our lives, presumably for the worse, an inconvenience to us.

That’s no Dream of a brighter future there. Where’s the vision of the future we could have, if we tackle the climate crisis?

People are highly unlikely to acknowledge a problem and be motivated to action, no matter how severe the dangers, if they either a) can’t see a solution to the problem (why worry about something you can do nothing about?) or b) don’t see the solution as any better than the problem (why trade the bad for the worse?).

The conventional framing and messaging around climate change fails to recognize these key facts. The apocalyptic messaging alone will not motivate action. The Nightmare can be effective in motivating a sense of urgency, but only if paired with the Dream, the Vision of a brighter tomorrow that is possible if we rise to the climate challenge. (That’s what I’ve tried to do here)

This should be our task. It’s no longer enough to merely talk about the frightening future described in the IPCC reports, or the even worse scientific reports that seem to come out every week. We’ve got to envision and articulate a compelling vision of the future we will inherit if we DO act, if we DO rise to the climate challenge and seize the opportunity it truly presents.

There IS no “Inconvenient Truth” about climate change, except that we can no longer ignore it. It in fact presents a very convenient opportunity, the motivating rationale to end our unsustainable, unjust and unhealthy energy system and replace it with something better: a sustainable, just, and prosperous energy future.

It’s high time we start talking less about the Nightmare and much more about the Dream.

New and greatly advanced non-polluting energy technologies will be needed to do this. Review our Energy Challenge series to see more — http://www.nytimes.com/energychallenge.

Many studies show that a growing carbon cost and moves toward efficiency will not drive the necessary changeover in an energy system that took 150 years to build (our embedded fossil reality) in time to avert a lot of warming. And that’s just in the US. Unless solar panels are competitive with the current price of coal in China (it’s very cheap) China will just keep exporting them to Germany (with the big subsidies paid to installers). Germany could be blanketed in PV, but if China and India remain “fossilized” (and us of course), emissions keep climbing for decades to come.

Another sobering reality is it will take many years to work out any carbon cap or tax, even in California, let alone the USA, China, and beyond.

So if the climate-energy challenge is taken seriously, according to heaps of experts I’ve talkd to on this issue for 20 years, everything is needed, including the actions Gingrich et al are focusing on. Some might say it’s a waste of time to worry about whether they are labeled centrist or not.

Your activism is also needed, by any calculation (see my recent Dot Earth post “Whose Climate Is it Anyway?” for more on the youth climate movement). But I’ll bet there are many who’d say that tossing the Gingrich gang out of the conversation is probably a mistake.

My job as a journalist is also to be sure that the Lomborgs of the world are put on the record when they agree that a carbon tax or equivalent is needed. There are heaps of citizens out there who are not “progressive” or on the front lines, and who cling to the Lomborgs of the world like an intellectual lifeboat. Imagine the next time Lomborg is called as a Senate witness… “I support a carbon tax,” he says.. Is that bad?

Thanks for reading The Times, and please follow my posts on Dot Earth (and comment there too).
Andy

More generally, and this taken from my post at Revkin’s Dot Earth Blog:

As expected, much of the criticism of Revkin’s piece illustrates how egregiously so many climate activists misjudge the current political consensus on global warming and its policy implications.

It’s easy to write off Revkin’s piece if you believe, as do so many climate activists today, that we’ve seen a “tipping point” in public perceptions on global warming over the past year. Indeed, how can Shellenberger & Nordhaus represent a new middle way if the center has already shifted so dramatically and everyone’s ready for bold action (i.e. strong regulations)?

No doubt there has been incredible political progress, but unfortunately the center remains far from bold action. By and large, global warming ranks extremely low among voter priorities and energy prices are of utmost and growing concern. No wonder Californians rejected a proposition (Prop 87) last year that would have funded clean energy through an oil tax. And no surprise that the Washington Post runs front-page articles like “Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats,” or that Pew polls continue to find global warming ranking nearly dead last out of the top 20 voter priorities.

It’s not just about misjudging the political consensus, though. Policy literalists seemingly fail to understand the importance of tone or political and social change in general. They read Revkin’s piece and say, “so what?” If today’s books and their ideas don’t present immediate policy solutions, they say, then who cares?

But tone, framing, and ideas matter. That Newt Gingrich is pushing the right to take global warming seriously is, in fact, a significant and noteworthy change (I go to Johns Hopkins, a relatively conservative college campus where Gingrich came to speak last year, and I can say first-hand that his book is causing a ruckus). As is Shellenberger and Nordhaus challenging mainstream environmentalists on how they’ve sidelined public investment.

The climate problem isn’t going to be solved with Liebermann-Warner or any of the smaller measures being considered in today’s energy bill. This is a half-century undertaking that will require the establishment of new political identities and majorities. Whether or not you agree with calling these authors the “new center,” we can recognize that Revkin has reported on some very important trends.