A controversial commentary in last week’s Nature — arguing that the
IPCC greatly underestimated the emissions reductions challenge — immediately launched a heated debate among environmentalists. We had hoped for an open and productive exchange of ideas, but after the rude welcome the Nature piece got from Joe Romm, we braced ourselves for another round of low blow mud-slinging and ad hominem attack. The ugly battle wore on for a week before things took a turn for the better.
In the comments section of one of Romm’s posts yesterday, Ted pleaded to elevate the level dialogue:
If you would stop with the hysterical character assassination and slander, we might actually be able to have a serious debate about the proper mix of pricing, regulation, and public investment in U.S. climate policy – one that might actually contribute to the policies that the next president and the next congress might actually enact.
What ensued was the beginning of the level-headed, honest critique of each other’s ideas — what we had wanted to begin with. Romm responded,
I think I have stopped calling you two “delayers” a while back. If not, I’m sorry. Anybody who supports Obama’s plan is not a delayer. I disagree with some of the things you are doing — and plan to point that out.
It’s time for the folks at Grist, Climate Progress, and Breakthrough to realize that we all have the same end goal in mind: a livable climate that can support the aspirations of human civilization. We have different ideas about how to get there, but Breakthrough is the first to acknowledge that our way isn’t the one true way. There is no divine authority here, and an open conversation is the best chance we have at finding a way to success.
Pielke and his coauthors have presented a series of important, honest questions for the environmental movement to grapple with. Rather than “debunk” this effort, we need to start dealing with these questions:
Will carbon pricing be able to reduce emissions enough?
Do we have all the technology we need?
How much should we invest in clean energy?
How much should go to development/demonstration/deployment?
Here’s hoping that we can put behind us the destructive attacks on the credibility and character of those who, in good faith and with the goal of protecting humanity and the planet, ask hard questions about how we are attempting to address the problem. We commend Romm’s shift in tone and appreciate his apology and look forward to an open debate that focuses on these challenges.
“we all have the same end goal in mind: a livable climate that can support the aspirations of human civilization.”
let’s be careful with how we talk here. that’s not my goal, so i guess i’m not included in the “we” and not included in “the movement.”
I would just like to add that the fate of human civilization and the rest of the biosphere are intimately linked. A human collapse would take most of the other species with us (e.g., even greater deforestation and emptying of the fisheries as the masses try desperately to survive). If human civilization moves to better energy sources that will buy time to transition our world to one that is in better balance with the rest of ecosphere. I would like a better balanced and more stable world for my children and so do many others.
And I’ll bet folks didn’t think we old engineers thought about the environment…
Evan – If it’s not your goal, what is?
Although I agree that Joe Romm was getting personal and vitriolic, I think he was absolutely right about one thing: that Breakthrough asking everyone to be civil is extremely ironic.
There is no group that has issued forth more attacks on other part of the environmental movement than Breakthrough’s founders in the past several years.
It is no secret that people — from the high up big wigs within the big greens to low income, grassroots organizers from the environmental justice movement — have felt their views, positions, work, and analysis have been grossly distorted by Breakthrough.
While the image of shaking hands and the title of this article speaks of civility and reconciliation, there is no use of those constructive “I” statements from Breakthrough here (except the borderline self-congratulatory “Breakthrough is the first to acknowledge that our way isn’t the one true way”).
Nowhere is there the recognition that this hasn’t come out of left field or that it has taken two to tango.
Objectively, this is just Breakthrough calling out Joe for being out of control, and then patting him on the head for apologizing. That’s doesn’t really say reconciliation / civility to me. Civil would be Breakthrough and Joe writing something together.
This post would mean a lot more to me if it began with an apology for the many times Breakthrough has been uncivil or unfair in its statements. As it is, it seems like you’re just playing King of the Moral High ground Hill! (Hope that made sense.)
btw, I am by no means some great fan of Joe’s work, I’ve just been watching the back and forth and find it to be, well, a bit of a pissing contest.
ps
Ironically (comically?) enough it’s worth noting that Joe, not surprisingly, found this “civility” essay above to be extremely patronizing and disingenuous.
He said so (http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/11/breakthrough-institute-decides-to-go-back-to-being-very-uncivil/) a day or more BEFORE it was re-posted here at IGHIH, which kinda begs the question why — if civility is really the goal — does Breakthrough continue posting it when it has objectively made things worse?
lmeisel,
sorry, i should have been more clear. my goal is a living ecology with humans playing a role (the role we played for thousands, tens-of-thousands, and millions of years prior to the advent of agriculture/cities… civilization). when i hear “aspirations of human civilization,” i envision large cities, flashing lights, televisions blaring, ipods buzzing, consumer and car culture… a McWorld. i have no desire for that, but of course it’s wrong for me to assume that’s what you meant either. so, for now, let’s just say that it’s an issue of semantics (since what “civilization” means to each of us probably differs), and that i just reacted to the word.
Evan
Evan – Thanks for the clarification. By “aspirations,” I was mostly referring to those in the developing world, those who have trouble meeting even their most basic needs for food, shelter, and security. I think we probably share the goal of a livable planet where all inhabitants can meet their basic needs.
It sounds like you and I also share a distaste for blaring televisions, headphones hooked to people’s heads, shopping, and busy, crowded cities. But we are able to shun these things because our material needs have already been met, and we have the privilege of time to spend thinking about higher-level needs like fulfillment and meaning.
I don’t think it does much good to turn this into a moral issue: “global warming is the result of our sins of excess, and now we must repent.” This is a simplification, of course, but I think it’s a good approximation of a core message coming from many environmentalists, and one of the biggest problems with it is that you can’t tell those in the developing world not to aspire to the same luxuries that we have.
…and one person’s luxury is another’s necessity. Yes we all want a tranquil world, but with OUR chosen technologies (it’s only the OTHER guy’s technology that is bad…) We are going to save our world with better technology (e.g., advanced soil conservation, more efficient energy sources, etc) not by trying to revert to a chimerical golden age.