I have been listening to the Breakthrough Institute and Joe Romm from Climate Progress bickering over a recent Nature article about the magnitude of carbon emissions cuts required and if our current path will get us to where we desperately need to go. Unfortunately, we seem to have constructed a circular firing squad, again, magnified by the hostile rhetoric tossed around. The real problem we have is that we are hitting a discontinuous period, one that we will live our lives in, one that is “Off-the-Charts”. Under Business-as-Usual, carbon emissions go through the roof and we stew in our own effluent. However, declining availability of conventional fossil fuels will raise both their price and the impact on the environment per unit of energy delivered. The problem is NOT Peak Oil, but rather Peak Habitat (for Humanity).
Then, we have the astounding growth in population (which is leveling off), in development, in the spread of information technology, the spread of pandemic disease, in the spread of low-cost weaponry and transnational criminal organizations, in the mapping of the human brain and the manufacturing of biological organisms, and of course the understanding of physics and nanotechnology. Head spinning yet?
Nobody “knows” what will happen in the future, however our best scientists have told us we need to eliminate and bring down carbon emissions to something closer to 350 parts per million C02, to avoid playing a coin toss of if we inherit a world worth living in. Scary, hell yes, it is.
However, what we need is NOT simply new, disruptive technology. In fact, it isn’t always political will. Sometimes, we need innovative solutions, to deploy the technology we have, to not using technology at all, new ways to connect, we need innovation in how we think as much as in what to build. I want to share something from an amazing project, WorldChanging:
“WorldChanging.com works from a simple premise: that the tools, models and ideas for building a better future lie all around us. That plenty of people are working on tools for change, but the fields in which they work remain unconnected. That the motive, means and opportunity for profound positive change are already present. That another world is not just possible, it’s here. We only need to put the pieces together…
Every link we post is informed by technology, but the new possibilities we cover aren’t just high-tech. Sure, we all need to understand the uses (and dangers) of advances like biotechnology, the Internet, ubiquitous computing, artificial intelligences, “open source” software and nano-materials. But we also need to know how best to collaborate, how to build coalitions and movements, how to grow communities, how to make our businesses live up to their highest potential and how to make the promise of democracy into a reality. We need to understand techniques as well as technologies, ideas as well as innovations. How we work together is as important as the tools we use. The Worldchanging Manifesto“
The Breakthrough Institute and Climate Progress have a common failing that, despite their individual brilliance, makes them miss an essential piece, one they share with the “Tired” environmentalism of the 70s. The federal government is run by politicians, who are followers, rather than leaders. They WILL follow us if we start to build a new sustainable world, new experts in sustainability, if we develop the Breakthrough THINKING that gets us to a fundamentally different world, one that charts its own path – not on any presenter’s graph. That is the true task the Campus Climate Challenge – developing the new generation of thinkers who can light the world up with brilliance for a bright green future – and can reshape the world through our understanding of systems, of open-source organizing and knowledge bases, of revolutionary new media technologies, of a collaborative rather than individual vision for the world. So give me a break.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Richard, thanks for this post, it captures (and moves beyond) my own frustration with the sniping that Breakthrough Institute and Joe Romm have exchanged since that Nature article appeared. Both are good and needed allies (although I find Breakthrough folks tend to have a narcissistic certitude about their own brilliance, and Romm sometimes tends to get lost in climate-geek minutiae).
I am a board member of Focus the Nation, and for me the most powerful learning from nationwide organizing on 1/31/08 was the depth of solutions-oriented leadership that now exists on campuses. That’s clearly where the Worldchanging thinking is emerging, and it needs to be networked, mentored, and celebrated at every opportunity.
Richard,
I agree wholeheartedly that the only way to get those “innovative solutions” is to keep our focus on the issues. But to call what went on between Romm, Pielke, and the Breakthrough Institute “bickering” is simply misrepresentation. Romm attacked Peilke’s Nature piece, urging people to ignore it because it was “pointless” and an “embarrassment,” and implying that it was a bad-faith attempt to “delay” action on global warming. In fact, Pielke’s commentary raised important questions for the climate movement to consider — questions that could add more depth and balance to the conversation. Our response to Romm was to point out his attempt to undermine a dissenting voice and orchestrate the conversation based only on those perspectives he deems valid. We have no interest in misrepresenting Romm’s views, and we appreciate his apology for misrepresenting ours and Pielke’s.
I think it is very important to note Richard’s point that our politicians are FOLLOWERS not leaders. They build their careers on building platforms that appeal to majorities. They are elected precisely because their messages appeal to the majority of voters. They are re-elected if the majority of voters approve of their actions. Politicians may be considered leaders when they help pass certain policies which governments have lagged at enacting. However, they are not ideological leaders. Politicians may inspire people, but their messages must resonate with a majority to get them elected.
As a movement, we have many necessary roles to play. We need to hold currently elected officials accountable to their actions and inactions. We need to elect officials who will be responsive to our leadership on climate, economic and social justice demands. We need to build and implement the solutions we are calling for. But most of all, we need to build the majority that demands action on real sustainability. With that (vocal) majority, our politicians will need to follow our lead – it is the nature of their jobs.
So it is necessary for us to continue and amplify our efforts engaging people in conversation around climate* issues. We must publicize and communicate our work and build that majority which actively calls for (and working on) climate solutions.
Juliana
*I use the term climate loosely in this context. For me this encompasses environmental, justice, technological, economic, social, spiritual issues. Unfortunately, we have yet found a way to communicate briefly the complexity of “climate issues.” This is something we need to work on. Any ideas?
Richard, one of Breakthrough’s central missions is to create “thought movements.” Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus wrote an entire book calling for a “paradigm shift” in our thoughts and approaches. It’s why we launched Breakthrough Generation for today’s young adults — and why we just hired 14 young fellows for the summer. We see this debate about the energy technology gap as fundamental to creating the kind of thought breakthroughs we need in the climate movement. So I guess I’m a little unclear why you’re criticizing us.
We’d certainly be interested in hearing your opinion on the substance of “Dangerous Assumptions.” Why do you think it evoked such fierce attacks from people like Romm and David Roberts of Grist? We all agree that we need to stick to substance. But we cannot afford to allow someone of Romm’s stature to make such malicious and misrepresenting attacks on a body of such important evidence for our climate future. If that means putting up a fight for what we believe in, then so be it.
Teryn,
S&N have called for a “paradigm shift” in thinking…but they don’t present one. That is why I have been much more interested in Breakthrough Generation than the Breakthrough Institute, as I think that has the potential to create one, not just call for one.
On the subject of “Dangerous Assumptions”, it is not a particularly complicated or interesting article. It just says that the IPCC models assume that innovation and market deployment are going to occur, regardless of market intervention, and that many of the advances we are seeing are just part of the business-as-usual scenario. Well, yes, that I know.
However, this ‘bickering’ (and despite occasional calls for civility on both sides, it is that, bickering) is over the meaning of the word “Breakthrough” and the question of who will do the investment to reduce the cost of clean energy. The continuous and rapid decline in price of solar electric panels, in Joe’s world, is not a breakthrough but a result of deployment driving market investment. To S&N, if the curve was bent down further it might be a “breakthrough”.
All I have to say is: Markets are not continuous (except in graphs) and clean energy is massively cost-competitive right now, if you shift your thinking about where and how to deploy. Deployment drives investment, economies of scale, and market R&D. However, I think R&D is great, but it sure as hell isn’t going to get us to a carbon neutral world tomorrow. We know how to build Zero emissions buildings today, but that is because we decided to roll up our sleeves and build them.
I support large-scale government R&D, but even more, I want new investment models, community investment mechanisms, the elimination of perverse incentives, etc. I think that is what will propel the changes we need and finally launch a clean energy revolution.
I think Romm overreacted, because he has seen the deniers and delayers seize upon every excuse for inaction, as well as you have to understand his history. He spent years fighting for fuel economy for vehicles, while car companies trotted out ‘breakthrough’ technologies such as hydrogen cars, in order to derail action on CAFE. In those cases, he was right – we did have the technology – and the call for ‘breakthrough’ technology strategic to delay action now. S&N might be arguing for something new, but it fits into a pattern that Romm has seen again and again.
I’m not sure I understand the nonchalant attitude here, Richard. If the IPCC is making faulty assumptions about the scale of spontaneous innovation, then we’re facing an incredibly large technology gap and need to be calling for far greater efforts to bridge it. We’re going to need immediate and massive strategic federal investments in clean energy technology innovation — not just a price on carbon, a moratorium on coal, and other regulatory measures. So just to be clear, do you support major federal investments on the scale of $30-$80 billion in clean energy RDD&D?
Richard, can you elaborate? I’m not quite sure what you’re talking about when you say “new investment models” and “community investment mechanisms.” Unless you mean community efficiency, something we could use a lot more of, but I don’t understand how residential efficiency projects is going to spark an energy revolution.
Only if you’re maliciously misrepresenting our position (I’m defending my own work here, Richard, since I co-authored “Fast, Clean, Cheap”). We’re spending our lives fighting for a clean energy revolution. We’ve never suggested that regulatory action be delayed. What we’ve said consistently is that regulation isn’t enough. And we’ve never said that federal investment be limited to R&D. We’ve consistently called for these investments to be distributed along all stages of the innovation chain, including deployment. We said it in “Fast, Clean, Cheap” and again in the energy scientist sign-on letter that Breakthrough organized. Here’s what it read:
As long as we agree that such an effort is vital (although I’d like to see it be $80 billion), then I think we’re on the same page.
Props to Richard for pointing out the chimera of techno-optimism. R&D is just not going to get us the paradigm-shift that we need in industry and the culture shift we need in the public to meet the targets so many of us push for. Agreed that there are different roles to be played in the transition to a clean energy economy, but constantly pushing for R&D as a lead principle undercuts real grassroots action for political and cultural change, and adds fodder to those pesky conservatives who want nothing more than to give out more money to industry, whatever guise it’s under.
well said Phil
well said Phil. We need to check this line of thinking as it all to dangerously becomes the monofocus of politicians and business.
With interesting synchronicity to this debate, the mainstream media has suddenly in the past week realized the much bigger news, that technological innovations — the green revolution in agriculture and agrofuels — can have deadly and global side effects.
As long as the deployment / evaluation / use of technology is easily captured by business interests and politicians who are focused on their bottom-line, we would be fools to not focus on social change to change this fact, as well as reducing consumption, and of course working with the under used, well established technologies we already have like public transportation, permaculture, bikes, efficiencies, etc.