Break Through is a book filled with big ideas and expansive themes, sweeping broadly across all aspects of global warming, from the political to the philosophical and the scientific to the sociological. All of this is done to convince us of the validity of Nordhaus and Shellenberger's claim that the classic approach of environmentalists, namely imposing limits on pollution and development, is ineffective in tackling the massive and multifaceted problem of global warming. Frightening people with apocalyptic climate change scenarios, the authors argue, does not yield positive results and only hurts prospects for solving global warming. Instead, they advocate proactive investment in green technologies and the development of clean energy sources.
The book is roughly divided into two halves; the first deals with classic environmentalism, its rise, successes, and shortcomings, while the second offers a new type of politics based on a unity and optimism that would unleash the power of human ingenuity and innovation to combat climate change. Somewhat ironically, I think Break Through is most effective when it's being negative, criticizing and pointing out the foibles of not only traditional environmentalism, but liberalism as a whole. Those jumping the gun should take note that Nordhaus and Shellenberger are not conservatives seeking to undermine liberal ideas and values, but instead are astute observers who've assessed the strategies of traditional liberalism to be no longer effective in today's postindustrial world.
One of the authors' most important criticisms of environmental movement is that environmental activists believe showing scientific facts and projections of gloomy ecological apocalypses is enough to persuade people to start clamoring for change. In fact, such methods tend to produce the opposite effect. More people view environmentalists as extremists than ten years ago, and the environment consistently ranks lowest on people's list of priorities, well behind things like the economy, health care, and national security. Compounding this problem is an element of psychology called mortality salience, or terror management theory. Terror management theory has demonstrated that when a person is exposed to words or images that evoke feelings about his or her own mortality, that person will tend to cling to their established world view even more arduously and be less receptive to change than before. Equating global warming to Armageddon, in this context, would make people instinctively eschew new ideas and proposals.
The other important point Nordhaus and Shellenberger make is that contrary to assertions by environmentalists, ecological concern is a fulfillment value, not a survival value. The environmental movements born in the 1960s stemmed from rising economic prosperity. Citizens did not have to worry about survival, so they were able to turn their attention to quality of life issues like pollution. But while Americans today are generally wealthier than they used to be, they are also less secure about their economic future. This has caused a return to survival values, including patriotism, religion, and discrimination, and the quest to be one better than your neighbor. Environmentalists and liberals have failed to take these factors into account in their approach.
Where I think the book starts to falter is when the authors attempt to put a spin on history, accusing author and evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond of baseless fear mongering in his book Collapse. They criticize Diamond for not being empathetic to the social values and circumstances that affected the citizens of defunct civilizations. But if these societies really did collapse because of ecological and economic circumstances, isn't it important to learn about them and take away valuable lessons? At worst, we'd still glean something about how resources were used and consumed in the past, and how they affect the stability of civilizations. Instead, Nordhaus and Shellenberger want to focus more on human accomplishments, and feel proud that we've survived those collapses and come this far. That might work as a feel-good propaganda tool, but in no way should it come at the expense of understanding history as accurately as possible.
The notion of increased optimism and social fulfillment is central to the "politics of possibility" the authors describe in the second half of their book. They argue that environmental movements need to address the economic and social needs of ordinary citizens in order to be effective, citing the example of mega churches to show that conservative organizations have been so successful because they satisfy basic social needs.
Consequently, Nordhaus and Shellenberger recommend rallying people by casting the global warming problem as an Apollo type of challenge. This would require governments to encourage investment in green technologies and solutions, thus creating more jobs and expanding economic stability while harnessing instincts like patriotism and sense of community. This seems like a great idea on the surface. But when you get down to the details, it seems less and less viable.
Apollo appealed to a lot of people for reasons that don't apply to global warming. First, Sputnik and the fear it produced launched a fierce determination to not be outdone by the hated Soviet Union. The current geopolitical situation does not inspire the same sentiments since China and India are becoming even worse polluters than the US. Second, Kennedy's death turned Apollo into tribute to Kennedy himself, and completing the task of putting a man on the moon became a way of achieving Kennedy's dream. Finally, putting a man on the moon is something you can easily depict as a great human achievement. We've always stared up at the Moon in awe while being confined to the earth. Putting a man on the moon is an accomplishment that naturally transcends countries and civilizations and evokes archetypal feelings that we've been harboring for tens of thousands of years.
Solving global warming does not have that same appeal. It's a problem so magnificent that it's difficult to consolidate into one coherent image. Technically, it's also a far more complex and complicated problem than the Apollo mission ever was. It's multifaceted, with unseen linkages and unpredictable variables on larger-than-life scales. Fixing global warming isn't simply a case of putting together a NASA-type organization and flooding it with brilliant minds and cash. It requires political, economic, and social factors to work in concert throughout the globe. That doesn't seem likely considering that concepts of nationalism, patriotism, and religiosity are still strong and poverty is increasing in third world countries.
Massive investment is also a very dubious proposition nowadays. Scandals with companies like KBR and Halliburton have demonstrated that giving large sums of money to contractors won't necessarily produce quality solutions, if it produces anything at all. Our political system has failed to prosecute and deal with this type of negligence, malfeasance, and criminal behavior. And it seems to be getting worse.
Finally, as Bolivian President Evo Morales expressed in a recent UN forum on the effects of climate change on indigenous peoples, global warming will hit poor countries a lot harder than wealthy ones. In fact, rich countries acting in the name of stopping global warming have actually exacerbated the problem. Investment in biofuels has diverted resources and farmland away from producing food grains, contributing to the global food crisis. The biofuel rush has also encouraged deforestation, which worsens global warming by reducing the number of trees available that could absorb the CO2 in the air.
How would we make sure that an Apollo-style mission wouldn't commit similarly fatal mistakes?
My last point is that if what Nordhaus and Shellenberger assert about Americans is true (that right now we are more concerned with material gains and social status due to economic insecurity), then convincing the American people to partake in something that will mainly benefit people in poor countries frankly seems improbable. It'd be easier to convince/force American corporations and famers to sell food to poor nations at a lower cost to alleviate the crisis at hand, but I don't see that happening either. The current political and economic system is unable to foster a new type of politics without a massive overhaul. Does anyone seriously think that will happen?
I could keep going on about the subtleties, intricacies, and nuances in Break Through and discussing them to death but I'm going to stop here. I think Break Through is a very important book, perhaps one of the most important to come out in recent years because it forces us, as people, as human beings, to take a hard look at the situation we're in and realize it's way more complicated than we convince ourselves it is in the course of our daily lives. There are looming philosophical, political, and social questions that need to be addressed, and Break Through opens up the floor for debate. Nordhaus and Shellenberger have done an excellent job in characterizing the failure of liberal politics over the last twenty to thirty years, and while their proposed solutions to global warming appear somewhat naĂŻve, they offer a chance for substantive political and economic discussion. And that, in itself, is worthy of admiration and acclaim, in addition to our Green Book Award.