Red, Green and Blue: The Hairshirt Response to Global Warming
Editor's note: We're proud to revive Red, Green and Blue, our weekly political feature. We've made some changes: first, our new writer Shirley Siluk Gregory will represent the progressive side; Jimmy Hogan will continue to take the conservative position in these debates. Second, we're trying out a new format — Shirley and Jimmy will each give "opening statements," and then debate each other in the comments of the post. You're welcome (and encouraged) to join the fray!
Topic: Major sacrifice by American citizens is necessary to meet the challenges posed by climate change and other environmental problems.
Shirley: Imagine, for a minute, that your doctor has called to deliver a "bad news, good news" diagnosis.
The bad news? Over the next 20 years, you're very likely to develop a serious, chronic disease with painful, debilitating and life-altering effects.
The good news? If you radically alter your habits now, you can save yourself from the worst, long-term symptoms of your disease. It won't be easy, but it can be done.
So the question is, would you do it? Would you sacrifice some of life's pleasures and make the hard choices necessary today to gain yourself a healthier, happier future in years to come?
By now, I'm sure, you've seen the analogy to global warming: a little pain now puts off a lot of pain later, according to the best of what science is telling us today. Unfortunately, even many green-minded types aren't yet talking about the real and drastic changes we would need to start making today to keep the impact of global warming from becoming catastrophic in years to come. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs, Toyota Priuses and carbon offsets alone won't cut it.
Jimmy: As much as we feel it is important to sacrifice for those things in which we truly believe, I'm convinced that sacrifice may have the unintended consequence of doing more harm than good; especially when that sacrifice is imposed on society at large. History teaches that common sense incentives combined with innovation and technology will solve the world's environmental problems faster and less painfully than any manner of sacrifice imposed or otherwise. America's market economy is the best friend the environment has and is the best hope of dealing with a growing world population and increasing world environmental concerns.
Let the fun begin!
Tags: Climate Change, climate+change, global+warming, politics, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
April 19th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Excellent commentary Megan!
I will check out your links.
As for giving up steaks… hmmm… that’s another story all together. ;}
April 19th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
Back to the "moonbat" comments for a moment:
I've read "Heat" cover to cover (and am pleased to hear you've done so as well, Jeff), and Monbiot's science and logic is sound. Whatever one's political views of him, though, by what reasoning could you place Nicholas Stern and James Hansen in the same "moonbat" category? Their conclusions echo Monbiot's quite well.
And as far as Monbiot being defeatist? Re-read his conclusion: "I have sought to demonstrate that the neceesary reduction in carbon emissions is — if difficult — technically and economically possible. I have not demonstrated that it is politically possible. There is a reason for this. It is not up to me to do so. It is up to you."
That's, sadly, where we differ: I don't harbor even such cautious optimism that the public will rise up and demand we take the actions necessary now. So, if anything, I'm the defeatist here.
April 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Megan, you raised some excellent points, and I agree completely. Part of the reason followers of "neoclassical economics" fight proposed efforts to curb global warming so emphatically is that they focus only on dollars expended and direct economic impact (as in the response to my suggestion that airline traffic needs to be drastically reduced: "there you go, messing with the economy again.")
What will mess with the economy more than continued environmental degradation, loss of crop lands, swamped shorelines and more extreme weather? (And I'm not even going into the human costs as well, which, while incalculable, cannot morally be left out of the equation.) While much of America has been OK with forgetting about New Orleans and leaving it a sad, hollow shell of itself, how will we react if a similar storm swamps New York City? The economic impact would be incredible.
Consider what U.K. economist Nicholas Stern concluded in his report last year on the economic costs of climate change: a business-as-usual (BAU) approach, he found, could eventually cost the global economy the equivalent of a worldwide reduction in consumption of 5 to 20 percent.
By contrast, he added, the deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions needed to stabilize the atmosphere (he chooses a stabilization target of 500 to 550 ppm of carbon dioxide equivalent, which includes the effects of other gases such as methane) would cost about 1 percent of global domestic production by 2050, a level that, as he said, is "significant but manageable."
Achieving that level of stabilization would require radical changes in our lifestyles, transportation methods, energy use and more. But waiting another 20 years to see if things get as bad as some predict first — and THEN start taking action — would take even more drastic (and costly) measures, according to the climate experts.
Finally, regarding the term "sacrifice." Yes, it's negative and tends to turn people off. But, whatever you call it, most of us aren't talking about the real and meaningful changes we need to adopt: it's mostly CFLs, turn down the thermostat and keep your tires properly inflated. That kind of talk doesn't begin to acknowledge the elephant in the room.
April 19th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Is one person out of 5 being 100% green the same as 5 people each being 20% green?
I’d argue the 5 people being 20% green will give us a much bigger return.
I’ll elaborate. One thing I learned in business long ago was the 80/20 rule. In almost every project you work on if you are smart about it you can get 80% of the desired result for the first 20% of energy invested. Conversely the last 20% of the result as you approach perfection ends up costing 80% of the effort.
The trick then becomes focusing on what you can do easily giving a large return for a small investment. I call this the ‘low hanging fruit’.
Given this; I’ve made a very successful life out of investing the first 20 most effective percent of energy into the 5 most important projects. Where the average person gets at best a 100% return on their energies I end up banking around 400%. Are there frustrating but less important loose ends on each of the projects when I’m done? Well sure, but the cost of perfection is too great when you consider that the energy could be more effectively invested in the next project.
The same concept can and should be applied to the environmental movement and other world social challenges. People like Ed Begley Jr. are role models to be sure; but he’s one in 1000 in his dedication to the cause. If those other 999 people made some small but effective changes in their lifestyle it would easily trump what Ed does as an individual (negating, of course, the great benefit he offers a role model).
To use a few clichés I’d say the environmental movement does a lot of ‘preaching to the faithful’ and; in my opinion, ‘fishing in the wrong pond’. I think it’s better to leverage the 999 with painless but effective ideas like Shower Start… or using an inexpensive toaster oven to cook your biscuits rather than heating up the whole house with a full size range… or, as I suggested earlier in this debate, having policies that encourage people to park the SUV in favor of a more environmentally friendly daily driver.
This type of reform along with normal innovation and imagination (and maybe a tax to discourage oil consumption) will propel us much further than radical change; while at the same time preserving the economic surpluses necessary to provide for all forms of environmental, social and charitable causes.
April 19th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Jimmy, I agree that much of the environmental movement does, as you say, preach to the faithful. But that also means, in a way, that the "low-hanging fruit" (those easiest to persuade to adopt greener living habits) has already been picked. That means a much larger number remains that needs to adopt even the most basic of environmentally responsible habits.
Now the word does seem to be sinking in among many of those remaining that things like CFLs and sustainably pastured beef are good for the environment. But I still hear far too many rabid "anti-greens" (for lack of a better word) preaching in-your-face resistance: i.e., comments like, "I'll cruise aimlessly in my Hummer for hours, because that's my God-given right and it's my gas money." I question whether anti-SUV incentives would have any impact on someone like that (who presumably, has money to burn, if he/she can afford a Hummer and regular fill-ups).
Finally, again getting back to the 80/20 logic, which I agree with: considering a developed country like the U.S. is on its own responsible for about one-fourth of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, it appears to me that pursuing aggressive emissions cuts in this country — whatever, for the moment, countries like India or China might do — is in fact targeting the source that promises the most bang for the buck.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
It’s been my experience, Shirley, that the people who really do have money to burn, don’t burn it so your hypothetical is just a bit of back-lash rhetoric from people who don’t like to have things forced upon them.
If it wasn’t such a darn hassle and expense I’d register that little Saturn I’ve got and drive it to work most days; though that has little to do with my ability to afford gas. As I have said before, They could tack on another dollar a gallon tax for all I care… it would be great to get some of this traffic off the road so it wouldn’t take me 20 minutes to drive 5 miles to work. I’m not sure just a dollar would do it though.
Going back to the hairshirt point… have you looked at that ShowerStart I linked yet?
I mean, it saves time and energy. I’m wondering though; that since it involves no real sacrifice do you consider it ‘green’?
I see in you an almost necessary connection between being green and making a sacrifice. To me, focusing on the means in such a way instead of the results makes the quest more like a crusade than just another environmental problem in search of a solution.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
Products like ShowerStart are absolutely great, and I expect many other products with similar aims (conservation without sacrifice) will be speeding down the pike in months and years to come. Great stuff, for sure!
But, no, I’m not on a crusade. I don’t want to live like the average citizen of Zimbabwe or even Bangladesh. I enjoy hot showers, cold beverages, comfortable room temperatures, clean drinking water, fresh healthy food and TiVO, and hope very much to continue doing so through my lifetime. I’m not pro-sacrifice; I’m just looking ahead to where we appear to be going with our consumption habits, and seeing a potentially nasty collision in the future as the effects of global warming become more severe (which includes growing water shortages, environmental refugees, environmentally related security problems and increased competition for a finite supply of resources).
And that’s just the environmental fallout; coupled with the long-term economic cost of our deficit spending and increasingly costly (and harder to extract) fossil fuel supplies (two more subjects ripe for ample future discussion, I’m sure!), I just fear we might be in for a hard fall sometime in our lifetimes. So I look at “sacrifice” as the ounce of prevention that might help put off something worse down the line.
April 19th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
YEAH TIVO!
April 19th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Wait a minute…
[PAUSE][REWIND]…
Did you say…
Yes you did…
New Orleans???
You didn’t just try to blame Katrina on Global warming did you?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
No, I don’t — and won’t — blame Katrina on global warming. (Though I confess to a certain perverse amusement: I knew that comment would raise some hackles immediately! : ) ) I’m well aware there’s a cyclical nature to hurricane frequency and strength, and that the El Nino/La Nina cycles also play a part.
The point I was trying to make was that global warming is expected to result, over time, in more extreme weather, heavier rains in some places, droughts in others and rising sea levels. The East Coast has so far been very fortunate in recent years to avoid the record-breaking hurricanes that have plagued my neck of the woods, but it does also lie in a hurricane strike zone.
What I’m suggesting is that, if sea levels rise enough to impact a place like Manhattan under ordinary circumstances and the city THEN is, heaven forbid, struck by a Katrina-like (or, worse, an Andrew, which hit as the maximum Category 5) hurricane, what do you suppose the economic fallout (much less the human impact) would be? All three NYC airports and the subway system lie just 10 feet or less above sea level, and the city is a major transportation and financial hub. The results simply couldn’t be as easily shrugged off as those in New Orleans are today.