The TH Interview: Ted Nordhaus
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 10.23.07
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger
At Treehugger we have read the book, done the interview and seen the lecture. Up first: Part 1 of our interview with Ted Nordhaus, author, researcher, political strategist and co-author of Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility
TreeHugger: I will say up front that I like the book a lot, because it was optimistic; we at TreeHugger try to look for solutions and be positive. However the one thing that troubles me is your key position on that big breakthroughs in technology are needed, but I certainly can't see anything in the pipe that can deal with this, and you certainly don't say in the book.
Ted Nordhaus:This is a major criticism of the book and it was intentional. We did not write this book to offer our detailed analysis of new energy technologies. We wrote a book with the intention of laying out the broad philosophical outlines for a different kind of politics that can address the things that we have to do and address not only global warming but the other large issues that we have to deal with in this new century. That said we have looked at this a lot, including the IPCC and Stern review to see what it is going to take to reduce carbon emissions by 80%. People say that we don't need breakthrough technologies, we have them now, like solar and wind and geothermal, but right now, they cost too much and the performance is too low. When we say breakthrough we are talking about dramatic changes in the costs in the technologies we already have. This is even more important at the global level, in the developing world, where ultimately and very quickly these new technologies have to be cost competitive with coal in an environment where there is going to be a low price for carbon.
TreeHugger: In America where everything is so polarized, where Gore is dumped on, where the O'Reillys and the Limbaughs think global warming is a joke, how do we get through that and reach that half of the country?
Ted Nordhaus:There are two things that we have been attacked for in our book because they sound so, well, Republican. We say that we do need technology and we are not going to solve this problem unless we get a lot of new technology, so we get accused of sounding like George Bush; on the one hand it is true that we need technology, on the other hand Bush has used that entirely cynically, so the whole thing gets set up as "sacrifice and regulation" vs technology. It is stunning to me that the environmental movement has let itself get stuck in that kind of debate where they are seen to be anti-technology.
Similarly, the other thing we have been attacked for is saying that simply mitigating carbon emissions is not going to be sufficient; that even if we stopped emitting all carbon tomorrow, we are going to see significant impacts from climate change, and we better start preparing for that. This has been considered heresy by the environmental movement, to suggest that the natural world is going to change, and we are not going to stop all that change, it will have impacts and we better prepare for it. If you want to figure out how to create a discourse with those who are not dyed-in-the-wool true believers, who are sceptical of of environmentalists, aren't particularly interested in sacrificing their lifestyles and aspirations in the name of the planet, then we have to create a discourse that speaks to people's optimism, that we can innovate and invent our way through this problem and also get them focused on the reality that whatever the cause, be it man or nature, the climate is in fact changing, and that we have to do something about this. This also helps people buy into the idea of limiting carbon emissions.
BedZed zero carbon housing in UK
TreeHugger: In the book you mentioned that to a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. I am an architect and to me, the world looks like a big design problem; you say in the book that we need new economies, new patterns of development, and new consumer culture, but that has nothing to do with technology; from Berlin to Banff people have learned how to live at greater density, how to use transit, etc; why do we need an Apollo-style massive intervention is necessary when what we should be doing is creating the right conditions, like the appropriate pricing of resources, to encourage people to make the appropriate choices? If pricing took into account all of the externalities, then we could design our way out of this.
TED NORDHAUS: I think that this is partially true, and we write in the book that we need to transform our cities, but it won't get us to 80% reduction. Consider that western Europe has all of the features that we argue are necessary, denser cities, smaller cars, great transit, more efficient appliances, better design, yet emissions have gone up, not down, since 2000. From what we can figure, if you max all that stuff out, the best you can get is 30% to 40% emission reductions.
Even as gas prices have doubled or tripled in the last few years, we have seen people make choices to drive smaller cars, we have seen no decrease in the rate of increase in vehicle miles travelled. We should do all this, but it will lead to modest reductions in the developed world and will accomplish very little in the developing world.
picking garbage from the water in Citarum, near Jakarta
TreeHugger: This past weekend has seen a lot of stories about water, from Atlanta to the southwest. You make the point that environmentalists are reducing the entire issue to CO2, yet the water goes up on the coasts, down in the interior, how do address the breadth of the issues without looking like Lomborg and his talk of malaria being more important than global warming?
TED NORDHAUS: I disagree with Lomborg about a lot of things; he overestimates the cost of addressing climate change and underestimates the impact. However a fascinating professor at Arizona State made a stunning comment to me recently, noting that environmentalists are saying that the reason we have to take action about climate change is that there will be flooding and drought and starvation that will affect the poor and that we have a moral obligation to help them. Yet all of those things have been happening for years and we have done almost nothing about them.
In the name of saving the planet and thereby ourselves, we invoke those things happening to the very same people fifty years from now, and it is said that this is a great moral issue of our times, but well, what kind of morality are we talking about? Who are we trying to save here? Apparently for all of the invocations of saving the global poor we don't care that much, because we are letting them die in enormous numbers right now all over the world from exactly the same things that will kill more of them fifty years from now. Dealing with the ecological crises can no longer be separated from dealing with development, from creating infrastructure, from meeting peoples' needs, and we have to see these things holistically.
More tomorrow.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Green Glossary: Nature Deficit Disorder
- The Green Message Behind Michael Jackson's Death
- Get Behind Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor—60 Green Groups Already Have
- Reuse Those Plastic Cups As Earrings
- 5 Reuses for: Watermelon
- Yes, There is Such a Thing as an Optimistic, Green American: Be One!
'Bush has used that entirely cynically, so the whole thing gets set up as "sacrifice and regulation" vs technology. It is stunning to me that the environmental movement has let itself get stuck in that kind of debate where they are seen to be anti-technology.'
---I do think many on the right do set it up as 'sacrifce and regulation vs technology - as either or. They do this to block needed moves toward self-restraint and regulation. I'll stress that again - THEY do this. And you yourself clearly state this. So how does one leap from saying that some on the right do this, to saying that the 'environmental movement' as a whole allows this to be done? As a committed environmentalist who actively adopts advanced technologies and keeps up with a wide variety of news regarding the environment and the movement, I'm keen to know what exactly leads you to believe that the environmental movement has allowed itself to get stuck in that kind of debate. Some on the right 'think' restraint-regulation vs technology and hope that if they 'think' that hard enough then some who aren't to the far right will also think that. It sounds like their 'hard' 'thinking' has influenced your own.
'that we can innovate and invent our way through this problem'
---I haven't read this book, but I am getting the distinct feeling that the book stresses 'innovation, invention, and technology' at the expense of the ALSO crucially needed aspects of living with less and government regulation. And in case it wasn't already clear, if you stress to people that the solutions to environmental problems will basically come from technology and invention in some attempt to be 'optimistic', then your 'optimism' will end up deceiving the public into thinking that they don't really have to do much since the 'real' solutions will be coming from tech and innovation. Making people optimistic about their negative behaviours only encourages the continuation of those behaviours. Tell me something, how valid would it be to argue that what was needed to convince the Nazis of the error of their ways was to indirectly paint an optimistic picture of their unacceptable activities in the mistaken hope that this would somehow eliminate those activities? Think Chamberlain. It is necessary to forcefully stress to people that we need to live with less and that we need more environmental regulation. Those are the changes they need to make. Technology advancements are out of the hands of the general public. I can't come up with a $1 per watt PV panel, but I can consume less energy and vote for greener politicians.
'there will be flooding and drought and starvation that will affect the poor and that we have a moral obligation to help them. Yet all of those things have been happening for years and we have done almost nothing about them.'
---There will be MUCH more flooding and drought in the Thirld World, leading to much greater levels of displacement, malnutrition, disease and starvation amongst their poor - along with violent conflict. Yes, there has been flooding and drought and starvation in the past that have affected the poor. Kind of like saying, 'There has always been ice melts in the Arctic during summer, and no one has freaked out about the polar bears before. Why do people freak out now?' Furthermore, your assertion 'we have done almost nothing about them' is pointlessly subjective. People on the far right could (if they wanted to and have done in past) simply say, 'We have done too much for people in the poor countries, wasting so much money and time and effort for nothing since they refuse to get up on their own two feet.' People on the far left will say, 'We have done less than needed, but I just came from working 6 months in Africa for Medics San Frontiers and take affront to your statement that my efforts, those of others in Medics San Frontiers, those in other NGOs like Oxfarm or Red Cross, etc., those who work for govt. org.s who are trying to improve conditions in poor countries, all those billions of dollars that have been spent, directly or indirectly, over the past decades trying to improve conditions, and much much more is all ALMOST nothing.' Point being that the statement is a relativized opinion. The statement 'almost nothing' can resonate in some at certain times, and not resonate in some at other times. It doesn't resonate with me now. I believe that it is our moral obligation to help the poor get out of poverty. I believe our efforts up to now have been inadequate - but not next to nothing. We must do more. And I KNOW that if we don't do as much as possible to halt global warming, things for the poor will get much worse and those poor today who manage to claw their way out of poverty may very well be thrown back into it tomorrow. So while I believe in doing as much as we can today to help people get out of poverty, the point of such efforts will come to nigh if we don't put AT LEAST, if not more, emphasis on the climate crisis. And in case this needed saying: global warming will make us all poorer.
'Dealing with the ecological crises can no longer be separated from dealing with development, from creating infrastructure, from meeting peoples' needs, and we have to see these things holistically.'
---We live in one world. It goes without question that everthing is interconnected and interdependent. So, yes, we have to see things holistically. I again am at a loss to understand why it is that you think that committed environmentalists, and the environmental movement in general, DON'T think holistically? I live in Spain. I am a dues paying member of a number of Spanish NGOs (for instance, the Spanish branches of Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Oxfam) which means that I get magazines from them on a regular basis. It is more than clear that these three organizations cooperate and support (verbally, morally, and with actual resources) the stances of each other and often join together to achieve common tactical goals. Where exactly comes the belief that the environmental movement DOESN'T think holistically? Are things so utterly different in...where is it that you live exactly?
"People say that we don't need breakthrough technologies, we have them now, like solar and wind and geothermal, but right now, they cost too much and the performance is too low."
How can the technology be too expensive? What would a half trillion dollars - the (current) price of the Iraq war - do for clean energy? Not that we have any money left, but I find it arguable that clean energy is too expensive. It's more that we're too cheap and lazy, not poor.
And which environmentalist are saying we need to take action to save the poor? All of them? Talk about putting people in a box. I guess that just how professors at Arizona State are...
"People say that we don't need breakthrough technologies, we have them now, like solar and wind and geothermal, but right now, they cost too much and the performance is too low."
How can the technology be too expensive? What would a half trillion dollars - the (current) price of the Iraq war - do for clean energy? Not that we have any money left, but I find it arguable that clean energy is too expensive. It's more that we're too cheap and lazy, not poor.
And which environmentalist are saying we need to take action to save the poor? All of them? Talk about putting people in a box. I guess that just how professors at Arizona State are...