Point/Counterpoint: Michael Shellenberger vs. No Impact Man
by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 01.25.08
TreeHugger likes both No Impact Man and Michael Shellenberger (half of the duo that brought us The Death of Environmentalism and its follow-up, Breakthrough); through their separate (and wholly disparate) efforts, they've both helped advance the cultural conversation about living green and creating a more sustainable world. They've done this in very different ways: No Impact Man -- aka Colin Beavan -- undertook the challenge to live without negatively impacting the planet for a year to prove that individual actions make a difference; Shellenberger thinks that, while those things are nice, we need a "10-year, $500 billion public-private investment into cutting-edge clean energy technologies to achieve energy independence and restore America’s economic competitiveness" (read our interview with his co-author Ted Nordhaus for more).
The two recently got into a friendly email debate about whose method was more effective; both make excellent points and both arguments aren't infallible.
Shellenberger says that, while inspiring and demonstrative, Beavan's model is tough to apply to very many people -- "I don't think we can convince very many Americans or Chinese to do what you're doing. And I don't think we should try because we'll only alienate them. Instead I think we need to find ways to allow people to keep on consuming without generating emissions or depleting resources." -- and Beavan replies that convincing people wasn't really the point: "It isn't necessarily to convince people to live the way I have been, though -- it's true -- I offer it as an option, if people are interested. But more importantly I share my experiences living with lower resource consumption to show that using less doesn't have to feel like deprivation, and to illustrate that, often, living a lifestyle that is better for the planet is better for the person or the culture, too."
It's a really interesting debate (read No Impact Man's version and Shellenberger's side of things for more) and not one where an out-and-out winner can be declared after a series of emails have been exchanged. We think they're both right; the important thing to remember is that we shouldn't get caught up in the letter of how they both live and think -- that is to say, we all don't have to live with no impact, nor should we toss our hands up and wait for the top-down economic approach to bail us out -- but to embrace the spirit of their arguments. Yep, it's possible to make lifestyle changes to live with less (or almost zero) impact, and it's also possible to redesign and remake systems so that when we do consume, we aren't depleting resources faster than we can replenish them (though this isn't happening on a large scale today). And we think we should be working from both ends.
Because of differences in the scale of both approaches -- No Impact Man's individual change is short-term; Shellenberger's economic and systems reform is long -- it's tough to compare the relative impacts of both and declare who's "more right" or "less wrong." Perhaps the most important takeaway from a discussion like this is that there is more than one way to do things, and do things well. You don't have to pick sides; you can affect positive change by reducing your impact today and looking to the future for zero-waste packaging, compostable everything, and waste = food.
The debate will continue via email until the two meet up to chat in person after Shellenberger and Nordhaus speak at Focus the Nation in New York on January 31, so stay tuned for more. Who wins in your book? ::No Impact Man and ::Breakthrough Blog via ::Living Small
See also: No Impact Man on Colbert Report and No Impact Man finishing up his year of (nearly) no impact.
Politicians and bureaucrats are not leaders, they are too protective of their careers and reelection prospects. We need people like the 100 Mile Diet folks and No Impact Man in order to stretch the idea of what is possible. Then, governments can hire a consultant, do a study and put some regulation in place.
Personal responsibility MUST BE at the foundation. Spending $500 billion on research is great, but it's people, one by one, which ultimately make the difference.
'Personal responsibility MUST BE at the foundation. Spending $500 billion on research is great, but it's people, one by one, which ultimately make the difference.'
---I agree. I think it important for large sums of money to be invested in developing technologies and products that will make our consumption less damaging, but in the end, people have to take responsibility for their actions and lifestyles. What would the point be of developing, for instance, a modest sized car that got 1000mpg if people were still going to go out and buy cars that got 30mpg? Or to develop a clean energy infrastructure if people then decided that they could waste as much of it as they want - thereby requiring massive additional deployment of clean energy plants which may not be possible or may not be green? We can develop all the cleanest greenest products and services imaginable, all to no avail if people refuse to be green. And this simple idea applies to all aspects of life. For instance, the best cure for cancer is prevention; while developing effective cancer drugs and treatments is noble and needed, people should take it upon themselves to lead healthy lives rather than depend on medicine to take away the consequences of bad lifestyle choices. And the same goes with how people deal with their finances - personal responsibility is key rather than govt. handouts and bailouts. Society should not structure itself to facilitate people being irresponsible; it should structure itself to incentivize individuals to act responsibly. I think it dangerously counterproductive to indirectly encourage people to be irresponsible.
Thanks for the shout-out, Collin.
I'm still on the fence about this issue, even after discussing my post with a handful of friends and colleagues. While I do agree with No Impact Man (and with Ruben and Joe) that it takes widespread individual change — that is, an acceptance of lower-impact lifestyles that don't necessarily equal out-and-out want — I nevertheless am convinced that telling a culture of consumers that they need to reduce their intake will result in mayhem. I wrote more about this in response to comments on my post about the wash of plastic bag bans. Barring a society-wide paradigm shift, I'm not sure that there is an answer. Of course, the proliferation of climate change information is a sign that we're moving toward broader acceptance. Perhaps Shellenberger's investment isn't far off.
The Reagan era myth of "personal responsibility will save us" needs to die. Global warming is a global problem, which requires global solutions. The average person simply cannot pull the right levers to solve every facet of the problem. Nor is realistic to expect that the average person will act against their own interests when faced with a tough choice.
And besides, we've already tried the "personal responsibility" / "let the market sort it out" route. It's what we have today. So clearly it's time to try something new.
This is not an either/or situation we are living through. This is a both/and situation, both/and plus whatever else we can bring to bear.
What we need is a zero emissions industrial, commercial, and personal frame of mind. We should be recognize that there is no "away" into which we can throw our garbage and that waste equals food, as Bill McDonough puts it.
Personally, I have one room off-grid through small scale PV, don't own a car, and live as energy efficient and resource efficient life as I can. That doesn't mean that I oppose reasonable energy legislation, green jobs, and an ecological industrial system.
Seems to me, from what I've read, that Nordhaus and Shellenberger have a modus operandi of arguing mostly for attention but I could be wrong.
What Colin Beavan has done is incredibly important, but I have reservations about using the misnomer "No-impact" man. Obviously, he ate and drank water, and people need to remember that our mere existence has an impact - lest we fall into the trap of thinking we need only "change our ways" and all will be fixed.
Changing our habits is the first step, thanks for making the point Colin!
However, changing the system to reduce our presence is dramatically more important! Dont stop at "improved"!
Ruben, I wholly agree that governments won't get us out of this mess. But I have great hopes for entrepreneurs if only a decently open and free playing field can be opened for them.
VC money in silicon valley is now going into clean energy. That has more chances of jumpstarting a new industry than inefficient government programs and misguided subsidies that care more about electoral gains than environmental benefits.