Disruptive Ideas: Public Intellectuals and Their Arguments for Action on Climate Change Matthew C
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Advanced Review Disruptive ideas: public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change Matthew C. Nisbet∗ In this paper, I analyze three distinct groups of prominent public intellectuals arguing for action on climate change. I detail how public intellectuals establish their authority, spread their ideas, and shape political discourse, analyzing the contrasting stories that they tell about the causes and solutions to climate change. ‘Ecological Activists’ like U.S. writer/activist Bill McKibben or Charles Sturt University (AU) philosopher Clive Hamilton argue that climate change is a symptom of a capitalist society that has dangerously exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet. They are skeptical of technological or market-based solutions to the problem, urging the need for a global movement that dramatically re-organizes society. ‘Smart Growth Reformers’ like UK economist Nicholas Stern or former U.S. vice president Al Gore agree that climate change poses catastrophic risks but argue that those risks can be avoided if political leaders adopt the right market-based mechanisms, enabling sustainable economic growth to continue. ‘Ecomodernists’ like The New York Times (U.S.) writer Andrew Revkin and Oxford University (UK) anthropologist Steve Rayner argue for recognizing the biases in how we have conventionally defined climate change as a social problem. Progress will be achieved not by relying on social protest or market-based mechanisms, but by government investment in a diverse menu of policies that catalyze technological innovation, protect against climate impacts, and provide developing countries abundant, cleaner sources of energy. To conclude, I propose methods for building on my analysis and urge the need for forums that feature a diversity of voices, discourses, and ideas. © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Howtocitethisarticle: WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:809–823. doi: 10.1002/wcc.317 INTRODUCTION world’s safe carbon budget. This ‘terrifying new math’ meant that the fossil-fuel industry was ‘Public Enemy n a July 2012 article at Rolling Stone magazine, Number One to the survival of our planetary civi- Bill McKibben warned that fossil-fuel companies I lization’, wrote McKibben. Drawing comparisons to were committed to extracting as much of their oil, the anti-apartheid movement, he called on universities gas, and coal holdings as possible, a goal that would and other institutions to divest their holdings from the far exceed what scientists had determined was the fossil-fuel industry.1 ∗ McKibben’s article generated millions of social Correspondence to: [email protected] media recommendations and visits to Rolling Stone’s Department of Communication Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA web site. Among the readers was billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who sought out McKibben to meet for Conflict of interest: My analysis in this paper is informed by a mountain hike. By the end of their hike, Steyer my collaboration and/or interactions with groups and individuals had pledged to support the fossil-fuel divestment representing each of the three identified discourse traditions, though , my own outlook is closest to that of the Ecomodernists. campaign.2 3 In the years since, Steyer has divested Volume 5, November/December 2014 809 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. Advanced Review wires.wiley.com/climatechange his personal wealth from fossil-fuel companies, played Gore, The New York Times’ (U.S.) columnist Tom a key role in Stanford University’s decision to divest Friedman, the London School of Economics (UK) from coal companies, bankrolled a TV campaign economist Nicholas Stern, Columbia University (U.S.) opposing the Keystone XL oil pipeline, spent mil- economist Jeffrey Sachs, and U.S. energy analyst lions in election races to defeat Republican ‘climate Amory Lovins. deniers’,2,4 and helped generate hundreds of news sto- The third group, Ecomodernists, argue for ries calling attention to these causes.a embracing the power of human ingenuity and cre- Despite the many studies that scholars have ativity to manage the risks of climate change, and produced, analyzing the institutional, political, and for recognizing the biases in how we have conven- economic factors that shape environmental debates, as tionally approached the problem. Social change will historian Paul Sabin notes, we seldom have considered be catalyzed not by protests or market mechanisms, the influence of highly visible public intellectuals like but by government investment in a diverse menu of McKibben.5 Through their best-selling books, articles, policies and technologies that lower the cost of action and commentaries, these public intellectuals influence and that protect against climate impacts. Examples how we think and talk about climate change, infusing of contemporary public intellectuals writing in this the abstract with meaning, and turning the complex tradition include U.S. entrepreneur and author Stew- into a commonly shared vocabulary. Yet, they are also art Brand, Kings College London (UK) scientist Mike criticized for their characterization of uncertainty, for Hulme, University of Colorado-Boulder (U.S.) polit- imposing their point of view, for lacking specialized ical scientist Roger Pielke Jr, Oxford University (UK) credentials, for reducing explanations to a single idea, anthropologist Steve Rayner, Breakthrough Insti- theory, or field, and for blurring the lines between tute (U.S.) cofounders Ted Nordhaus and Michael objective analysis and ideological argument.6,7 Shellenberger, and The New York Times’(U.S.) In this paper, I analyze three distinct groups environmental writer Andrew Revkin. of public intellectuals arguing for action on climate I begin the paper by evaluating how public intel- change. Although all three groups accept the unde- lectuals in the climate change debate establish and niable, human causes of climate change, each group maintain their authority, how their ideas and argu- emphasizes a contrasting discourse, problem framing, ments spread and diffuse, and how they shape debates and set of solutions. and decision-making. Then, based on their main The first group, Ecological Activists,b argue that works, I analyze the different stories that each group climate change is a symptom of a capitalist society of public intellectuals tell about the causes, risks, and that in prioritizing economic growth and consumerism solutions to climate change, the intellectual traditions has dangerously exceeded the carrying capacity of the they reflect, and their outlook on society, nature, tech- planet. Skeptical of technological and market-based nology, policy, and social change. In this regard, my solutions, they argue the need for a new conscious- analysis is informed by my collaborations and inter- ness spread through grassroots organizing and social actions with groups and individuals representing each protest that would dramatically transform society. of the three discourse traditions, though my own out- Examples of public intellectuals writing in this tra- look is closest to that of the Ecomodernists. In the dition include U.S. writer and activist Bill McK- conclusion, I propose several methods for building on ibben, Charles Sturt University (AU) philosopher Clive my framework and analysis. I also argue the need for Hamilton, The Guardian (UK) columnist George investment in media and public forums that challenge Monbiot, Canadian author and broadcaster David how each of us think and talk about climate change, Suzuki, UK writer and activist Paul Kingsnorth, and constructively engaging with the ideas and arguments Canadian writer and activist Naomi Klein. of others. On this goal, ‘the idea here is not just to The second group, Smart Growth Reformers, highlight points of communality and sites for compro- agree that limits to growth should be respected, but mise’, note political scientists Hayley Stevenson and assume that environmental limits can be stretched if John Dryzek, ‘but also to provide possibilities for con- 8 the right market-based mechanisms are implemented, testation and the reflection it can induce’. enabling ‘sustainable’ economic growth to continue indefinitely. In this case, not only would action on ESTABLISHING AUTHORITY climate change generate profits and create new indus- AND GAINING INFLUENCE tries, but international cooperation would also open the door to combating poverty and other global Relative to climate change, the prominence of the pub- problems. Examples of public intellectuals writing in lic intellectuals reviewed in this paper is especially this tradition include former U.S. Vice President Al remarkable, given the extremely crowded media and 810 © 2014 The Authors. WIREs Climate Change publishedbyJohnWiley& Sons,Ltd. Volume 5, November/December 2014 WIREs Climate Change Disruptive ideas publishing space within which they work. Consider new interpretations, observations, and conclusions that over the past two decades, an estimated 14,000 that are then subsequently cited and further developed peer-reviewed studies (see analysis by James Lawrence by academic specialists.7 By elevating attention to Powell)9 and 30,000 English-language books on