Joe, you seem bent on portraying N & S as “delayers” because they’re hoping for pie-in-the-sky technological solutions. Yet almost all of their attention in the book is on getting current technology to scale–wind & solar. They’re talking about big investment to bring the cost down but not hoping for some magical thing that hasn’t been invented yet.

Has much of the environmental movement behaved as if you can regulate and conserve your way to meaningful solutions? Undoubtedly yes. Thus, recognizing that innovation rapid efforts to achieve economies of scale are fundamental to averting even worse effects of global warming is a useful message. Focusing instead on counterfactuals obfuscates S & N’s fundamental message.

Similarly, are there many examples where environmentalists have either focused on doom and gloom because there was plenty of it to go around, or focused on positive preservation but in a NIMBYish way? You bet.

Having read S&N’s book it’s mainly focused on broad brush stroke political philosophy and selective illustration to reinforce the argument. As such it’s an easy target for criticism about failing to address specific points, or de-emphasizing others. But it’s always so much easier to criticize work than to deal with the argument on its own terms–meaning an acceptance of the kind of fairly broad philosophical argument their making. To me the shame of all this exchange is that it reads like parties talking over one another, not having real dialogue by not accepting the starting premise of the other parties.

The fundamental point that we need to speak more to the vision and less to the “crisis” is valid. I don’t take that to mean that An Inconvenient Truth and other vehicles speaking to the enormity of the problem aren’t of value just that on the balance we need much more of the broad visionary solution discussion in the public sphere and that it needs to reach beyond “polar bears.” That fundamental assessment is totally correct. They have done an enourmous service in stimulating real dialogue about our strategies.

Thanks for dispatching these self-serving publicity hounds so thoroughly. It was important to do so, because their narrative had the potential to set climate policy back sevaral decades. The irony about their “new” message is that they didn’t even understand it would have that effect. As you point out, now that they’ve been schooled in the history of climate change policy, they are trying to rewrite history.

When I first read S&N, I was outraged by three things:

1)S&N created a phony narrative — the dumb self-defeating environmentalists — solely for the purpose of allowing S&N to position themsleves as offering something “new” (support for breakthrough technologies — something every environmentalist I’ve ever encounterd has been advocating for decades) to rescue these poor bozo environmentalists from themselves.

Given the reality that this contention was manifestly wrong and counterfactual, there can be only two explanations for it. One, S&N are simply unaware of the history and positions of the groups they criticize, in which case we shouldn’t waste our time on their blather. Or two, they are aware of it, and dsimiss it so that they can posit themsleves as having something fundamentally new to offer — in which case, we should dismiss their blather.

2) In dismissing the enviros as doom and gloom mongers, they support the delayer’s myth — as you point out Joe. If the reality of climate change had not been inculcated into the public consciousness, then increased investments in technology would simply be seen as a solution in search of a problem.

3) Finally, in dismissing “regulatory solutions” as costly and unpopular, they seem both completely unaware of smart regulations, and completely ignorant of the fact that we simply can’t get there from here without them.

In the end, S&N seemed more like those ambitious strivers in work situations who start a fire, then yell fire and put it out, declaring themselves as heroes in the process.

The issue is too important, and the time for action too short to tolerate self-aggrandizing know-nothings.

Thanks again, Joe, for discrediting them so effectively.

Now they want to take credit for increased spending for non-carbon energy. 2 things did the increased spending for non-carbon. Al Gore’s documentary. Oil going to 80 dollars a barrel.

Along with increased spending for non-carbon energy sources is increased spending or interest in other carbon sources like tar sands, etc. It’s the price of oil and oil peak that is driving this, not some insite and influence S&N had on trends in energy.

Everything about increased interest in non-carbon energy is Al Gore and the increased stick of global warming. It’s not because now people finally want to make money on non-carbon. That’s been there the whole time.

I totally disagree, this issue is way too important to let disinformation go unasnwered. the problem is is that when people right stuff, even outrageous stuff, people believe it and it gets treated as fact.

In the end, I agree with you about the above, and about the plan forwarded by Obama. I think it’s a good plan, though from my perspective, there are things to be modified to make it more politically acceptable while still reaching the final goal of 80% reduction by 2050.