A disagreement about how to save the world

  Here lies our dilemma, both authors below are right, we have to find more renewable goods and services, but we have to realize that, individually and collectively we have to reduce our resource intensity to live within the bounds of the ‘one planet equation’ and the ‘first law of sustainability’.



A disagreement about how to save the world–Part II

Complete article and comments at http://noimpactman.typepad.com/blog/2008/01/god-bless-you-i.html


The other week, I got in a goodhearted little email tiff with Michael Shellenberger, who as you know if you read this blog, is a co-author of Break Through: The Death of Environmentalism and the Politics of Possibility. Our email dialog turned out to be really interesting.

In the first part exchange (which you can read here on No Impact Man or hereon Michael’s blog), Michael adamantly asserts that reducing our individual and cultural environmental footprints in the way I’ve done in the No Impact Man project are much less important than investment in the development of sustainable materials and energy. Below is my reply to this first shot across my bow.

God bless you, Michael, if you’re optimistic enough to think industry will change fast enough. God bless you too if you think we can recycle enough materials to put three TVs in every Indian and Chinese household and a car in every garage. God bless you if you think that will make people happy. God bless you, too, if you think just one approach will do the trick. ……………………


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s