Draft Paper 4

Money does not fall from trees, right?

Santiago Roel

As they stood in the Lunar Sands Casino, the world looked so beautiful and fragile in the immense darkness that surrounded it. Carolyn Merchant, David E. Nye, and Nordhaus and Shellenberger all placed their bets on human civilization fifty years in the future. Different poker faces, different strategies. They wait for the flop. King of Spades, King of Diamond, King of Clubs. They will wait fifty years for the last two cards.

Nordhaus and Shellenberger see the three kings and reason that we will have achieved sustainability because somewhere in that time, the environment became the top economic priority for the top policy forgers of the world. Nye fundamentally agrees, but underneath the kings he can’t stand but notice the difference in their color and design. He perceives a major challenge in the future: the reckless consumption habits of some. Yet, he calls because he believes that humans will have muddled through. Merchant, crosses her arms, and gives away her cards: Queen of Hearts and Queen of Clubs. She sees the kings and thinks of a male driven society, infused with consumerism and greed. It is obvious for her that humans civilization will continue on the road to destruction; panic of an approaching doomsday will begin a race for survival, fiercely competitive and destructive. Maybe this chaos will save us after all.

“Old politics has taken us as far as it can,” and Nordhaus and Shellenberger see a major problem in the politics of environmentalism: its pessimism. For so long, environmentalists have swam “against the currents” of economic growth. Sustainability depends on the environment becoming a top economic priority for countries around the world. In 2007 Nordhaus and Shellenberger wrote, “Our political goal must be to create a kind of prosperity that moves everyone up Maslow’s pyramid as quickly as possible while also achieving our ecological goals” (p.7). But what will make countries that are on high ground care about the melting ice cap? The answer is simple: money. Nordhaus and Shellenberger are motivated by the fact that there is so much economic potential in the environment. Making ecological policy economically appealing will drive the United States to invest heavily on green infrastructure and technology. Other countries, mainly China and India, will be drawn to this race and compete to become the new economic giant. However, for this race to begin, one country must rise to the challenge. The European Union’s ambitious renewable energy plan has stirred a lot of chatter in governments worldwide. Perhaps this will be enough bait to draw the United States and other hungry consumers to the race for eco-friendly solutions. Nordhaus and Shellenberger place their bet believing that it will not be long before the environment becomes the main economic priority. However, they will continue in their struggle to shift the gears of the environmental movement; less doomsday stories, and more green numbers on the charts.

It already seems that we are working against the clock. Nye thinks that new technology can give us more time to work on repairing the environment. On one hand, he believes that technology brings progress to all as it opens up previously closed-off industries, creates new unexplored fields, and gives us the time to concentrate on imaginative and analytical thinking. Such time will allow humans to concentrate on developing technology that promises human survival. Although one might suppose that this technology will be monopolized, Nye believes quite the contrary. It seems unlikely because technology has consistently brought progress and benefit to all, regardless of who develops and controls it. If anything, the technology that is emerging today is centered on its mass-scale availability and openness to all. Furthermore, humans will be interested in sharing technology because environmental changes affect all countries and peoples. However, Nye also believes that nature has its limit. The batteries of the clock may be changed, but the machinery will eventually break down. He is most concerned with the different consumption behaviors around the world. “In 1990, a North American family of four consumed as much power as an African village of 107 [and] used twice as much energy as a European and ten times as much as a Latin American” (p.214). Sustainability depends on putting putting limits on the insatiable hunger of some. He believes this is a economical and cultural choice. Hybrid cars, home insulation technology, and solar energy might promise to solve the energy crisis, but the choice really comes down to the product’s price. Moreover, “even if the affluent become more efficient, the poor will not be interested in preserving the environment if they remain trapped in poverty” (p.215). Migration might be the solution and give humanity more time to solve the main problem. The poor migrate to developed countries. It is far more likely that these people will move up Maslow’s pyramid faster there. Not only that, but as Nordhaus and Shellenberger suggest, developed countries will make it easier for their people to improve their consumption habits by providing an efficient and low cost infrastructure, like the European public transport. Regarding the world’s carrying capacity, this same promising migration will eventually overcrowd some countries. This will create the illusion that the world is closer to reaching its limit. Although mass panic and conflict is possible, this sensation will have a profound cultural impact on the people living in overcrowded areas. People will continue to look at the clock with worry that it may soon stop. This feeling will predominantly reduce family size and consumption patterns. In the end, Nye bets that the clock will continue to tick beyond 2064. Alkaline batteries may be replaced with solar microchips and it is likely that the clock ticks at a slower pace from the changes in culture. All of this will put less of a strain on the mechanism of the clock.

The ecofeminist side of Carolyn Merchant is ticked off by the presence of three kings on the table. Not only that, but since she wrote “Ecological Revolutions”, raised awareness for the environment has not been enough to inspire a consciousness change. As Nordhaus and Shellenberger point out, people have yet to discover the economic value in environmentalism. Her declensionist view on the environment stems from the assumption that nature was in balance before European colonialization and capitalism. In the epilogue, she sets the conditions that “the capitalist relations of production and the patriarchal relations of reproduction that support mechanistic consciousness would have to give way to new socioeconomic forms, new gender relationships, and an ecological ethic (p.264). Since Europeans arrived in New England, the Indians have not returned to their old practices. Capitalism is a strong force that appeals to human’s - men and women - most basic needs. Her work confirms the strength of capitalism with the example of the Indians and the capitalist revolution. The conditions for sustainability are contradicted by her historical analysis. However, she does have some hope because “global resource depletion and pollution have appeared at the intersection of capitalist economic production and ecology” (p.264). This line of thought is typical of old school environmentalism, which preaches that the world will have to choose either economic growth or sustainability. Do we really have to abandon the comfort of the paved road? Merchant believes that order will come through chaos. Until then, the world will continue on its path of destruction.

The capitalist structure Merchant so despises can actually be the reason the world adopts eco-friendly behaviors by 2064. The competition that thrives in this system has not only led to remarkable technological innovations, but also policy shifts. We are already seeing countries investing heavily in alternative energy sources and diversifying their economy. Oil-rich places like Brunei and Dubai are no longer dependent on oil, as they have reinvested their money to generate new sources of income. Countries are concerned with the depletion of oil and are now turning to other more renewable sources. High energy prices have affected both producers and consumers. Manufacturers are investing more in research and development to come up with energy efficient technologies. Consumers are buying more energy efficient products to save money in the long-run. You might ask, like Nordhaus and Shellenberger, what will make the poor interested in preserving the environment? All three authors worry that the development of countries will come at the environment’s expense. However, I believe that emerging economies will not industrialize the same way the United Sates and Europe did. With new technology, they can leap forward. We are already seeing this effect in Africa. In a matter of years, counties like Kenya have developed an entire communication infrastructure with cheap cell phones, and without a single landline. Many of the cost effective technology out there is also friendly to the environment. Nordhaus and shellenberger would agree that the developed world now has the huge responsibility of helping third-world countries develop in eco-friendly ways, especially their infrastructures. This will be the challenge by 2064.

The end of capitalism is not in sight. People around the world will go where there is money to be made. Today, many companies are realizing that green is really green. This attitude will have become mainstream around the world by 2064. At the end of the day, money moves people more than anything else. People often say that money does not fall from trees. Think again.