“…the fact remains that when we put our money into technological innovation in this country, we are able to achieve at a pretty rapid pace…If the money and the motivation were there, I don’t think it’s wrong or ignorant of me to say that we could be taking potentially massive strides in clean energy technology.”
Right now, I am two parts confused, one part troubled and (I’ll admit it) one part amused regarding the flak we at Breakthrough Generation have been drawing the past few days on ItsGettingHotInHere and the conversations it has sparked and mood it has set in the office. I don’t think any of us are any less determined to advance a mission we see as essential, but how we do so and what that means has been the cause of some serious discussion.
The smart and passionate people I work with are working through some serious inner turmoil over the direction the movement represented on IGHIH is headed. I have come to question whether this movement is even capable of seriously advancing an agenda of clean energy, global prosperity and just and equitable social change. My new friend and BTG summer fellow Helen Aki posted a serious, thoughtful and questioning post on IGHIH hoping to explain where we are coming from, and where we would like a place on the quilted mosaic of the youth climate/energy movement, and thus far she has been met largely with bitterness and a refusal to recognize even the goodness of our intentions. Yes, we have been criticized for our style, but also for content and beliefs that are projected upon us and that we do not hold.
I can’t get over the following contradiction: the fact that cap and trade or any attempt to commoditize carbon is just about the most market purist, market fundamental, approach to solving carbon change there is and being called a neo-liberal market enthusiast when calling for aggressive public investment in clean and less carbon intensive technologies. I feel this all the more so when I posted last week about how we should all be looking at the market as a means and not as an ends of history.
We here at the Breakthrough Generation have been accused of believing “some future ‘Breakthrough’ technology will magically solve the climate crisis”. I don’t think any one of us holds that belief, and neither does anyone at Breakthrough. But the fact remains that when we put our money into technological innovation in this country, we are able to achieve at a pretty rapid pace. IPods haven’t exactly been getting bigger over the years. If the money and the motivation were there, I don’t think it’s wrong or ignorant of me to say that we could be taking potentially massive strides in clean energy technology.
There is an American story to be told about our most unique and dependable characteristic– our ability to get shit done when the will exists. When presented with a crisis or threatening event, we have in this nation been able to look ourselves in the mirror, breathe deep, acknowledge any fear we might have and get shit done. Our behavior and actions during World War II even while carrying the black mark of internment are an example of this. Roosevelt told us to acknowledge our fear and then used that American characteristic of “can and will do” spirit, and suddenly our factories were on the war regimen, kids were enlisting in droves, and fighting fascism was the top American priority.
An even better example comes to mind. Sputnik, the first Russian satellite launched in 1957. Suddenly America was scared of attacks from above, mechanical spies in the air, and Russian controlled skies. Yet, within twelve years, and due John F Kennedy’s motivational appeal to the same American values and “can and will do” spirit, we had put a man on the moon. Possibly even more incredible is the fact that Americans went from achieving human flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903 to landing on the moon in less than 70 years. In America, it really is true that where there is a will, there is a way.
History has shown that given the opportunity, America will cowboy up and rise to the occasion. Let’s make it happen and unleash the creative, determined spirit.
I think part of the critique is that it’s not just about developing the clean energy technology. It’s about how we live in relation to our earth, how we make choices about the technology we need and the risks/costs involved, how we deploy that technology, and who benefits and loses from it.
As much as your historical examples are inspiring, the crisis of today is much different and requires a much different approach.
Kai – you’re absolutely correct – the problem isn’t simply technological. The problem I see with the technology vs. personal change discourse is that it assumes the two are isolated, when in fact, changes in technology can drive changes in culture. By making clean energy a feasible and accessible aspect of more people’s lives through technological innovation (and the policies that support it), we can enable more people to make sustainable choices and to begin seeing themselves as ecologically minded citizens, paving the way for greater commitment.
If you’re interested, I recently blogged on this topic: http://breakthroughgen.org/2008/06/11/better-living-through-policy-laying-the-foundation-for-a-cultural-shift/
Thanks for commenting !
Absolutely – and I think that post you linked states it maybe a little bit better. I think maybe the problem you’re encountering, then, is that both technology and culture drive and change each other, and BT(G) are seen as advocating only that technology can help change culture, not that a cultural change can help influence the way we use technology. When you advocate for investing money in clean energy, you’re sparking a shift in technology that could change culture. But our cultural attitudes towards technology must also change in order to make that possible. I think you’d probably agree with this (even though it’s not very eloquent).
I guess what I’m trying to say is that’s not what people see. What people see are BT(G)’s hatred of the “sacrifice” paradigm without its embrace of a true responsibility paradigm; they see it’s critique of changes in personal lifestyle (low carbon guy and others) as a statement that our lifestyles should stay the same (or shouldn’t be affected by climate change).
When I’m working on a project, it’s because I think the way our world works is inefficient and has misplaced values; I don’t want our way of life to stay the same. It’s dumb that our cities are built for cars and not people, and so on. I absolutely do not want that to continue.
[...] here at Breakthrough (Generation) are often accused of wanting to techno-fix our way clear of any serious social or cultural change. In other words, a will to create clean energy so that we can maintain our overly consumerist, [...]
[...] here at Breakthrough (Generation) are often accused of wanting to techno-fix our way clear of any serious social or cultural change. In other words, a will to create clean energy so that we can maintain our overly consumerist, [...]