This year marks the 200th anniversary of
Malthus’ essay that launched generations of doomsayers—the one that argued that
natural resources are finite, and that therefore we are running out of them and soon.
In the May 1998 Atlantic Monthly Bill McKibben tackles the
failures of Malthusianism, in "A Special Moment in History," a piece with
special relevance to those of us involved in this fin de siecle global climate and energy
debate. (You may remember McKibben from The End of Nature, his modern day
Malthusian resurrection of 10 years ago.)
McKibben’s lengthy yet lucid essay articulates an intellectual
and rhetorical blueprint to re-focus environmental programs, add urgency to alternative
energy programs and, critically, restore the credibility of Malthusianism with the media.
A tall order indeed, for doomsaying credibility erodes in a mammoth
economy with abundant, low-cost resources, including food and fuel.
Not only that, but surveys show that most people, and thus
policy-makers, are not highly motivated to spend serious money today on a problem not
predicted to manifest itself for 50 years.
And what’s more, the environmentalists’ core Malthusian
tenet—that we’re running out of available resources—has been dealt a
serious blow by reality.
Still, words often matter more than facts in a public debate. So
McKibben begins to resuscitate Malthusianism with an attempt to marginalize
anti-Malthusians as "conservative"—a code word meaning "right wing
nut"—and by implying that anti-Malthusians are guilty of exaggeration. Writes
McKibben: "conservatives [have] made Malthus’ name a byword for ludicrous
alarmism."
With superficial daring McKibben admits that "Each new
generation of Malthusians has made new predictions that the end was near, and has been
proved wrong." And later: "So Malthus was wrong. Over and over again he was
wrong. No other prophet has ever been proved wrong so any times. At the moment, his stock
is especially low."
We couldn’t have said it better.
How to deal with those who got it right? McKibben uses yet more
mildly denigrating labels calling anti-Malthusians "technological cornucopians."
McKibben is intellectually forced to deal with the ideas of the late
Julian Simon, a brilliant economist: "Simon and his ilk owe their success to this:
They have been right so far." Somehow, though, you discern that for McKibben, being
right is just not enough.
Yet "Malthus never goes away," he muses, wondering,
"Will Malthus be wrong 50 years from now?"
Shameless dodge, but probably effective.
McKibben predicts that we’re still going to run out of things
(water, food, fuel, etc.), by outlining a set of technologically myopic extrapolations
from current consumption patterns. This is not only the same old same old, but exactly
were Malthus started and went wrong. Amazing. McKibben then reaches beyond statistical
extrapolations to such vague assertions as "there’s a sense that we’re
running into walls."
From here McKibben moves to his coup de grace, a transition that
excuses all the past failures of Malthusians. We are, he says repeatedly, living in a
"special moment in history." Why? Because today we are facing the big
environmental enchilada: climate change.
Importantly, McKibben is careful about a specific outcome for
climate change, avoiding just global "warming." He uses the word
"different" extensively.
Because the future climate will be "different" he claims,
we cannot predict just how bad things will get and in what direction the weather will
change. We only know its going to be "different"—and of course much worse.
Doubtless to the chagrin of fellow enviros, McKibben actually
dismisses the effectiveness of energy conservation, admits population growth rates are
dropping, that alternative energy benefits will be anemic, and that even a 60 percent cut
in fossil fuel use will not be enough to stop climate change. There is even no salvation
in the information and service economy. McKibben correctly notes that it takes energy and
water to make silicon chips and "even the highest-tech office is built with steel and
cement, pipes, and wires. People working in services will buy all sorts of things."
McKibben’s argument for urgency (specifically for population
control, lifestyle reductions and alternative energy) is anchored in this idea: "If
we wait a few decades to get started, we may as well not even begin." So he
concludes, "If we can bring our various [carbon] emission quickly and sharply under
control, we can limit the damage, reduce dramatically the chance of horrible [climate]
surprises."
The central thesis is that we are morally obligated to deal with
this "special time," that our Western culture holds a unique responsibility in
human history. "The next 50 years ... will decide how strong and healthy the planet
will be for centuries to come." Such hubris is breathtaking, but it’ll probably
sell.
Make no mistake about it. This essay will be effective, despite its
internal schizophrenia. Read it to see how the energy, resource and environmental ideas
will be framed in environmental reports, studies and spin that the media will dutifully
report. And remember that this line of argumentation is specifically intended to
marginalize anyone who only got the facts right.
