"Break Through" Review

The New York Times Book Review asked me to review Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger's Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility some time ago, and now the review is finally out in today's times.

Comments

Congratulations. That's a nice get. And it's a very good review. I hope Tanenhaus asks you back.

Posted by Ari | January 13, 2008 12:21 PM

Changes in rhetoric, changes in branding - that pretty well sums up what's happened so far since Al Gore raised public awareness of global warming.

Meanwhile, we continue to get plenty of global warnings in terms of what's happening to flora, fauna, rain forests, glaciers, the north and south poles...

Posted by Paul Maurice Martin | January 13, 2008 12:32 PM

"Break Through"? Is that a jab at all the blog triumphalists left behind? Tsk tsk. I must say that it would certainly be cutting edge, if lonely, to come out loud and proud as a member of "the media." Sometimes it seems if there is not a single solitary soul that will admit to be a member of "the media." :-)

Posted by artappraiser | January 13, 2008 1:08 PM

You're too nice Matt. Nordhaus and Shellenberger are hawking bad environmental policy strategy wrapped in pseudo-intellectual claptrap.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 13, 2008 1:28 PM

The puff for your own book reminds me that it is coming out in April. Is there going to be a book launch bash to which the MY community can turn up? In which case, you need to set a date...

Posted by otto | January 13, 2008 1:30 PM

Is there going to be a book launch bash to which the MY community can turn up?

Because we're all extremely sure, Matt, that you can imagine nothing more fun than to spend an evening dealing with your always-genteel-and-concise commenters in person. Will there be an open bar?

Posted by James Gary | January 13, 2008 2:56 PM

Gotta go with Dan Kervick here. After all, a book that includes "death of environmentalism" in the title isn't looking for an audience that's excited about environmentalism. And you don't need to live in America so very long to find out just what the "politics of possibility" are.

Naturally the "politics of possibility" will include, or be based on, the idea that American consumption patterns will change, if at all, very slowly, and the rest of the world will accept their low-carbon status as suppliers of agricultural products or simple dirt-poor poverty.

Things are going to change. And the longer we wait, the more violent the changes will appear to be.

Posted by serial catowner | January 13, 2008 4:12 PM

Nice review, Matt, but I think you make an important mistake, attributing to S&N a much more controversial policy position than they actually take:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/13/04339/8557

In fact, their policy prescriptions are fairly banal, despite the cloud of pseudo-philosophical puffery that surrounds them and the baffling wave of media hype pushing the book. In the end, there's not much there there.

Posted by David Roberts | January 13, 2008 4:50 PM

Matt I agree with your conclusion that the key insight of the book is how we can change our approach to environmental rhetoric, even if the authors' policy prescriptions are somewhat misguided. The interesting thing to me is how their "politics of possibility" parallels Obama's message of hope and unity around progressive goals. I think this is a promising strategy for environmentalism and other policies as well. It orients people around a positive vision of the future rather than scolds them for their bad behavior. In my experience, this scolding attitude of liberalism is the main reason many average people continue to avoid identifying themselves with liberals.

Posted by nathan | January 13, 2008 5:03 PM

"Is there going to be a book launch bash to which the MY community can turn up?"

It would be quite amusing if there was and we all did, y'know, including trolls, transhumans, and more . . .

Pinker's big NYT magazine piece on The Moral Instinct seems to start channeling Nordhaus and Shellenberger at the very end, which is a shame (although the rest is pretty good).

Posted by Dan S. | January 13, 2008 5:52 PM

"ncluding trolls, transhumans, and more . . ."

Not unless it's held in San Francisco.

And Matt would never risk my showing up somewhere and asking him my two questions on Iran, requiring him to answer them publicly. The embarrassment would be mortifying.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 13, 2008 9:21 PM

Just curious: did you actually proofread your book review before you submitted it? If so, why? Isn't what you write for The Atlantic good enough for the NYT?

Ok, someone say, "Nice burn."

Posted by jim | January 13, 2008 10:34 PM

How about a Matt Yglesias open bar book tour? If he makes a stop in the midwest I'll roll. Of course I'll yell at him to get in the gym, but on the other hand I'll congratulate him for not smoking. Sorry, that's what happens when there is an open bar.

Posted by freddiemac | January 14, 2008 10:01 AM