🖙Where the Examples of 'Where Environmentalists Went Wrong' Went Wrong
Yascha Mounk recently published "Where Environmentalists Went Wrong." If you're familiar with Mounk's oeuvre, you probably have the right expectation: Largely overconfident and reactionary centrist takes dressed up in academic language. (Edited to add: even if you are familiar, you may not be aware that Celseste Marcus wrote an affecting essay about her rape. Afterward, she came forward and named Mounk as the alleged rapist, which is why you won't find him in The Atlantic anymore.)
A big part of his argument is that environmentalists chase changes that people hate and do little for the environment, supposedly because well-meaning people perceive them to be green rather than actually looking at whether they will make a positive impact. As an alternative, he promotes "Effective Environmentalism," modeled after Effective Altruism. I don't want to write about Effective Altruism today, but to me it's a strange proposal on its face, since significant effort already goes into estimating the impact of various climate and climate-adjacent policies, past, present, and proposed.
Instead, I'd like to zero in on the examples he gives because as a group they make no sense to me:
- At the start, he discusses how Parisian cafés apparently used to have heat lamps outside for patrons to enjoy, but no longer do. This is a pretty energy intensive activity! It's also very niche. I think I've been at a restaurant that A) had these and B) was actually using them exactly once, and I live in a place that, if anything, has colder winters than Paris. Since he didn't bother to research whether this has changed in other cities, I won't either. This is a weak example.
- His first example on his main list is paper straws. These are pretty commonplace and pretty annoying to most people (although I don't personally mind them). The environmental benefit is pretty negligible. Hey, this one actually is a good example!
- His next example is policies banning single-use bags or requiring stores to charge for them. These are pretty commonplace and pretty annoying. The environmental impact is not enormous, but seems like it could be potentially significant. However, that's is at least partly cancelled out by people buying extra reusable bags and then not reusing them. This is sorta a good example?
- Next is the EU phasing out incandescent bulbs. Lighting is a huge source of energy demand. Also, LEDs are overall a good lighting technology and I don't think people mind them? I guess it's possible he would argue against the ban and that consumers would have naturally switched to more efficient technologies, but that seems dubious to me (see SUVs, United States' demand for). This is a weak example.
- Next is the EU phasing out removable plastic lids. This seems like a negligible amount of plastic pollution, so it checks that "negligible environmental benefit" box. I've never really used these lids, and I haven't heard about this change so I don't know how much it really bothers people.This might be a good example?
- Lastly is the (proposed) ban on gas stoves. These are energy intensive and worsen interior air quality so this is definitely a significant environmental concern! It's a little unclear how many people who prefer gas wouldn't be satisfied with a better electric stove or an induction burner. This hasn't been implemented yet, as he notes. This is a weak example.
The broader issue with these examples is that, even if you agree that policymakers made the wrong choice in each of them, in my opinion, there are too many nuances and specifics to be able to point to a specific issue underlying all of them. Most importantly, some of these areas are very environmentally impactful, even if you dislike the policy itself, whereas others are not.
The other issue is that, as far as I can tell, environmentalists are keenly aware of all these things? As Dave Karpf points out, the superficial changes aren't pushed by environmentalists, but by politicians seeking to mollify environmentalists while resisting the substantial changes they're actually asking for. (If you want a more thorough rebuttal, including a good summary of different trends throughout the history of the environmentalist movement, definitely check that piece out.)
There's actually a seed of a point here. Mounk writes:
Low-impact policies that demand small, if frequent and highly salient, sacrifices feel virtuous. But they deplete a disproportionate amount of political capital.
I think there's some truth to this! What kills the argument is that it's mostly politicians, businesses (in the form of greenwashing), and viral posts pushing these kinds of interventions. Activists, scientists, and policy researchers are generally not. Also, he lets his attention wander from actual examples of low-impact policies to some that are potentially high impact. Finally, as Karpf notes, he doesn't really advocate for any specific policies. Perhaps that's because many high-impact policies are also unpopular with at least some groups. Ultimately, his lack of actual suggestions or alternative proposals beyond vague nods at public investment and tax incentives—i.e., what he thinks would be "Effective Environmentalism"—makes the whole thing feel disingenuous.