Heroes of the Planet A father-daughter team authors a passionate, policy-oriented, history of environmentalism.

Protecting the Planet: Environmental Champions from Conservation to Climate Change

By Budd Titlow and Mariah Tinger (2016, Prometheus Books) 587 pages, including index, endnotes, and fourteen pages of photos

On the day after the 2016 elections, a reporter called me and asked what the results mean for environmental policy. My first reaction was to discuss climate change. For myself and many others, human alteration of the climate is the primary concern about the environment. Therefore, I was pleased to be asked to review a just-published book on climate change that is already receiving significant critical acclaim.

In reviewing Protecting the Planet, I will make four points. Each is intended to convey the importance of this book but also to warn readers of certain limitations. First, the book is timely in spite of one obvious but understandable omission. Second, the book is incredibly ambitious and that creates downsides as well as positives. Third, the book is admirable in intentions, but that occasionally precludes objective analysis. Fourth, the book is compelling in proposing solutions albeit not complete in an important aspect of those proposals.

First, the fact that this book is timely is perhaps surprising in the following sense. This is a book that does not mention Donald Trump. Indeed, he is not even listed in the index. Not only will this likely be a rarity for any book involving American public policy from this point on, but it precludes anticipating any specific actions that may be taken by the new president and his administration that may impact climate change policies. These impacts may be substantial, including reversal of the Obama Clean Power Plan and a rejection of the Paris climate agreements. [editor’s note: President Trump did reject the Paris climate accord in June 2017.] Both of these important policy efforts are accurately described in this book, but in neither case could the authors anticipate the new administration’s impacts. This is an omission that is understandable given the fact that it was written prior to the 2016 election and its largely unexpected outcome. Having said that, I will argue that the book remains timely due to a clever design as described below.

The authors manage to remain scholarly even while using an informal, conversational style with phrases such as “here’s the rub” and “not so fast, my friends.”

The authors use the first part of the book to explain climate change, defining it as “humanity’s greatest environmental challenge.” Their presentation is one of the clearest I have seen, presented in a way that is not only accessible but also informed. Even while providing a substantial amount of information from a wide range of studies, the authors make the presentation of evidence engaging by asking the obvious questions such as “what are the current impacts?” (Chapter 5) and then providing explicit answers. The fact that both authors are teachers is apparent here. Titlow is a wetlands scientist who teaches at Florida State University. Tinger, his daughter, has worked as a naturalist and now teaches environmental management courses at Harvard’s Extension School. The authors manage to remain scholarly even while using an informal, conversational style with phrases such as “here’s the rub” and “not so fast, my friends.”

After explaining climate change, the authors then devote a substantial amount of the book to describing environmental challenges faced in the past and the “environmental champions” who found ways to address them. This narrative dates to John James Audubon and the efforts to protect wild birds and continues to the current day with efforts by activists such as Bill McKibben to address climate change. Their point is that people have found ways to overcome daunting challenges in the past and current “champions” can successfully lead the efforts to address climate change in the present. In their Introduction, the authors state: “We must heed the clarion call of our new climate-change heroes who—by working in tribute to the accomplishments of our past environmental heroes—can come forward and save us all from the pending ravages of climate change.” This is a rare, if not unique, design in the environmental policy literature, and the combination of scientific explanation of an urgent problem with historical accounts of actions on other problems is designed to give context and even hope for the future.

While the book fairly summarizes the major events and players of the environmental movement, it unfortunately reads more like a reference book than an in-depth discussion.

The preceding paragraph mentioning the scope of the historical narrative hints at my second major point. This is an ambitious effort, vast in scope and range of presented material. Chronologically, the narrative runs from the Bering Land Bridge 12,000 years ago to Leonardo Dicaprio’s speech on climate change at the Academy Awards ceremony in the Spring of 2016, and just about everything related to the environment in between. This has benefits but also inevitable consequences. While the book fairly summarizes the major events and players of the environmental movement, it unfortunately reads more like a reference book than an in-depth discussion. The book will thus work well for students and others working in the area of environmental policy who want a quick summary, but the reader should not expect to find nuanced theoretical argument or in-depth analysis on issues other than the climate in these pages.

Further, some will find some of the discussions more perfunctory than enlightening. Just as one example, the authors attribute the decline in nuclear power in the United States in the decades following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 to fears over nuclear safety. Certainly, those fears had impacts but the lack of discussion of the impacts of economic aspects of nuclear power is noticeable. In addition, the inclusion of so many people and events also inevitably increases the potential for mistakes. Again, just as one example, the authors describe the American Civil War as running from 1861 to 1864, somehow forgetting the important events of 1865. I do not mean this criticism to be picky, but readers should be aware that individual discussions may not leave them completely satisfied. Expecting more than brief summaries on all these individual people and events would be asking too much for one book, but readers should be aware that, as I said before, much of this reads as reference material rather than scholarly analysis.

My third point involves the authors’ intentions. I agree with most of their perspectives and their priorities. They are obviously concerned about climate change and determined to motivate and propose solutions. Nevertheless, readers should be aware of normative bias. This is noticeable and even questionable in some places. For example, their analysis of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is subtitled “A Bad Environmental Idea.” Obviously, many would agree. Others would not, however, and the authors acknowledge that “The pros and cons of NAFTA are still being debated.” In concluding in favor of the cons, the authors cite only Naomi Klein and the Sierra Club. They do not address the many studies that might provide more objective assessments. Indeed, one could argue that NAFTA helps enable the economic growth in Mexico that will allow that nation’s leaders to address serious environmental problems such as air pollution.

Consistent with the normative bias suggested in the preceding paragraph, Part Four of the book is titled “All Hail Today’s Heroes.” Even from just that title, one can anticipate interesting reading but also some inevitable questions. One is the lack of objectivity. By calling them “heroes” the authors are not disguising their own biases. The authors would probably respond that climate change is such an urgent problem that there is no time for critical assessments of the positions of the “heroes” or for identification of others with somewhat different viewpoints. Again, I do not disagree with the urgency of the problem. However, the lack of objectivity may allow dismissal by potential readers that need to be reached to achieve sufficient levels of public support for progressive climate change policies.

Further, trying to identify specific “heroes” opens the authors up for questions. Some, like McKibben, James Hansen, and Al Gore are obvious choices. They are well introduced and summarized, and the authors often use interviews, some primary, to explain the actions and viewpoints of these people. Other choices are less obvious and, to at least some extent, the authors should be commended for including them. For instance, how many people know that Mark Ruffalo is not just an excellent actor but also a dedicated activist? I was intrigued by the inclusion of Bob Inglis, a conservative Republican legislator from the state of South Carolina. People like Inglis give hope for those who would like to see the Republican party move in a different direction on the climate change issue, a point to which I return shortly. Still, readers will wonder why others are not included. I personally would also welcome some mention of social scientists such as Barry Rabe who are doing pioneering work in discussing climate change and possible solutions. Questions about who is, and who is not, included are inevitable when someone attempts to provide a definitive and exhaustive discussion of a complex topic.

My fourth major point focuses on solutions, particularly as discussed in the final section of the book. After explaining the climate change issue and then providing a large amount of historical and biographical information on people addressing both past and current environmental problems, the authors turn to proposed solutions. Those proposals are logical and sensible, but I have to say that some readers will wish for greater depth in terms of making them reality. As for an overall solution to overcoming the doubt and skepticism that climate change policy proposals face, especially in the United States, the authors rely on the framework in the book. Specifically, they encourage the world’s scientists and advocates to “emulate the courage and commitment” of past environmental heroes. Certainly, courage and commitment are essential in fighting contentious battles, but they are sometimes not enough. Even some of those pioneers cited herein did not win their battles. Just as one example, John Muir lost the fight over the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley. Thus, another way to approach this overall question would have been to try to discern the conditions under which those past “heroes” won or lost their fights. One preliminary answer is that the conditions would include things like the availability of resources and the ability to frame efforts in ways conducive to engaging the larger public. As a political scientist, I have to emphasize that many of those conditions involve politics.

As for an overall solution to overcoming the doubt and skepticism that climate change policy proposals face, especially in the United States, the authors rely on the framework in the book. Specifically, they encourage the world’s scientists and advocates to “emulate the courage and commitment” of past environmental heroes. Certainly, courage and commitment are essential in fighting contentious battles, but they are sometimes not enough. Even some of those pioneers cited herein did not win their battles. Just as one example, John Muir lost the fight over the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley. Thus, another way to approach this overall question would have been to try to discern the conditions under which those past “heroes” won or lost their fights. One preliminary answer is that the conditions would include things like the availability of resources and the ability to frame efforts in ways conducive to engaging the larger public. As a political scientist, I have to emphasize that many of those conditions involve politics.

Certainly, courage and commitment are essential in fighting contentious battles, but they are sometimes not enough. Even some of those pioneers cited herein did not win their battles. Just as one example, John Muir lost the fight over the damming of Hetch Hetchy Valley. Thus, another way to approach this overall question would have been to try to discern the conditions under which those past “heroes” won or lost their fights.

To that point, a second part of an answer to generating sufficient momentum to pursue realistic climate change policies would address the elephant, pun intended, in the room. The Republican party has been the largest obstacle to realistic climate change policies in this nation for decades. The authors are not unaware of this fact, indeed citing the fact that a majority of Republicans in the 114th Congress do not believe in human-caused climate change. But they do not discuss in any detail how Republicans have blocked one proposal after another, including some offered by their own Senator John McCain, that could have moved the nation forward on this issue. The authors do briefly mention Jim Inhofe, the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, as a prominent skeptic but they say very little about his ability to control the agenda and even prevent serious debate on the climate topic. The presence of Republican leaders like Bob Inglis who are not anti-science provides some encouragement and the authors are wise to include him in their list of current “heroes,” but the process of engaging the broader Republican base to such an extent that pressures their leaders to change their behavior merits greater discussion. Getting back to the point mentioned at the start of this review about the new administration, I can hardly blame the authors for not anticipating the outcome of the 2016 election. Few did. But one can only imagine that any future editions of this book will necessarily include some discussion on what that administration did or did not do regarding climate change and how the Republican party responded.

One final part of my discussion on solutions involves specific proposals. The authors, to their credit, propose solutions for the United States and for the world. Domestic proposals include sensible propositions such as mobilizing grassroots organizations and eliminating fossil fuel subsidies as well as ambitious ones such as establishing a Department of Energy Resiliency and Sustainability (or DOERS). Global proposals include productive international Conference of Parties meetings and investigation of radically different approaches such as geoengineering, although the authors wisely discount the possibility of a large solar shield. As with any proposed solutions, critics can quibble with the details. For example, one subheading encourages “initiate Federal Subsidies on Renewables.” We all know that those subsidies already exist and the authors mean something different in that they want those subsidies paid for by the fossil fuel companies. What would help here is more detailed and systematic presentation of the current system of subsidies for both fossil fuels and renewables, as well as presentation of the externalities created especially by the former. This would make for a more compelling suggestion. Nevertheless, the authors should be commended for being explicit and creative in making proposals.

Finally, I want to comment in more depth on one of the specific proposals. I am completely in agreement with the authors on the desirability of a carbon tax. They state their preference quite emphatically: “Without a doubt, the primary immediate solution most commonly recommended by our climate-change heroes is implementation of a carbon fee.” The authors quickly dismiss the alternative of a cap-and-trade program as too easily “gamed” for economic and political gain. I would not be quite as dismissive of this possibility, but I do agree that a carbon tax would be the most explicit, straightforward and effective approach to reducing fossil fuel consumption and increasing opportunities for renewable sources of energy. In addition, as the authors astutely point out, such a program is also more likely to create jobs than create the severe economic losses warned by critics. Given the importance of this possible approach, however, I would carry the discussion even further in several ways. First, the authors could point out that a carbon tax system is already in operation and working quite effectively in other places. The program in British Columbia is the most prominent example. Second, policy makers have proposed just such a program at the federal level in the U.S. Congress. Senators Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders recently proposed a carbon tax program that was described by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions as the “gold standard” thus far in legislative proposals. Third, the fate of the Boxer-Sanders bill reminds us of the largest obstacle to such a progressive solution. The Republican party blocked the bill. In making the argument for a carbon tax, my own view is that any advocate has to address the political challenges of getting elected officials, especially Republicans, to sign off on a new tax. Some scholars, including the previously-mentioned Barry Rabe and Chris Borick, are doing some fine research on how to frame such a proposal to increase the likelihood of public receptivity. To be fair, one could devote an entire book to the discussion of carbon taxes. The authors here are doing something quite different, so one can only expect so much on any one topic. Still, readers should know that they may ultimately be looking for more on many of the individual topics addressed in this book.

… the authors could point out that a carbon tax system is already in operation and working quite effectively in other places. The program in British Columbia is the most prominent example.

Given the importance of this possible approach, however, I would carry the discussion even further in several ways. First, the authors could point out that a carbon tax system is already in operation and working quite effectively in other places. The program in British Columbia is the most prominent example. Second, policy makers have proposed just such a program at the federal level in the U.S. Congress. Senators Barbara Boxer and Bernie Sanders recently proposed a carbon tax program that was described by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions as the “gold standard” thus far in legislative proposals. Third, the fate of the Boxer-Sanders bill reminds us of the largest obstacle to such a progressive solution. The Republican party blocked the bill. In making the argument for a carbon tax, my own view is that any advocate has to address the political challenges of getting elected officials, especially Republicans, to sign off on a new tax. Some scholars, including the previously-mentioned Barry Rabe and Chris Borick, are doing some fine research on how to frame such a proposal to increase the likelihood of public receptivity. To be fair, one could devote an entire book to the discussion of carbon taxes. The authors here are doing something quite different, so one can only expect so much on any one topic. Still, readers should know that they may ultimately be looking for more on many of the individual topics addressed in this book.

To conclude, this is an impressive book. I realize I have made numerous suggestions and criticisms, but these are intended to make readers aware of what they will and will not get from this massive work. Even while making those criticisms, I reiterate that this book is timely, ambitious, admirable, and compelling. That is not faint praise.

William Lowry

William Lowry is professor of political science at Washington University in St. Louis and author of the 2009 book Repairing Paradise: The Restoration of Nature in America's National Parks.

Comments Closed