Michael Shellenberger: Co-Director, The Breakthrough Institute

Michael Shellenberger is co-director of the Breakthrough Institute, a think tank, and co-founder of the research and strategy firm American Environics. Michael works on and writes about everything from politics to energy to changing social values. In early 2007, Houghton Mifflin will publish Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus' The Death of Environmentalism and the Birth of a New Aspirational Politics. In October, 2004, Shellenberger and Nordhaus published an essay by the same name, creating a major national debate over the future of environmentalism and progressive politics. In 2003 Michael co-founded the Apollo Alliance, referred to by the New Yorker as "an influential umbrella organization of Greens and trade unionists" that is advocating a New Apollo Project to create three million clean energy jobs, free America from foreign oil, and re-establish America's global economic leadership. Michael has written articles on issues ranging from the New Apollo Project to ethical trade for the L.A. Times, the American Prospect, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Glamour Magazine, and other publications. He is also the author of Race to the Top, a report on NGO ethical business campaigns. Michael speaks Spanish and Portuguese and received his Masters Degree in cultural anthropology from the University of California, Santa Cruz in 1996.

What lead you to conclude that environmentalism is dead?

What we actually wrote was that environmentalism is incapable of dealing with the great ecological crises of our day and thus must die so that a new, more aspirational, expansive and powerful politics can be born. We took pains to acknowledge in our essay that environmentalism has accomplished a great deal. We are grateful for what it's done, especially in the so-called developed world. The air is cleaner in cities like Los Angeles. Rivers no longer catch on fire, as they did in the 1960s, because of industrial contamination. Large swaths of land and wilderness have been protected. But look where we're at today. The ecological crises we face - global warming, species extinction, the destruction of the Amazon, to name a few - are far more complex, global, and tied to the economy than the problems the environmental movement was created to address 40 years ago. And yet environmentalists haven't reconceptualized these problems nor revamped their politics. As a consequence, environmentalists are weaker today than at any point in recent American history. Environmentalism is today more of a tradition than a movement. At least in the U.S., environmentalism is a victim of its own success. The passing of dozens of environmental laws in the late 60s and early 70s created the impression among environmentalists that they had a popular mandate. Since at least the early 90s environmentalists have not been able to generate the political will needed to deal with the really big threats to a human future, such as global warming and the Amazon. Environmentalism has, in a variety of ways, failed to evolve with the times.

What's preventing environmentalism from changing?

The problem is with the category itself. What do we mean by the "the environment," anyway? Why do we include in the category of "the environment" or "Nature" those Amazonian Indians who log the forest but not street children in Rio de Janeiro who consume almost nothing? What are the implications of creating a politics around such an arbitrary category? These are not just philosophical questions. There are real world political and practical implications to our answers. Some environmentalists have tried to simply broaden the category. In the United States there's been a movement to define asthma from industrial pollution as an environmental problem. In Brazil many people now consider rubber tappers to be environmentalists. But such inclusions only reinforce the fact that what we include and exclude in the category of "the environment" is utterly arbitrary. The human animal is as much a part of the environment as a mahogany tree or a raindrop. Defining humans as outside of the environment is scientifically specious and politically suicidal. But if humans are part of the environment then the concept of the environment is meaningless. Either way, concern for "the environment" is hardly solid footing for a political movement. Of course, these questions are rarely raised outside of academic settings, mostly because environmentalism has been dominated by the natural sciences and has shown little curiosity in the social sciences, especially psychology, which is central to understanding politics.

What about environmentalism outside of the U.S.?

Before writing "Death of" we thought that Europe's environmental movement was far more robust and relevant than our own. Now we're not so sure. What's certain is that Europeans hold the value of ecological concern far more strongly than Americans or Brazilians and, probably, anybody else in the world. But the strength of ecological concern in Europe is really more a cause than a consequence of organized environmentalism. In China there have been major revolts by ordinary people against the industrial contamination of the air and water. At the same time, the government doesn't allow the environmental movement to operate freely. More importantly, the majority of Chinese care far more getting their material needs met than "the environment." The question we have to ask ourselves is this: how do we build popular support for an agenda that results in things like dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions and greater sustainable development and conservation of the Amazon? We believe that these demands have to be woven into a wider agenda that people care much more intensely about. Brazil and the U.S. aren't so different in terms of what people care about: jobs, the economy, health care, and security. Environmentalists won't get very far by simply pounding people over the head with more reasons why we have to save trees and jaguars, or burn less carbon.

What explains the fact that environmental organizations are so financially successful in the face of so much political failure?

One of the reasons U.S. environmental leaders have been in so much denial about their political failures is that their organizations have seen their memberships and budgets increase dramatically since the election of President Bush in 2000. In fact, they have explicitly pointed to their financial success as proof of their relevancy. Never mind that they've lost all three branches of the federal government to anti-environmental extremists, and have suffered set-back after set-back on everything from global warming to endangered species. They see increased membership as an affirmation of their work when it, in fact, represents a reaction to the Bush Administration's anti-environmental policies. People contribute money to the NGOs based on their concerns about the state of the world, not on any sort of critical evaluation of NGO effectiveness. There's incredibly little public debate over environmental politics, at least in the U.S. So most people have little to go on other than feeling outraged and wanting to do something or help in some way.

What have you learned from the debate over the essay?

What's incredible is how little debate there's actually been about the substance of the essay itself. Mostly we've been attacked personally and had our motives questioned. The cardinal sin we committed is that we delivered “The Death of Environmentalism” as a paper at the national annual conference of environmental funders. But where else should we have delivered it? There was simply no other opportunity to have a debate over the environmentalist strategy and assumptions. There is no professional association of environmentalists, no annual conference, and no serious journal for practitioners. Is it any surprise that there's been so little evolution of environmentalism? A system without feedback loops can't improve. We've been told that we should have delivered the paper quietly and confidentially to a few of the leaders of the movement -- not issued it publicly. That would have been a recipe for being ignored. Our intention was to create a debate, and that's what we did. Just about every other professional association in the world has one or more peer-reviewed journal and national conference where there are major and often quite heated debates. The American Librarian's Association has more debate over the archival storage of old newspapers than environmental NGOs have over the future of the human species. And they do it openly and transparently without all the fury and paranoia in the reaction to the "The Death of Environmentalism."

How has it felt to have so many people become so angry with something you wrote?

We didn't expect to be embraced with open arms. Of course, it's never easy to have people angry with you or question your intentions, but we felt that what we said had to be said and we are proud to have started a debate that so many people obviously wanted to have. I think much of the anger over "Death of" is a sign of how unaccustomed the American Left has become to public debate. There was a time in the U.S. when you looked to the Left, not the Right, for vigorous debate over ideas. That's no longer the case. One of the great myths among American progressives is that conservatives are monolithic and unified because they are authoritarian and we're democratic. It's simply not the case. Such thinking is exemplifies how the Left underestimates the right. Look at how American progressives have underestimated George W. Bush since 2000. Environmentalists have underestimated the anti-environmentalist right for more than 20 years, when many of the anti-environmental policies were proposed under President Reagan. There are important differences between conservatives and they get fought out publicly. There are religious conservatives, free market libertarians, wealthy Republicans, and neoconservatives (foreign policy hawks who used to be Leftists). We ignore those differences - and shut down debate on our side - at our peril. I also think it's a sign of the intellectual flabbiness among progressives that the central criticism being directed at us for writing "Death of" is that some people's feelings were hurt. Never mind the ecological, cultural and political crisis we're facing - people's feelings were hurt! At the same time, one of the most positive things that's happened since we wrote "Death of" is the huge number of young people -- from young professionals in environmental organizations to college students - who have contacted us asking to be involved in building a post-environmental movement. We're hosting a retreat for a small group of these young people to come together this November.

You're writing a book that will be out in early 2007. What will it be about?

The book is about three things. First, it's about two of the great ecological crises of our time: global warming and the Amazon. Second, it's about the rise and fall of environmentalism. Finally, it's a manifesto for a new, post-environmental politics. In addition to Brazil we're also writing about Europe and China. In all of those cases are looking at the whole country, and where it stands globally, and not just at that narrow set of concerns defined as “the environment.” In the U.S. and Canada our book will be published by Houghton Mifflin, which published Henry David Thoreau's Walden, which started the American conservation movement, and Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, which launched the modern environmental movement.

How do you define post-environmentalism?

Post-environmentalism is the word we are using to describe the thought-movement of former environmentalists who view the so-called "ecological crisis" as conceptually and politically inseparable from the human crisis, and who believe that environmentalism is incapable of turning this crisis into an opportunity. Post-environmentalists share many of the same values and concerns as environmentalists. What we reject is environmentalism's soft misanthropy; its incuriosity about the human sciences, from sociology to psychology to anthropology; its scientistic fetishization of the non-human sciences, like ecological biology (which makes environmentalism, paradoxically, unscientific); its outmoded liberalism, which believes humans are and should be rational, materialist and self-interested individuals; and its gloomy, anti-aspirational focus on "limits" and "restrictions." What post-environmentalism embraces is the recognition that, for people to care about the non-human world they must first have their basic material needs met. We can't expect a favelado to care about the destruction of the Amazon if he's hungry or sick or fears for his physical safety. A post-environmental politics recognizes that it must work to meet people's basic material needs and at the same time, speak to the universal, non-material need for fulfillment, community, love, happiness, and well-being. Post-environmentalism breaks from a the materialist politics of the past, which today fails to speak to higher needs, such as our desire to have a purpose in life and realize our full potential -- both as individuals and as members of the larger human community. In contrast to environmentalism's obsession with limits, constraints, and restrictions, post-environmentalism is obsessed with creating, manufacturing and unleashing a totally different kind of economic growth -- one that is not merely "less destructive"but rather entirely good for both human and non-human worlds. The technology exists for this kind of economic growth; the problem is that our politics haven't caught up. Everyone wants to be inspired by a vision of a better world and by leaders who are true to what they believe in. Environmentalists have spent the last 40 years telling people what they can't have, can't do and can't be. We need to offer a vision to the entire human race about what we can have, can do, and can become. We need to speak as much to people's hopes as to their fears.

Where do you turn for inspiration?

My family, my friends and the beautiful places on California's northern most county, Humboldt.

How did you find your purpose?

By becoming increasingly clear about what I'm good at and what I love.

Is there a particular book that has had a significant impact on your life?

I've been very interested by the sciences, in particular by Darwin's discovery that humans are as much a part of the Earth as a redwood tree or a hurricane. I'm very interested in the contingent nature of scientific truth, and the way that truths often emerge from within old truths rather than from without. Scientists knew that humans came from the Earth before Darwin, they just couldn't explain nearly as well as he could how we emerged from "lower" beings. I'm very interested in philosophy, particularly thinkers who challenge our everyday ways of seeing things. I've been influenced a great deal by thinkers who challenge the theological ideas about Nature, Science, life, and death. Right now I'm very interested in deconstructing many of my assumptions about the world. What changes societies? To what extent do we determine our own values, and to what extent do they determine us?

Does spirituality play a role in your life?

It depends what you mean by spirituality. I don't believe that there is an external being that affects our lives. For me, the sciences reveal awesome mystery with every new discovery. I love it that the more we learn about the worlds we inhabit the more we discover how little we know. I'm interested in being in the world in a way that allows me to constantly be amazed and marvel at the mysteries all around us.

What's your favorite technology or gadget?

Probably our Tivo so we can watch a bit of TV without commercials. I don't really like most of the technology I use, even though I'm always buying the latest computers, phones and cameras for my work.

What's your preferred method of getting your daily news?

I read the New York Times and the San Francisco Chronicle and my home page is always on Google News. I think most magazines are boring and pointless with a few exceptions, such as the New Yorker, which is producing fantastic reporting and writing. The New York Review of Books is a distant second. Most everything else just parrots the banal ephemera of daily life; political magazines on the left and right rarely veer from ideological orthodoxy.

What dream for the world do you think can be achieved in our lifetime?

I try to wear my utopias very lightly. I think we need to help everyone in the world get their basic material needs met so they can work on their fulfillment and happiness. Many people whose basic material needs of food, shelter, security and freedom try to get their post-materialist needs for belonging, purpose, meaning, community and love met through greater materialism, from overeating to shopping to TV. Inevitably they are disappointed. Former American Psychology Association President Dr. Martin Seligman identifies the three sources of happiness as hedonism, the fulfillment of desires through food, shopping, anonymous sex, drugs, alcohol and passive entertainment; flow, the feeling of being engaged in a creative unfolding where time appears to stand still, such as getting in the "zone" through sports or experiencing spiritual ecstasy; and service to others, the experience of helping other people through charity, love, kindness and compassion. Of these three forms of happiness, research shows that flow and service to others - two sources of fulfillment - are more deeply felt, and last longer, than hedonistic pleasures. This isn't complicated stuff, and yet many Americans remain confused about what really matters to living a fulfilling life.

(Interview by CThings Editor, Paul Horne)

John Pratt: Co-Founder, Fundable.org

Fundable.org is an exciting new fundraising model that that lets groups of people pool money in "group actions" for whatever goal or purpose they like. Similar to an online auction, a group action has its own page, describing how much money will be collected and what the money will do. The site accepts credit card pledges through Paypal, and no payments are accepted unless 100% of the target pledge amount has been raised. This policy ensures that the money will only be used if the project is successfully completed. Current project examples include "Jim's Birthday Present," server space to start a new business, fundraising for tsunami burn victims, help fund a short film, provide meals to malnourished children in Malawi, and help save dogs scheduled for euthanasia in Los Angeles. As you can see, the kinds of projects are all over the place, from purely self-serving to purely altruistic. What the site does is help bring together like-minded individuals in an online collaborative environment to make dream projects come to life. Recently, we spoke to Fundable's co-founder John Pratt who started the website with his partner Louis Helm.

Where did the idea for Fundable come from -- what problem were you trying to solve?

Initially, we wanted to develop a system that was, by coincidence, similar to Motorola's iRadio (think satellite radio, but with cell phones). In short, we were trying to find a way for independent radio content to be funded by groups of people. Fundable's model emerged in the process and we decided it was worth pursuing instead of the original project.

What are the most popular and successful kinds of projects on Fundable.org?

It varies, though successful ones share a lot in common. The more thought, planning, and effort put into a project by its organizer, the more likely it will succeed. This seems obvious, but some people forget that we aren't exactly like eBay -- you can't just throw a project on our site and expect it to meet its goal. The most notable project was one organized by citizens of Lakeview, a neighborhood in New Orleans destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. They raised $9,000 for a political advertisement in a week using small donations, which is impressive.

Which kinds of projects do you think can have the biggest impact on the world?

The purpose of Fundable is to provide a means for groups of individuals to pool money without much effort. If we can do this successfully, we're sure that projects can make an impact on their local level. We aim high, but we also understand that it's not feasible to orchestrate an impact on the world as a whole. Those sorts of changes emerge in a complex way, on their own.

Where do you see the company in 5 years?

Part of Google! Kidding. Right now we're looking to build our online reputation and see how far we can take this fundraising model.

What difficulties have you had to overcome in bringing Fundable.org to market?

Since we don't have an advertising budget, people usually hear about us through word of mouth (or interviews). Constructing the site was difficult, but promotion has been our primary concern lately.

What part of your job do you enjoy the most?

It's great when people understand the site and it works for them. When someone says that they couldn't have accomplished their project in any other way, that is truly satisfying.

Where do you guys turn for inspiration and to "refuel?"

To relax, I prefer the gym. My partner Louis is training for a marathon and meditates twice a week.

Who are some of the most inspiring people you're working with now?

We don't work with people in a collaborative sense, exactly. We're mostly self-serve: groups or individuals visit our site, set up a page, collect pledges for some purpose, and we turn the pledges into money for them. Lately we've seen a lot of projects in which people are raising money for themselves or another person. But the projects we like to see the most are those in which groups are splitting costs or buying products in bulk. This, we think, is when the site is most powerful.

What dream for the world would you like to see achieved in our lifetime?

Less exploitation from globalization.

(Interview by CThings Editor, Paul Horne)

Diane Korman - Producer, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition

Few people know more about transformation than Diane Korman. Each week she coordinates the team that transforms lives by giving families in need an entirely new home on the Emmy-award winning Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.

A reality television pioneer, Diane has spent the past ten years working on the founding teams of groundbreaking shows that have shaped the reality genre. Mark Burnette, who created Survivor and The Apprentice, hired Diane for his first major show, the Eco-Challenge, and she spent three years traveling the globe organizing press teams for the adventure race. Diane then developed documentary television for Discovery Channel, ESPN, and National Geographic. She also worked for E! Entertainment coordinating the popular E! True Hollywood Stories and the On E! Specials, before joining Blind Date, the show that started the reality dating genre. After Blind Date, she continued as a field producer on TLC's A Dating Story.

When Diane's interest changed from Dating to Design, she became a producer at one of HGTV's top shows, Designing for the Sexes, and later moved to Outer Spaces, an outdoor style show. After hearing about a show in development that was planning to re-build houses in seven days, Diane decided she had to join the team. Much to her surprise and delight, she is now able to produce shows that merge her design interest with a compelling social purpose. She still credits her mother, a Special Education teacher for over 30 years, as her inspiration. Diane lives with her husband in Torrance, and spends her rare free time hiking, scuba diving, cooking and volunteering with her husband at Red Cross events.


Have you noticed a thematic change in "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" since the show started? It seems to have become more emotional or dramatic in the past couple seasons.

I actually think our show has always been emotionally driven. Our first show was the story of a family with a dilapidated house because all their money went into medical costs to fight their six-year-old daughter's cancer. I think we've always been on the cutting edge of reality television and we're not afraid to take some risks. We've always pushed the limit of human drama.

How many submissions do you get in a week, and what advice would you give someone who wanted to submit an application?

We get thousands of submissions each week, and the team that reads those letter have the toughest jobs of all -- imagine reading all the stories day after day. I think the main thing we look for are truly deserving families where there was a string of bad luck leading to the collapse of the house. If the house is really the problem, then maybe we can be the solution. My suggestion would be to write the story as you would a pitch -- if you can't tell your story in two sentences, neither can we. For example, "My parents retired and bought a rundown summer camp for kids with disabilities, and every penny they have goes to improving the camp as their house crumbles around them."

How are you able to get a house up in 7 days? Has EMHE managed to streamline some aspect of homebuilding?

We don't build the houses in 7 days, its more like 5 days 9 hours from the time the house is demolished to the time the family comes home. And almost 100% of the labor and materials and supplies are donated. No one could ever afford to build these homes in such a short time. On a normal build cycle, the time frame would be 6 months, so we build a month's worth of home in a day. But, the reason it happens is because the entire team is working toward the goal of changing a life. This is not a normal house build, and could never be this way when the laborers are building homes for people they do not know. It truly is a miracle of love and devotion.

I'm sure you have many, but what are a couple of your favorite transformations on the show?

Hard question -- I've loved all the families we've worked with. My heart still breaks when I see footage of Rodney Anderson's house. Deep in the heart of South Central Los Angeles, Rodney was a basketball star, with a full scholarship to Fullerton. He was on his way to the NBA, until one fateful night when he went home to visit a friend, was mistaken for a gang member and shot three times in the back. He was lucky to have survived the shooting, but paralyzed and bound to a wheel chair. Rodney's parents applied for money from the state to ADA the house and after a contractor did some demolition including removing their only toilet, he took off with their money. Our builder had a small company and a huge heart, he gathered everyone he knew and tackled the project. We built two homes, one for Rodney and his fiancee and one for his family on the same lot, so they could always watch out for him. And we had a wedding for Rodney, at 4 in the morning after they toured the house all night long. Another favorite was in Livermore, California. The seven girls and one boy of the Cadigan-Scotts lost both of their parents within two weeks of each other. The oldest girls moved home to make sure the youngest girls weren't sent off to foster homes. The family had so much love for each other. The old house had one bathroom for all eight of them. In the new house the boy got his own modern, masculine bathroom. And the girls got a huge bathroom with seven sinks for the seven sisters.

Beyond each family's individual story, what are some of the other ways the show is able to positively impact broader social issues?

Our families are metaphors for the struggles of all people in this country. But the message is when communities come together, we can accomplish anything. This TV show proves that people care about each other, that neighbors care about neighbors and that positive change is still possible.

What is the biggest challenge to making the show come together on time?

No matter how early we get the house, we always suck every last minute of time to finish the decor. It's actually the most fun I have on the entire shoot. We are running around moving as fast as we can. Finishing the house while dressing the house. Against the clock. Volunteers and designers working together just to make everything beautiful for the family when they come home.

What's the best part of your job?

There are two moments: When the family finds out their lives will forever be changed, when Ty [Pennington] shouts out the words "Good Morning Johnson Family." You see families fall to their knees thanking God, crying and hugging each other. It restores your faith in humanity. Then after the makeover is finished, watching the expression on the family's face when the bus moves and they see their new home for the first time. It's the most amazing thing you'll ever see. Grown men, construction workers, producers just balling as they see pure joy and raw emotion... it's a force, I can't quite put it into words.

What is the biggest risk you've taken personally?

I have dedicated myself to this job, often sacrificing my personal life to continue at the pace, and I do think it is worth the sacrifice.

Where do you turn for inspiration and to "refuel?"

There isn't a lot of time right now to think about refueling... once you begin momentum in your life, you have to ride the wave and continue to work toward your goals. This year I made a new commitment to healthy eating and exercise, because if you take care of your foundation, every day can be inspirational. If you are waiting for inspiration to hit you on the head and someone to hand you time to take care of yourself, you are missing the boat.

How did you find your purpose?

I think I'm a really lucky person in that I have many purposes in life. I think we are all here to make the world a better place and to make a difference. I care very much about people and find much joy in being with others who try to make a positive impact on the world. Goodness and kindness are contagious, so if we all try a little harder to make a difference, just think how much better the world would be.

Is there a particular quote that has had a significant impact on your life?

Winston Churchill once said, "With great success comes great responsibility." I take that very seriously in life.

Does spirituality play a role in your life?

Running on the beach on my birthday this year, I stopped and stared at the waves crashing on the shore and it was beautiful. In one beautiful moment, my breath was rising and falling in synchronicity with the waves, and I got it... When you realize that all living things are connected... that we all have the same needs... that is when you see the hand of God.

What's your favorite technology or gadget?

I admit I am addicted to the blackberry, the "crackberry." I can type about 60 words a minute on it. I've learned all the tricks and short cuts. I get nervous when I've put it down and can't find it right away. It's a bad addiction, but when you travel as much as I do for the show, nothing else can help you to communicate and answer the thousands of questions that need an immediate response.

What's your preferred method of getting your daily news?

Every morning I try to listen to NPR on my way to work.

What dream for the world do you think can be achieved in our lifetime?

Our responsibility is to create a cleaner environment in all aspects. On our show we put this to practice when we removed mold, cleaned indoor air pollution and recycled all useable building materials. We have the technology and innovation in this generation to support the environment, and make better consumer choices that solve problems instead of create them.

(Interview by CThings Editor, Paul Horne)