Will the American Dream stop us from saving the planet?

[Pat Coyle]

The Indianapolis Business Book Club met today and discussed Thomas Friedman's latest book, "Hot, Flat and Crowded," which calls for a green revolution to renew America.

Friedman's ideas are compelling idea, but as we discussed the book today, we came to wonder: is the rugged individualism that defines the American Dream the very trait that will prevent us from solving our energy crisis?

The American Dream is intensly individual. It's all about you. If you work hard, you can get ahead.

Our planet is a shared resource. When faced with a choice between getting ahead (personally) and saving a shared resource (like air and water) Americans will often choose themselves, espeically when the American in question is climbing the ladder looking up at others who are "living the good life" with cars, and houses, etc.

Will we have to change the American Dream in order to save our shared environmental resources? Can we change the dream? Or are we facing an "Innovator's Dilemma"? Share your thoughts here.

New technologies will be required if we are going to reduce or eliminate our dependency on fossil fuel, but we cannot, Friedman asserts, simply innovate our way out of this problem. Indeed we must have new technologies and new sources of energy, but we must also learn to consume less; and it is this requirement that may prove impossible for all Americans to adopt because it requires all of us to think of others before ourselves.

We would be hypocritical if we tried tell the Chinese and the Indians not to pursue industrial development because it's bad for the environment. Similarly, it will be impossible to convince lower income Americans not to pursue a better lifestyle when for decades in this country, better means more cars, more house, and more energy consumption.

[Greg Mayo]

While the planet does appears to be getting warmer but there is no proof it is our fault. Some scientists think we did it and others don't. Be careful of any person that demonizes opponents on any subject or issue.
That being said I absolutely believe being "green" and taking care of our planet is necessary. For me it's an issue of stewardship. The planet doesn't belong to us, we are just a part of it. Further, we cannot destroy it as we will destroy ourselves first. The planet will go on.
To your last paragraph, whether we tell the Chinese and Indians about their environmental misteps or not they need to know. Talk to anyone that has been to China about their pollution issues.
The unfortunate thing is that lower, middle and upper income people in this country have pursued more stuff in place of a better life. As a society we have done that through debt. Thus, we are in the credit crisis today. It's not the American Dream that is at fault, it's those who have hijacked the American Dream and put gross consumerism in it's place that are at fault. Until we accept again our role as stewards of this planet and also reclaim the American Dream nothing will change...with our society, the government or the environment.

[NealTaflinger]

While I think that rugged individualism and "the American Dream" (which I assume means accumulation of wealth in a nuclear family, social advancement and the creation of legacy) are related, I don't think they are one and the same. I have some strong individualist/libertarian readings, butI I think the "personal freedom at all costs" ethic is culturally immature. The broad stages of human development are total dependence (children = pre-industrial humans), total independence (foolish teens = post-industrial humans) and interdependence (mature adults = the future of human culture). What we want doesn't matter if the planet is failing underneath us, we have to adapt to the realities of life. Which is kind of what happens when you grow up.

[Nwokedi C. Idika]

May be the next book for the book club should be Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers: The Story of Success," because in it, Malcolm exposes "rugged individualism" and "If you work hard, you can get ahead" as complete falsehoods (you can check out a chapter of the book here).

Rugged Individualism sounds sexy, but it's not reality. Individual hard work is only ever at most half the story.

I'm not sure the American Dream has to change though. One way to encourage those of us that are more selfish, is change the incentive structure. Modify the incentive structure so that what's in your best interest is also in everybody else's interest.

[Dave Gibbs]

Thanks for the note, Pat.

I have to agree with much of what Greg Mayo said.

The traditional American Dream for liberty and a better life is much different than mere selfish debt driven consumerism. Although the response in this book is a strange form of spin doctoring.

As a traditional conservative, and that is not the continental European variety, but the American variety (there is a big difference); I don't use green language - it is political. Nevertheless, I would rather use Greg's term of stewardship, which is a conservative term and a better term. There is an important difference between conservation and collectivism.

There is actually a huge deposit of fossil fuels under the whole earth. We need energy to run things. We can also do a better conservation job, by encouraging the free enterprise of new technology to employ people to work on the development of cleaner fuels (problem is there is much vested interested interest against such a development). This could get people busy right here in Indiana and beyond.

A few criticisms... where are his footnotes and references?... His notion of government control on resourcing and innovation is a statist mistake... His notion that outsourcing is a good thing (everytime I hear some economist or politico push this, I would like them to say that in front of the thousands of people in our country, who have been let go)... Class language is a Jacobin / leftist term used to divide people... He seems to have a dislike for global population density. People who get wealthier do not necessarily have more children (actually, the opposite tends to be true). People who hold such views, always concern over resources. They try to convince their neighbor's to pitch into their common pot. Finally, it is not wise to sacrifice national sovereignty to global institutions. His notion of Free Trade is unwise and would be devastating to families in our nation and abroad.

Marks to Friedman for having an upbeat attitude and for his thoughts on US energy dependence, he is just caught in the wrong political language with misguided notions. Since he wrote the book, international events have shown that other nations have other notions about global warming and the use of resources.

[Dave Gibbs]

"Marks to Friedman for having an upbeat attitude and for his thoughts on US energy dependence"

I meant "independence".

[Dick Davis]

These issues are not mutually exclusive. I believe that we can be good stewards of what God has given us and that we should be responsible for acting appropriately. However, I do not subscribe to the concept that "Saving the Planet" is our charge. We must dispose of our waste in a manner which does not cause problems for our progeny. We must not squander the natural resources we have. We cannot live in the past of being unaware of the consequences of what we do. We do need to be concerned about the future and seek cleaner, renewable sources of energy. Living the American dream can be accomplished within these parameters. We need to adjust our thinking to looking for those solutions, not about "Saving the Planet"- that's a Chicken Little mentality that stifles more than encourages.

[Douglas Karr]

We don't have to worry about the planet. It will be here long after we make ourselves extinct.

[Gus Pearcy]

While I agree that the planet will be here long after we have abused it. Is it possible that our neglect can hasten our demise?

I'm not a rabid environmentalist, but there's nothing wrong with putting a little more thought into our conduct. These are common sense things like recycling and reducing waste. Over time, I think we can reduce our footprint and make a better place for our children's children.

Mr. Davis has stated it best: We need to change our thinking and adapt to the current conditions. We need to be clear about what is acceptable and what is not. Perhaps market manipulation is a last resort. I think that the "green" economy offers plenty for those with the pioneering spirit that America instills.

[Dave Gibbs]

Gus - you are right about recycling.

When I lived in Seattle, people really put forth an effort. And, it is something everyone can participate in and be thoughtful about.

I wish we had this in our region with weekly removals.

[Lynn Jenkins]

Of course "free recycling" isn't any "freer" than our garbage pickup is. It's just that we pay for it through a tax instead of a monthly fee. The best recyling systems are those that charge per bag/can for garbage (outside of taxes--as they do in Germany and in Bloomington), and offer recycling "free" (yes, of course, you pay for it through a tax). But at least it makes you think about how much "STUFF" you are tossing in the landfill, and you can make an effort to reduce it -- so you can save money.

Under the current system, there's no incentive to recyle except to save the earth...which obviously isn't enough for many people (or so it would seem, since so few opt in!)

[Charlotte Dear Wolff]

Yes indeed Pat, the big quiestion may be 'are you willing to change the way you live?' Everyone wants change, no one wants to change.
The American dream is shriviling up, drying out. Soon it will be too tough to be palitapal.
Even with new enegy resources such as wind and solar, we can no longer support our current way of life in America.
We must reduce our use of energy, or suffer dire consequences.
But how do we convince people to willingly adopt new ways and new ideas?
I'm following the advice of two I admire, "be the change you want to see." Gandhi, and "If you think you are too small to make a difference try sleeping with a mosquito." the Dalai Lama.
strength, hope and love to us all