Snark has its good points.    In fact, a student once asked me to show more videos of comedians specializing in political and social snark.  Using this sarcastic tone can be funny, a way to stand out, to make a point, to seem cool and current, and even to show that your side can laugh at itself.  And, as others have stated before (Christine Whitman, most recently), “Politics ain’t beanbag.”   But we might ask ourselves, what are we trying to accomplish with snarky communication?  Could it be time to step back and take an honest look at the ensuing costs to individuals and society for such widespread maltreatment?

Consider Al Gore. In a span of two weeks, I counted four articles in The New York Times criticizing him.  When it comes to Gore, any acknowledgments of the character of the man and what he has accomplished are frequently and conspicuously absent.  (Brian Stelter, for example, painted a very unfavorable, one-sided portrait of him in “Gore Went to Bat for Al Jazeera, and Himself.”) While no one is above criticism and some legitimate points were introduced, there has to be some balance, especially considering his achievements.

Since 1950, humans have manufactured more goods than have ever existed in history. Our consumption of those goods – a highly inefficient use of our natural capital – has wrought a long list of environmental consequences. Staggering deforestation, check. Increasing greenhouse gas emission, check. Rising heat, sea level, and incidence of extreme weather events – check, check and check. 

We all talk about the changes, but when it comes to the issue of climate change, the conversation goes in different directions - or ceases altogether. According to the latest study from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, the American public's concern about global warming can be sorted into six categories, ranging from alarmed (13%) and concerned (26%), to cautious, disengaged, doubtful and dismissive (that's the other 61% of us).  With so much evidence, why are Americans so disengaged from climate change – arguably, one of the most critical problems of our time? 

To continue reading my article "America's miasma of misinformation on climate change" in The Guardian, click here.

G. Tracy Mehan III, a former USEPA Assistant Administrator for water and now a consultant at The Cadmus Group, recently reviewed David Zetland’s The End of Abundance: Economic Solutions to Water Scarcity, in “Flood Zones: A Market Solution to the Challenge of Water Supply,” for The Weekly Standard. Both author and reviewer see a powerful role for economics thinking in resolving the growing problem of water scarcity, although neither appears to mention externalities, or the costs of pollution imposed on society or the environment.  In any case, they agree that water – or as Zetland calls it, “lifestyle water” - is too cheap, leading to its over-consumption.  The bottom line: we’re going to have to raise the price.

This is not a new argument.  Economists have been talking about it for years, not that many are listening.  This gave me the opportunity to reflect back on why this issue long ago started me on a strange, unpredictable, non-linear career track.  As in any other field that regards itself as both diagnoser and resolver of the problem, economists often miss the multidisciplinary boat that is sustainability.  (I was, however, grateful that years ago I got to thank Alan Kneese, one of the pioneers of environmental economics, just before he died for helping put me onto this journey.)

The single disciplinary perspective has both strengths and weaknesses in a multidisciplinary world.  The reviewer and the author are right that standard economics methodology has much to offer.  But why are policy makers, environmental groups, academics, and others so resistant?  And while there are exceptions where some economics thinking has made its way into policy (e.g. acid rain policy), as well as some non-economists who have come around, such as Environmental Defense, it would seem we could do better in coming to terms with, and finding a proper place for, economics.  What good is it to keep training new generations of environmental economists who are only going to end up frustrated?

With the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement emphasizing the inequity of the current system, and also the Tea Party coming from a different (but not necessarily opposite) direction, we’ve entered a new era of societal debate and discussion about the proper roles of capitalism and socialism.  The socialism charge is a legitimate issue to be discussed with as much open mind as we can muster.  In fact, figuring out solutions to the challenges we face in pursuing a sustainable planet will be even more difficult without such an overall orientation. So let us begin.

Socialism has been defined as: “a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production.” (Heilbroner, Robert. The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. Library of Economics and Liberty. 2008)  However, people have their own varying ways of seeing socialism, often with visceral, rather certain views about the word and its role in history.