The WSJ has a nice article on the turmoil among environmental groups in deciding on a cohesive strategy to address climate change. Basically it comes down to "Do we become advocates of a particular solution, or do we become economists?"
Nothing underscores the green movement's soul-searching more than its conflicted view of coal, which provides about half the world's electricity. Should society pour billions of dollars into trying to perfect a way to turn coal into electricity without emitting greenhouse gases? Or should it reject coal as inalterably dirty and try to replace it entirely with renewable sources like the wind and sun?
...Rather than push certain technological fixes, critics say, environmentalists should simply push government to slap industry with a tough cap on greenhouse gases -- and let industry figure out how to meet the mandate.
I'm sure it will shock no one that I like the latter. Who better to figure out how to reduce emissions at least cost then those who will bear the costs? And it looks like some environmental groups are coming around to the same view:
"It's like we're pushing to invent a better cotton gin as a way to reduce slaveholding instead of just banning slaveholding," says the Environmental Defense Fund's John DeCicco. "The environmental movement has become insiders. Is that actually to our benefit now? Or is that to our detriment?"
