A Global Green Deal by Mark Hertsgaard: An Evaluation

"A Global Green Deal," by Mark Hertsgaard: An Evaluation

Efficiency is nearly always a good thing. Businesses and organizations strive to improve efficiency, professional sports teams thrive on efficiency, and most people welcome efficiency in their lives as a way to make them more productive, save money, and deliver a better quality of life. So it makes perfect sense that efficiency in the manner with which we treat our environment would be a good thing. That much I am certain of and don't need to be convinced. In a "Global Green Deal" Hertsgaard asserts that our planet is in peril and that repairing it can be a profitable enterprise. This eye-catching opening most certainly garners mass appeal to those already convinced of widespread environmental recklessness. He likens his world vision of profitability by environmental renovation to the technology boom, somehow suggesting that without the U.S. government, we'd still be using pens and scrolls and that the U.S. government is the key to world environmental salvation.

In this essay, I will examine the statements and positions outlined in "A Global Green Deal" and offer my unqualified opinion as to the logic, accuracy and feasibility of his strategies. I will also attempt to evaluate his work on consistency and completeness. Objectively, I found his arguments to be both logical and consistent throughout. I will attempt to focus on the remaining points for evaluation.

Hertsgaard lays the foundation for his solutions upfront by stating in paragraph three that restoring the environment could be the biggest economic enterprise of our time, "a huge source of jobs, profits, and poverty alleviation." Up front, the stage is set with an ambitious and to the point statement that gives the reader great promise of things to come within the essay. The "hook" for his audience is set early by setting a stage of doom as he employs fear as a motivational tool when he states that "First, we have no time to lose" in paragraph 5. Overall, a very solid introduction that captures the interest of the reader while introducing the first of three main points to support his essay. Beyond the statement of time however, Hertsgaard offers no additional insight or facts to support his "time based" claim.

Hertsgaard's second focal point is poverty. I'll concede that poverty is among the most challenging issues facing the world today. In paragraph six, Hertsgaard establishes that poverty "is central to the problem" and uses sound statistics to make his point. He references Thomas Edison to lend credibility to the statement by paraphrasing "nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that the bottom two-thirds of humanity will strive to improve their lot." Hertsgaard does a remarkable job of creating a sense of hope for the reader. The concept of solving world hunger is time-proven and by introducing it as the cure to poverty and global warming leaves the pallet drooling in anticipation of the answers. To his credit, he warns that the solution will challenge our natural surroundings and readily admits that solving poverty will be difficult. While the tag line is impressive, the reality is that Hertsgaard only offers hope to an age old dilemma and fails to recognize the unfeasibility of his ambition. Expanding basic infrastructures in developing countries alone poses great challenges. Slow technological advancements, poor industrial development and substandard education systems compound developmental problems for most of world leaving little hope that environmental conservation will rank among top priorities for their foreseeable future.

In paragraph 7, Hertsgaard states that most of the technologies needed to "chart a new course" already exist. It is here that he stresses the importance of efficiency. He does a good job of citing resources to support his position and is convincing in his statement that we should use basic resources more efficiently. Hertsgaard cites the following examples of how efficiency can improve the environment;

Ð'* Use of solar power, hydrogen fuel cells and other futuristic technologies (paragraph 7);

Ð'* Better lighting and insulation, smarter motors and building design to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (paragraph 8);

Ð'* Implement super-refrigerator technology to gain 87% efficiency improvement over older, standard models (paragraph 9);

By implementing these principles, Hertsgaard maintains that tremendous economic growth and job creation would result to "retrofit farms, factories, shops, houses, offices, and everything inside them."

These examples offer the casual reader a very convincing argument that appears both feasible and complete. A reasonable person would expect the author to fairly balance the advantages and disadvantages of his position. Hertsgaard is consistent in both his vision for a "Global Green Deal" and in providing a one sided approach to achieving it. His arguments are disturbingly incomplete leaving some of his audience suspicious. For example, he fails to mention that mass distribution of hydrogen fuel cell technology remains years away and cost prohibitive as a renewable energy source. Additionally, he neglects to recognize alternative sources such as wind and hydroelectric generated power among others to aid in the process. According to the Bureau of Business & Economic Research, the average annual income per capita in the U.S. for 2006 was $36.629 dollars a year, the median cost of an existing home was approximately $210,000 with home ownership below 70% and the average credit card debt per household was $9,000. Given those statistics, it is not unreasonable to deduce that the average American can't afford to retrofit or construct a green home and/or purchase a hybrid-vehicle. To implement futuristic technologies in America will be difficult at best, leaving global implementation far behind the curve. Super-refrigerators HAVE achieved the efficiency standards that Hertsgaard references and have been in production since 1986. Today, the majority of refrigerators actively operating throughout the U.S. fall within the 87% efficiency that the author describes.

Hertsgaard explains that his vision of environmental utopia could be achieved readily through more stringent government regulation, citing that the U.S. government purchases 56,000 vehicles per year. Hertsgaard claims that if Congress would require all government vehicles purchased to be green and held the auto industry to the standard, rapid progress would be made and prices