In a nutshell, what's Break Through about?

Break Through is an argument for a new politics for a new century, a politics that is aspirational and expansive, not small, narrow and complaint-based.

Break Through argues that environmentalism can't deal with today's ecological crises because it conceptualizes global warming strictly as an "environmental" problem. Environmentalists have long imagined ecological problems as the result of human violations of a supposedly separate and pure nature. The only solution environmentalists have thus been able to offer is to limit and constrain human power. What the new ecological crises demand is not that we constrain human power but unleash it. Overcoming global warming demands not simply pollution control but rather a new kind of economic development.

Break Through sees a connection between environmentalism as a political movement and the range of other liberal interest groups that, collectively, make up what passes for progressive politics in America. These interest groups--labor, civil rights, environmental, etc.-are today a collection of narrowly defined, complaint-based, single-issue special interests.

Break Through proposes a new political vision appropriate for our changed world that emphasizes possibility rather than limits and breaks down old barriers to pave the way for new pragmatic thinking.

You argue that environmentalists are ignoring "four inconvenient truths about global warming." What are they?

The first is the failure of Kyoto to reduce emissions even among the developed nations that ratified it. Between 2000 and 2004, the developed nations that ratified Kyoto saw their emissions go up, not down, four percent. And it turns out that those countries, such as Britain and Germany, that actually have reduced their emissions, would have done so regardless of Kyoto.

The second truth is that China and India have long refused to limit their emissions, and simply will not do so if it hurts their prosperity. The third is that deforestation in places like Brazil and Indonesia has accelerated since the 1992 U.S. environment summit in Rio, and is contributing more to global warming than cars and trucks. And the fourth is that global warming will continue - and will continue to create serious impacts - even if we halt all emissions tomorrow.

That sounds pretty bleak. What's the good news?

There are a number of very exciting things happening in the economy and the society that are driving the birth of a new politics. New investments and innovation in clean energy, the rise of the creative, post-industrial economy in the developed world, and rising prosperity in developing countries like China and India, are the conditions for the new politics and a clean energy economy.

It is our contention that we have to begin building the new energy economy before we can tear down the old one. We believe that the same thing is true of the new politics. We need to create a politics of possibility to replace the old politics of limits.

You argue for a focus on investment. Don't we also need regulations?

All new markets require new rules and regulations. Our point is that we cannot create these new markets through new regulations alone. If we are to create the mass markets we need for things like solar, wind, hydrogen, bio-fuels, and cleaner coal we need major public investments. None of us today would have computers hooked up to the Internet had the Pentagon not guaranteed the market for microchips in the 1960s, and literally invented the Internet in the 1970s. The bottom line is that the transition to a new clean energy economy will require both major new investments and new regulations.

You place great emphasis on prosperity as a precondition for ecological awareness and progressive politics in general. Can you explain that?

Economic prosperity, and the security it brings, allows people and entire cultures to focus on their higher needs. This is born out in history. American environmentalism, and indeed, the great social programs of the 1960s and early 70s, were all a consequence of the postwar boom, and not, as many believe, a reaction to new industrial pollution. We point out that the Cuyahoga river fire had been catching on fire for at least 100 years before the famous 1969 fire, which is commonly seen as an instigator of the environmental movement. Many of the landmark environmental laws were signed by Richard Nixon, who was also a product of the times.

A failure to grasp this history has serious consequences. Liberals and environmentalist too often see an inherent opposition between business and progressive initiatives-which is a false opposition and politically suicidal. Another serious consequence is that, in the international realm, we try to force the concerns of the developed world on nations still struggling to attain material security. What they need first and foremost is economic development.

America over the last half century has moved from industrial to a post-industrial economy, from a material to a post-material society. Our needs and values are categorically different than those of developing nations, and we must understand them if we are to find smart solutions to our shared problems, whether they are global warming or immigration.

For the developed world, and especially for the US, prosperity is the foundation for a politics of possibility. We describe the current moment in the U.S. as one of "insecure affluence" that demands that we abandon our obsession with deficits and acknowledge and celebrate our unprecedented wealth. It is only from this position of strength that great things can be accomplished.

Is there any sign that the shift to a politics of possibility is already underway?

In 2005 Senator Barack Obama introduced legislation called "Health Care for Hybrids," that we worked with his staff to create. It could be a key part to saving the American auto industry and creating the next generation of high-quality, high-efficiency vehicles. Senator Hillary Clinton recently embraced the call for a new Apollo project on clean energy, and though the new money she's proposed is still too little to make things like solar and wind competitive with coal and natural gas, it's a very good start, and a sign, we hope, of things to come.

A politics of possibility requires old oppositions like those between business and the environment, humans and nature, government and markets, to be abandoned in favor of more expansive, pragmatic and holistic solutions. Both these initiatives show signs of this and there are others on the horizon.

What about China and India?

These two waking giants underscore that prosperity and material security are preconditions for ecological concern. China, which will pass the U.S. as the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world this year or next, has long said it won't accept mandatory caps on its emissions because its per capita rate of emissions remains roughly a tenth of U.S. emissions. The only way China will take action on global warming is if doing so is in its economic self-interest. The same is true of countries like India and Brazil. All of which is why the new politics must, in our view, be focused centrally on possibility, investment, and innovation - not limits, regulation, and pollution.

You point out that the environmentalist story is tragic, focusing on humankind's fall from Nature - and its coming punishment. But hasn't this story worked pretty well?

Traditional environmentalism was successful when dealing with traditional environmental problems like smog and acid rain, and to a limited degree in other areas. But the truth is that the environmentalist story of global warming apocalypse has done as much harm as good. Elites and editorial writers are extremely worried about global warming, which is good, but the general population is not. Global warming today ranks at about 20 on a list of 21 issues presented to voters. Jobs, health, security - these things are always going to be more important to people than global warming, especially as long as the story of global warming is about human guilt for sinning against Nature.

Global warming needs to be re-conceptualizing not as an environmental problem, but as something that encompasses our entire civilization-our jobs, our health, our aspirations. The story of human overcoming that can then come from this is anything but apocalyptic.

Do you suggest an alternative narrative to global warming apocalypse?

The political narrative we propose is one of overcoming adversity. In our 200,000 years as a species, we have overcome poverty, disease, and political oppression. We haven't done so everywhere, but human life has generally improved, not worsened. The fact that there are nearly seven billion human animals is not the story of collapse and failure but rather of success and overcoming.

We need to be grateful to what our ancestors did to make a better world for us. This story of human overcoming is more likely to inspire feelings of gratitude, hope, and strength - whereas the story of humankind's sins against the Earth inspire resentment and fear, and resistance among those who don't want to feel guilty or shamed.

This is a narrative that can inspire, and get political traction, because it speaks to where we are and what we truly want.

Other environmental leaders seem to be more positive, focusing on the economic opportunities associated with clean energy.

And to the extent that that's happening, we applaud it. What's still missing, in our view, is a politics focused squarely on possibility, investment, and innovation, not limits, pollution, and regulation. It was an innovation-through-investment strategy that guaranteed the market for microchips and the creation of the Internet, as well as rebuilt Europe after World War II and led to the existence of the European Union. We need the same kind of strategy, but this time between Europe, the U.S. and Asia.

Is liberalism dying along with environmentalism?

Liberalism, like environmentalism, is captive to an outdated legacy and in serious need of updating. This legacy has its roots in the Great Depression and FDR's New Deal, and reached its high point in the 60s and 70s, the era when the Civil Rights acts, the great environmental acts, and the Great Society programs were all enacted. Since then, without a new vision appropriate for our age, progressive politics has simply fragmented into a lose coalition of single-issue interest groups. Over time these groups and their agendas have become narrow, more technocratic, even as the problems they were originally meant to address have morphed into categorically different, more complex ones.

Liberalism needs a reality check, needs to see that the world has changed, that new problems call for new solutions. Liberals are still saddled with a Depression-era focus on poverty and inequality, when what most distinguishes our era is its wealth and opportunity. Liberals have been more obsessed with the loss of industrial blue-collar jobs than with the creation of good new economy ones. And Democratic Party leaders - though not Democratic voters - are today overwhelmingly deficit-oriented. This deficit-orientation is the liberal equivalent of the politics of limits, which means we are always talking about our weaknesses rather than strengths.

In your chapter on status and security you introduce the concept of "insecure affluence." What does this concept mean?

By insecure affluence we mean that, since the mid-1970s, Americans have become increasingly insecure financially even as they also became increasingly affluent materially. You still hear liberals claim that the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. And you still hear conservatives claim that everyone's getting richer. The truth is that everyone's getting materially wealthier but we are also spending more than we're saving, are increasingly indebted, and feeling more insecure as a consequence.

Prosperity and security are fundamental to any positive social change and must be put first in any aggressive political agenda. Liberals have too often misread this dynamic as simply rich against poor and have thus failed to advance a new and meaningful social contract that would support a progressive social agenda.

The right has been far more successful than the left when it comes to promising greater security, whether in terms of crime, terrorism, or finances. Democrats try to tap security fears but more often than not in ways that makes voters feel less secure, less powerful, and less in control of their lives. Democrats and progressives today often try to patiently explain to voters how poor, insecure, and low-status they are - a discourse that is destined to backfire every time.

What's the alternative for environmentalists and progressives?

What we need is a discourse and a politics that begins from the acknowledgement of all the ways in which we are already secure, affluent, and high-status. Almost all of us are far, far better off than our grandparents were at a material level. We live longer. We have better medical care. We live in bigger houses and have more material wealth. We need a politics that starts from this recognition, and then builds upon the assets and strengths that we already have.

If conservatives need to keep people in a state of fear, we progressives need to keep people in a state of security and aspiration. This is as true now as it was when FDR said, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The truth is, the only thing progressives have to fear is fear itself. Conservatives have done very well keeping people scared.

The book ends with a chapter on Greatness. What is a politics of Greatness?

A politics of greatness emphasizes our strengths rather than weaknesses, our assets rather than our deficits. It acknowledges our great wealth, and celebrates it; it acknowledges our history of global leadership, our collective identity as a nation of innovators, and our optimism, and celebrates these as well. It is a politics that speaks to who we are as a nation, and where we are at this point in history-and because of this is a politics that is capable of inspiring us all to great things.

More practically, the politics we are proposing would aim to restore American greatness through a major investment in the clean energy economy. These strategic investments would aim to make America an economic and ecological leader globally. At the same time, they would allow for the kind of economic development and prosperity in the United States that would allow for individual Americans to overcome their lower material and post-material needs and create themselves as unique individuals. This is the dream of a new national purpose for a new century.