« March 2007 | Main | May 2007 »

April 26, 2007

An aggressive and practical strategy?

by Sylvia S Tognetti

At the Oil Drum, Jeff Vail provides a more nuanced explanation of why energy efficiency measures are not effective as a standalone solution for reducing energy consumption (alluded to in earlier PNT posts, here and here and in future ones not yet written...).  Among these are the Jevons Paradox which, applied to energy has a "rebound effect." Lower demand brings down prices which increases demand. Perhaps not to previous levels, but then there is the indirect or "shadow" rebound effect of what is done with the money saved, like taking a trip to Hawaii, or just spending it on plastic baubles or other goods and services that require energy to produce.

One solution to this is an energy tax, and then investing the proceeds in the design of and transition to lifestyles that consume less energy, like development of mass transportation, for example? Gas taxes are a show-stopper for elected officials who fear to even mention the possibility but, if prices are going to go up anyway, the choice isn't between paying more or less but between adding to oil company coffers and getting better public transportation and other public services in exchange. But to do that, we would also have to keep our elected officials accountable... An interesting research question is whether there would be a higher willingness-to-pay taxes  if those paying them had more confidence it would bring improved services.

As for reducing the reduction of the rate of increase in Greenhouse Gas Emissions by a whopping 4/10ths of 1%, Stephen Colbert gives credit, where credit is due for the administration's "aggressive and practical strategy" for increasing real estate in Greenland, includes a few hot melting facts, and nails Bush for not paying any attention to the Poles:

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 3:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 25, 2007

Luntz - just "a language guy"?

by Sylvia S Tognetti

Frank Luntz, whose infamous 1998 memo recommended playing up scientific uncertainty to avoid action on climate change, now says he is "a language guy... not a policy guy", as if these two could be separated.  In an interview that aired last night on the Frontline series on Hot Politics, he also said his role was just "to figure out what language would work." Since then, as the interviewer stated, ""[An] entire group of science skeptics grew up around that, who have in some ways moved the debate back to "scientists aren't really sure," when in fact scientists are sure. ""

Now that the context and his beliefs have shifted, Luntz is trying to make himself look "reasonable" and position himself in that elusive middle ground, blaming the lack of action on "those who have used global warming as a baseball bat to beat up the opposition." Though he now accepts the scientific consensus on climate change, in his view, "the problem with those who advocate a change to global warming is that, frankly, they're hysterical." As for those who still follow his 1998 recommendations, "That's their responsibility. They have to defend that."

hmmm - I'll fess up to having been, at times, hysterical, but not as much about global warming as about the impossibility of having the kind of quiet rational discussion about it - of the kind that Luntz now advocates, with seemingly intelligent people who still maintain that "the evidence isn't all in." Believe me, I have tried, only to have Benny Peiser quoted to me again. Which takes us back to the 1998 Luntz memo. He says he was only reflecting back the language-in-use of the day. But that isn't quite right. Actually, what he did was misuse the language of the day to reinforce a distorted image of science as a crystal ball, as if it could ever provide certainty, and exploit (or enable others to exploit)  the fear of uncertainty and general angst about the future for political gain. He also helped give credence to arguments that lacked intellectual merit, clouded public discourse, and prevented earlier action on an issue not only of high uncertainty but also urgency and high stakes, which he now says requires preventive action!*&!%!!^@&%^&!!!

ok, following Luntz' current advice, I'm going to just take a deep breath.... Lets talk - about uncertainty. As I said in one of the initial posts on this blog, "if science could provide certainty, decisions would just be a problem like that of rocket science. With enough research, computer models would tell us the best course of action, and the losers could all be compensated. And if you believe that is even possible, you probably also believe there was a decisive victory for Bush in the recent US election." Like the birds and the bees, uncertainty is a fact of life, for which science can at least provide a navigational device. (the bees might need to learn science too, to make up for the loss of their navigational devices, but I digress)

I'm really glad Luntz has changed his beliefs and his tune but if he wants absolution, he needs to take some responsibility for his words and the way they are used,  just as scientists can no longer separate themselves from the intended uses of the knowledge they generate.

He also now says:

I believe in common ground, and I believe in a consensus. There has to be a way that we can be environmentally protective and not be anti-economy. There has to be a way that those who care about the future both from an economic standpoint and a environmentally responsible standpoint can be in the same room and find agreement that moves us in the right direction.

What's the language? It's a balanced approach; it's a common-sense approach. It takes into account this consensus that you speak of, and you even used the word, the word "consensus." Mark my words, the word "consensus" is going to be part of the environmental debate going forward, because it suggests that people -- rational people, decent people -- can come together and have an agreement, not only on what is happening in this country, but how best to deal with it in the future.

The only problem I have with these last statements is that he probably gets paid a lot more than I do to say them. It isn't like I, and many others, haven't said similar things.  More on that to come...

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 12:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 22, 2007

The curse of convenience: an Earth Day sermonette

by Sylvia S Tognetti

I'm always somewhat cynical about the encouragements we hear every Earth Day, for individuals to conserve and recycle, when these are not accompanied by any mention of policies that needed to cap total consumption, to create more choices, and ultimately, to make sure we aren't just becoming more efficient producers of greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of garbage. The cars we drive now are certainly more efficient than the ones that were around before the gas crisis of the 1970s, but it sure doesn't seem to have reduced consumption. Here is Maryland, as the state joins in a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, preparations are also underway to build another highway, the Inter-County Connector, which not only doesn't go anywhere, but would preempt funding necessary to expand mass transportation and create more alternatives to driving. But that is not to say that, we shouldn't conserve as much as possible.

So in honor of Earth Day, here are some words about water conservation I came across in a collection of writings by Guido Ceronetti, "La Fragilitá del pensare" (The fragility of thought) in my own rough translation from Italian:

Go ahead and waste words and occasions, but not water.

...Turn on the faucet and down comes water.... It is the curse of convenience.... Go get it with a bucket and a botle, when there is a breakdown, and immediately you are reminded that water is precious, that life requires effort. Pouring it from a jug is an educational act: "after soaking the feet, there is enough left, tepid enough to shave". "After shaving, enough remains to cook an egg." "After the egg is cooked, after the water has chilled, I can soak my dentures." This is civilization.

Herbicides, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, travel, penetrate, slide down, insinuate themselves, nourishing their petrified pseudo-life on the death of water. And water is the absolute biological frontier. A supernatural blindness is needed to continue in this way, with such anger, to destroy its potability...

Now don´t forget to carry a cloth bag next time you are out shopping and running errands. On my shopping list is a rain barrel, which won´t fit in a bag but it can save tremendous amounts of water by capturing  water than can be used in the garden, but, if everyone in my neighborhood did it, we could reduce stormwater runoff in Muddy Spring as well as to the Chesapeake Bay.

In other news, in The GreatTurtle Race, from Costa Rica to the Galapagos, Stephanie Colburtle has so far managed to avoid mistaking any plastic bags for jellyfish and is back in the lead. But I´m also cheering for Drexelina and Sundae, who stayed behind on beach patrol.

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 6:44 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 18, 2007

Science Skeptics?

by Sylvia S Tognetti

I have not yet had time to wade through all of the heated discussion sparked by Chris Mooney's and Matthew Nisbet's articles on Framing Science (article links are in the side-bar, for a round-up of discussion links see Coturnix), much less weigh in on it. I probably will. Not like I haven't written about the subject before. For now, I just want to call attention to perhaps a new way to frame the so-called climate skeptics. It may have been inadvertent or subconscious but, in this PBS Frontline interview with the infamous Frank Luntz, the interviewer refers to skeptics - not of climate, but of science. That sounds about right! If one rejects a consensus shared by all major scientific bodies, one is rejecting not the science of climate change, but the process of science as a way of knowing anything.  In other words, the "science"  frame is used deceptively, as a fig leaf for value conflicts.

[unfortunately, the video was removed from YouTube but the Frontline show, Hot Politics, airs next Sunday the 24th at 9 pm]

I found this via a link on the DeSmogBlog in a post by Kevin Grandia, who only calls attention to Luntz' admission of having changed his beliefs since writing the infamous memo. In that memo, Luntz essentially advocated a deceptive use of the uncertainty frame.   As for that, here is a relevant excerpt from my earlier post about framing:

What concerns me even more is the use of familiar frames and nice-sounding concepts, like sound science, data quality, CO2 is life or intelligent design to manipulate and deceive. (For more commentary on the CO2 is life ads put out by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, see posts by the usual suspects: RealClimate, Tim Lambert, Chris Mooney.)

This can make it difficult or impossible to talk about some important ideas that fit almost too well into a grossly distorted and misleading narrative. For example, any talk about uncertainties in climate science inevitably gets distorted by the likes of Benny Peiser who doesn't pretends not to know the difference between uncertainty of the magnitude and significance of climate change, and uncertainty regarding policies to address climate change, and whose debunked study nevertheless continues to be cited by denialists of human-induced global warming. And then we wind up with confused scientists blaming social theory altogether, rather than the misuse of it by those who seek to discredit the science that provides justification for environmental and other policies that protect public safety and health, and that have broad public support. Odd that they don't blame Einstein for the atomic bomb, or Darwin for policies of Social Darwinism. Nor was Machiavelli a Machiavellian. More constructive than attacking social theory would be to provide some transparency to its misuse for purposes of social manipulation. So I'll wrap this up with a quote from Erving Goffman's book on Frame Analysis (1974) where he refers to the work of Gregory Bateson, who began to talk about framing in a paper first presented in 1954:

The very useful paper by Gregory Bateson, "A Theory of Play and Phantasy," in which he directly raised the question of unseriousness and seriousness, allowing us to see what a startling thing experience is, such that a bit of serious activity can be used as a model for putting together unserious versions of the same activity, and that, on occasion, we may not know whether it is play or the real thing that is occurring. (Bateson introduced... also the argument that individuals can intentionally produce framing confusion in those with whom they are dealing...

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 9:39 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 16, 2007

Better know a terrapin

by Sylvia S Tognetti

Last Thursday, Stephen Colbert adopted Stephanie Colburtle the (Leatherback) Turtle, who so far is leading on this first day of The Great Turtle Race, from Costa Rica to the Galapagos - assuming she doesn't mistake any plastic bags for jellyfish along the way. Apparently, this is an offshoot of Stephen's 240-part series "Better know a Terrapin" which I am eager to see but, to my knowledge, this series hasn't actually aired yet... Since Testudo the Terrapin is the mascot of the University of Maryland - where I did my graduate studies - when I wasn't riding tides around the Chesapeake Bay in a kayak looking for its notorious ambassadors, I'm going to kick it off here.

What has fascinated me about the diamondback terrapin is the way its existence is intertwined with the diverse habitats found in the Bay, in the various stages of its lifecycle. It is adapted to brackish water, nests on what little is left of the sandy beaches,  finds shelter among what is left of underwater sea grasses and on the disappearing predator free islands, feeds in the salt marshes, hibernates in the muddy bottoms of creeks and rivers where the salinity is low, and moves between salinity gradients in the bay itself, surfacing to drink freshwater found on the surface after it rains. It has also been found drowned in crab pots and at Maryland basketball games, cheering for the Terps - at least in the year they won the national championship.

Although Terrapins can be found in estuaries of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts, the Chesapeake Bay, with its extensive mix of shallow and nearshore habitats, happens to be the terrapin stronghold, So while non-Marylanders are warned to "Fear the Turtle" I fear for it. To save the Terrapins, we have to protect the whole Bay, just as to save the Leatherbacks, we have to protect the ocean - particularly the nearshore and coastal areas, with comprehensive conservation strategies. For more information, visit The Terrapin Institute.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Pictured above is one of the 50 sculptures exhibited around the state last year in the UMD Fear the Turtle Sculpture Project. It is entitled Thanks for all the fish, was done by Kit Cappillino, and was located by the National Aquarium in Baltimore. Pictured below is Michelangelo, the Mutant Ninja Terrapin, who I would not want to see get upset. The latter is a creation of David Brosch.

Reference

Hart, K.L. and D.S. Lee. The Diamondback Terrapin: The biology, ecology, cultural history and conservation status of an obligate estuarine turtle. Studies in Avian Biology No. 32: 206-213.

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 12, 2007

What would Dante say - about Inhofe for example?

by Sylvia S Tognetti

Perhaps someone at Vanity Fair reads this blog, or perhaps great minds just think alike but you will have to go find a hard copy of this month's green issue to see the Green Edition of Dante's Inferno. In one of the early posts on this blog, I pondered: in which of the 10 Bolge of the Malebolge we might find the so-called Climate Skeptics? The Malebolge is in the eighth circle of hell, where we find various kinds of The Fraudulent. The Vanity Fair analysis has them all over hell, from The Indifferent "50,456,062 Americans who voted to Elect George W. Bush president in 2000" - found in The Vestibule, to James Inhofe, found at the bottom with Bush and Cheney, dangling from the three mouths of Satan - just below The Traitors in the ninth circle. Among the latter, Gail Norton. In between, most of the so-called skeptics can also be found among the various kinds of fraudsters. For lazy clickers, below is a repost of what I posted in May 2005:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Over at Prometheus, Naomi Oreskes and Roger Pielke are being far too polite when they refer to arguments (of the so-called Climate Skeptics) about uncertainty and whether there is consensus about the science of climate change, as a proxy for political debates and as a distraction from real issues, such as how to best respond. As is explained in a previous post, given what we know, the above argument is simply a case of fraud and abuse, because it uses irrelevant technical-sounding debate that would never make it through peer review, as a stooge for a disagreement about values that are not widely shared. Polite scientific discourse only works when everybody accepts and follows the same rules of the game. Although not a perfect process, the rules of peer review are fine when there is an agreed upon definition of the problem. When there are value conflicts we enter the realm of science and policy, for which the rules are less well defined. Whether and how to best respond is a legitimate area of uncertainty and disagreement. We are in uncharted territory.

So, to get on with the real issues, first we need to respond to the denialists, not as a question of climate science but as one of fraud, or at best, delusion - that it doesn't matter because human intellect and ingenuity are infallible. Note that I referred to "so-called" Skeptics because it is the role of scientists to be skeptical about anything until presented with evidence, which is a good thing. Then, when they actually reach a consensus it means we need to at least pay attention and take it seriously. It was once also the role of journalists, but I digress. One response would simply be to refer the so-called Climate Skeptics to a circle of Real Skeptics, who have just crossed into the Malebolge with the 8th edition of the Skeptics Circle, hosted by Pharyngula - a territory inhabited by strange devils who are standing by, ready to torment them. They ask, where are the environmentalists this time around, from whom they only have one accepted submission? Too late to submit this post but I do have a question regarding another issue of uncertainty.

There are 10 Bolge (aka, trenches) in the Malebolge, a place found in the 8th circle of Hell - as told by Dante - who actually made it there and back alive. In which of the Bolge should Climate-Skeptics be found?

the 5th, as Deceivers, for the illegitimate and fraudulent use of public trust,

the 6th, with the hypocrites for failing to retract and apologize for their own mistatements while demanding them from others,

the 8th, with those who have given fraudulent counsel to serve their own narrow interests,

the 9th, with those who have disseminated scandal and division - for creating a false impression of disagreement with irrelevant arguments,

the 10th, for being liars.

Another response option would be mandatory civics classes. In closing, I propose the following rule for science & policy: don't bother arguing with somebody who doesn't play by the rules. Or, to be somewhat redundant, "mai discutere co' un grullo! Ti abbassa i livello dialettico e poi ti vince coll' esperienza." (Sifossifoco, post of 4-21-2004) [Translation: Never argue with a fool! He will lower the level of discourse and beat you with experience.]

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 10:39 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 11, 2007

How to embrace a monster

by Sylvia S Tognetti

 

In case you were wondering, you can now watch a lecture together with a ppt presentation on Post-Normal Science: Working Deliberatively within Imperfections, given by Jeroen P. van der Sluijs  as part of a series on Science, Policy and Complex Phenomena, held at Wageningen University on March 21st. The ppt can also be downloaded here. In addition to being a member of the PNT Advisory Board, Jeroen is an Assistant Professor in the Division of Science Technology and Society (STS) at the Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation at Utrecht University, where he coordinates a research cluster on Environmental Risk Management.

Also available is a lecture given the following week by Arthur Petersen, on Climate Change as a Post-Normal Science. Arthur Petersen is the Director of the Methodology and Modelling Programme at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

 

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 8, 2007

Post-Normal crops

by Sylvia S Tognetti

I was pleasantly surprised to find Jerry Ravetz quoted in an excellent article by Denise Caruso, that actually fit into the New York Times this morning (Sunday) regarding the risk of growing crops in open fields that are easily mistaken for food, but that have been genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals. In the middle of this controversy,

...balancing economic benefit and public safety, are our appointed arbiters of risk, the government regulators.

Controversies over biotech risk are caused by a crisis in “official scientific expertise,” according to Jerome Ravetz, an associate fellow at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization at the University of Oxford.

The crisis, he said, stems from the conflicting roles of government. On one side, businesses provide regulators with scientific evidence about the risk and safety of their product innovations. On the other, suspicious citizens demand that regulators challenge that evidence.

The side whose expertise is accepted as “official” calls the shots.

Since data regarding public safety is withheld as confidential business information, acceptance of these risks depends more on trust and confidence in judgments made by  those calling the shots than it does on actual science. Certainly it does not inspire confidence that the Department of Agriculture, which has approved over 100 applications  has been dismissive of safety concerns.

Often overlooked is that, what makes knowledge "scientific" at all is that it can be validated. If quality control is central, should information be regarded as scientific at all if it cannot be subject to scrutiny and if assumptions cannot be questioned by those with conflicting interests? In the case of pharma crops, among the assumptions made are "an ability to control living and propagating organisms" with containment practices  used while cultivating them. In other words, the ability to control nature... Ultimately, even science rests on a foundation of judgments, and on the public' s trust and confidence in scientists. Caruso concludes:

Scientists often dismiss the idea that people without technical knowledge can help them make risk assessments. As a result, biotech scientists and regulators have long made safety determinations from within an opaque system of their own design, using only the evidence they accept as valid.

But scientific evidence is not a constant, like the speed of light or pi. Especially in biology, where we still know so little, “evidence” is often just a small circle of light surrounded by the darkness of the unknown. Decisions about risk cannot safely be made in a private club that accepts only its members’ notions of scientific evidence.

The best research on risk declares the opposite to be true: that risk evidence is particularly subject to distortion by conflicting interests, and that the best foil for such distortions is to ensure that the people whose fate is at stake participate in the analysis.

We need a new policy framework for scientific evidence that is built on this foundation. If developers want to sell their products, they must subject their inventions to the helpful scrutiny of people outside the club — before radical technologies like biopharma are brought to market.

The article also serves as an important reminder that science is not a monolithic institution. In the rush to defend science against the pseudo-skeptics/denialists/contrarians or whatever we want to call them, and to proclaim the end of the science wars that once took place within the academic community, we have to keep in mind the difference between science used to justify risks that science itself has created, from science done to detect those risks - a subject discussed at length in Jerry's book, The No-Nonsense Guide to Science.

~~~~~~~~~~

Addendum: I wrote this post in haste, neglecting to put up a link to the above-cited paper by Jerry Ravetz, Paradoxes and the Future of Safety in the Global Knowledge Economy, which is freely available on his website. Here is a longer quote from the most relevant bit of the paper:

We might call it the 'Triple Catch-23', since it involves three elements, the economy, government and the public, all in a dance around different sorts of safety and danger.

In the global knowledge economy,
constantly accelerating innovation
buys temporary safety for firms against their competition
but cannot guarantee the safety of their innovations in the environment.

In the face of these possible dangers from innovations,
governments
lose public trust by reassurances of their safety
and regain public trust by admission of their danger.

But by admitting danger and thereby inhibiting innovation,
governments
lose safety in the politics of the global knowledge economy.

Denise Caruso also provides further comments on her excellent blog, www.hybridvigor.net, which was brought to my attention in the comments, and which I have now added to the PNT blogroll.

Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:48 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack