« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »
December 27, 2007
irrational discourse
by Sylvia S Tognetti
No need to waste time going over all of the "Over 400 prominent scientists" that the U.S. Senate U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Ranking Minority Member Senator Inhofe Report Inhofe Report claims "Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007." You don't have to poke far beneath the headline to find quite a few of these who did not actually dispute the science of global warming, which should cast doubt on the credibility of the entire report. I just looked at one, which does no such thing:
Gwyn Prins of the London School of Economics and Steve Rayner of Oxford authored a report prominently featured in the UK journal Nature in October 2007 calling on the UN to "radically rethink climate policy," and they cautioned against a "bigger" version of Kyoto with even more draconian provisions. Prins and Rayner's report in the influential journal bluntly declared "... as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions [Kyoto] has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reduction in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth." Their report was titled "Time to Ditch Kyoto" and was highlighted in an October 24, 2007 National Post article. "But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions it has failed. It has produced no demonstrable reduction in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change." The report also noted, "Kyoto's supporters often blame non-signatory governments, especially the United States and Australia, for its woes." The report continued, "But the Kyoto Protocol was always the wrong tool for the nature of the job." Prins and Rayner instead urged investment in new technologies and adaptation as the most promising method to deal with climate change. (LINK)
Deliberate confusion of scientific disagreement with disagreement over whether Kyoto is the right approach or not is no surprise coming from Inhofe and has even become predictable. Unfortunately, and much more insidious - it is also becoming predictable that this would be reported as a legitimate scientific disagreement by Andrew Revkin, at the New York Times - who usually does credible reporting and does not himself question whether or not the fundamentals of global warming are scientifically established. From his Dot Earth blog:
But when you sift through the studies, what emerges (to me at any rate) is not so much the shattering of a consensus as a portrait of one corner of the absolutely normal, and combative, arena in which scientific ideas emerge and either thrive or fade.
Revkin is confusing the normal combative scientific arena with the science for policy arena in which anything goes, and where journalists are supposedly paid to detect precisely this kind of BS or, at the very least check the facts and know the difference between spin and legitimate scientific processes of review. When they don't, BS becomes a normal part of our post-normal public discourse, which has become tedious and distracting, but still indicative of a need for greater public appreciation of the process of science - as well as for scientists to appreciate the nature of the political process.... Since rebutting denialists is what seems to draw traffic, I'll use it a a hook to talk about what is normal - a question often asked, given the name of this blog.
My working definition of normal is a situation we accept as impossible to change - once upon a time that included slavery. In a previous more thoughtful post, Revkin discusses this point himself, citing the sociologist Robert Brulle:
Basically, I read it that we become used to the environment we live in. Since most of the population has very limited or no access to a relatively unpolluted environment, they take it as normal that you can’t eat the fish in the river, that the air is always dirty, etc.
The same applies to public discourse. With limited or no access to an unpolluted public sphere in which claims can be validated, there is little hope for protecting the rest of it. Since Revkin is seeking suggestions, and, (as does PNT) aims to promote information exchange and learning, one suggestion I have is that he read some of the papers posted to Brulle's site, such as this one (pdf), which reviews the basics of Habermas Theory of Communicative Action and its implications for environmental policy. Here Brulle points out that, "the claims of the speaker must be validated for discourse to be rational" - open and rational discourse being the basis for the formation of legitimate laws in post-metaphysical conditions, i.e., a pluralist modern society in which laws can no longer be legitimated with metaphysical arguments. This principle is what provides the basis for the ideal of a constitutional democracy with separation of powers, which relies on the existence of a strong public sphere for deliberation that can hold its own against money and administrative power. Presumably, that is (or was) the reason journalists enjoy certain privileges. But see also this one (pdf) in which he discusses the role the media plays as gatekeepers of what gets into the public discourse. It is not the first time the media has served to impede progress.
Again, welcome to Post-Normal Times - and I'm not just referring to this blog. My brief working definition of Post-Normal Times being times of rapid change, as we enter into uncharted territory, when not just the presence of glaciers, but even basic social norms can no longer be taken for granted, and what remains of the public sphere seems to be held together by the blogosphere. More detailed analysis of the rest of the 400 from Romm, Desmog, Maribo, and the Rabett, - who found that one of the 400 or so is a gardener.
A second suggestion for Revkin is that he provide a review of the book by Eric Lambin, The Middle Path: Avoiding Environmental Catastrophe
And now for my year-end pitch. Unlike Revkin, this blogger doesn't get paid, and doesn't post often enough to ask for donations, but if more readers used the book links, and the Amazon search box in the side-bar for whatever else, we might even be able to recover site hosting fees. Thank you and happy new year to the modest but regular readership of the Post-Normal Times and those of you who have linked to the site.
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 1:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
December 6, 2007
Communicating complex science for policy
by Sylvia S Tognetti
Besides the PNT, I also write an occasional e-bulletin on payments for watershed services, that is now another blog! Since communication of science for policy is an underlying theme of the PNT, below I have cross-posted the latest one. There have been a number of other good posts on the subject recently, that I haven't blogged because I haven't had the time to add any thoughts, but for now I will just call your attention to a post by Andrew Revkin, which, among other things, discusses the tendency to "normalize" a bad situation. More on that soon, I promise. In the meantime, the most recent Flows bulletin:
Forests and water: Communicating complexity and shaping policy
Whether or not the absence of trees causes flooding or water shortages, is a question that persists perhaps because it produces overly generalized answers that fit easily into existing preconceptions. It also fits easily into policy frameworks and stories that paint the world in black and white. Depending on the latest scientific publication, newspaper headlines can proclaim trees to be a menace that is advancing the desert – or failing to regulate floods. But single scientific studies generally only address fragments of a larger puzzle, and few if any experts endorse the one-size-fits all approach that the media implies (Nambiar 2006).
These kinds of generalizations also support rigid land use policies, and conveniently eliminate nuances that can be better addressed with a more flexible place-based approach which is necessary to manage an ecosystem. The tremendous interest in payments for watershed services is driven in part by the popular appeal of this generalized model, in which the flow of water that links upstream practices to downstream consequences also provides scientific justification for a market-based approach to conservation. As an added benefit, payments for watershed services would also contribute to poverty alleviation in marginal upper watershed areas. In practice, there are often trade-offs between meeting these diverse objectives, and implementation is never as elegant as the model.
A set of ICRAF (2006) policy briefs that synthesize two decades of research in this field, assert that what matters is not the presence or absence of trees but the types of tree and where they are located. Also of importance, is what happens to land after forests are removed (Bruijnzeel, 2007). These factors all have implications for the amount of water trees consume, and the extent to which they control erosion. It is also important to keep in mind the pathways of water and sediment flow, some of which have created today’s fertile land. Rivers may be muddy because of landslides, erosion of banks during peak flows, or sediment from roads and paths – rather than due to open fields.
Mosaics of mixed land use – combining forestry, agroforestry and upland cropping – are typical of traditional upper watershed systems and can support denser populations than forested areas. However, they generally don’t fit into the discrete classifications found in land use policies, in which land is designated for either forested or agricultural use. As a result, farmers are often excluded from access to traditionally used land areas, causing conflict with states.
Controversies aaabout forest and water relationships are deeply rooted, going back at least as far as the late 1800s during the promotion of settlement to the arid American west. Following what had been a wet period, Ferdinand Hayden claimed that, if trees were planted across the
Under this historical context, scientists can no longer play the role of disinterested bystanders. Instead, they need to engage interactively with the public and be aware of the potential uses of their findings in the policy arena. According to Jasanoff (2007), interactive engagement by scientists can help the public think critically about science and bring a healthy skepticism to its claims – instead of accepting it as an arbitrary set of well-established facts. As with climate change, greater public appreciation of the scientific process can help reduce manipulation of the facts in the policy arena, where scientific uncertainty is often cited as justification for arbitrary or delayed decisions.
Given the inherent uncertainties of watershed processes – particularly in the context of highly diverse upland environments, participatory processes are essential for assessing the science and establishing policy-relevant facts. Place-based assessments can also support more nuanced messages that enable mutual learning and more flexible approaches to management. As a more interactive approach to communication, this mutual learning can help broaden the frame of reference for decision-making and enable consideration of trade-offs between the various kinds of ecosystem services and the multiple ways they support human well-being.
References, further information, and new resources are listed below the jump.
References and further information
ICRAF policy briefs:
Rumley, R. and C. Ong (2006). The right tree for a dry place. Synthesis 1
van Noordwijk, M., B. Verbist, et al. (2006). Muddy Rivers - Lack of Trees? Synthesis 2
Swallow, B. and R. Rumley (2006). Rooting Policy in Science. Synthesis 3
Rumley, R., C. Muthuri, et al. (2006). More Trees with Less Water
Other sources:
Bradshaw, C. J. A., N. S. Sodhi, et al. (2007). Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. (abstract/subscription required for access to article) Global Change Biology 13.
Bruijnzeel,
Bruijnzeel, L.A., van Dijk A.I.J.M., van Noordwijk M., Chappell N.A. and Schellekens J. 2007 Tropical deforestation, people and flooding: A recent global analysis claiming that tropical deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity proves less than solid.
Brock, K. and E. Harrison (2006). Linking research, policy and livelihoods: challenges and contradictions (pdf).Brief
Eckl, E. 2007. Words that work — and don’t — to dispell myths and counter lies –blog post on Water Words that Work - a blog about water related communication.
FAO-CIFOR. Forests and Floods: Drowning in Fiction or Thriving on Facts? (FAO-CIFOR, Bangkok-Bogor, 2005).
Fay, C. and G. Michon (2003). Redressing forestry hegemony - Where a forestry regulatory framework is best replaced by an agrarian one (pdf). Rural Livelihoods, Forests and Biodiversity,
Funtowicz, S. (2006). Why knowledge assessment? Interfaces between Science and Society. Â. Guimarães Pereira, S. G. Guedes Vaz and S. Tognetti.
Hays, S. P. (1959). Conservation and the Gospel of Efficiency. The Progressive Conservation Movement, 1890-1920.
Jasanoff, S. (2007). Lecture given to Science Communication Consortium,
Kaimowitz, D. (2004). Useful Myths and Intractable Truths: The Politics of the Link between Forests and Water in Central America (abstract). Forests-Water-People in the Humid Tropics.
MA (2003). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment.
Nambiar, S. (2006). Responsibility of scientists for balanced communication. (pdf) Forests in the landscape for wood production and environmental care.
Van Noordwijk, M , Poulsen, JG , Ericksen, PJ, 2004. Quantifying off-site effects of land use change: filters, flows and fallacies Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 104: 19-34
Woodhouse, C. A., S. T. Gray and D. M. Meko (2006). Updated streamflow reconstructions for the Upper Colorado River Basin. Water Resources Research 42(W05415):doi:10.1029/2005WR004455.
Worster, D. (2001). A River Running West: The LIfe of John Wesley Powell.
New Resources
Bond,
Porras,
UN FAO (2007). The State of Food and Agriculture: Paying farmers for environmental services
WatershedMarkets.org - Resources from IIED on markets for watershed services, including several new case studies.
World Bank (2007). World Development 2008: Agriculture for Development.
ICRAF, Global Scoping Study on Compensation for Ecosystems Services, Working paper series:
WP No. 32 Swallow-2007-Compensation-and-Rewards-Environmental-Services
WP No. 33 Poats-2007-Latin-American-Regional-Workshop-Report-Compensation
WP No. 34 Raju-2007-Asia Regional Workshop on Compensation-Ecosystem Services
WP No. 35 Ochieng-2007-African-Regional-Workshop-on-Compensation-Ecosystem
WP No. 36 Iftikhar-2007-Exploring the inter-linkages- Environmental-Services
WP No. 37 van-Noordwijk-2007-Criteria-and-indicators-for-environmental-service
WP No. 38 Swallow-2007-Conditions-Effective-Mechanisms-Environmental-Services
WP No. 39 Bracer-2007-Organization-and-Governance-for-Fostering-Pro-Poor
WP No. 40 Scherr-2007-How-important-will-differen- type- of Compensation-reward
Click here to download this bulletin as a pdf file.
Posted by Sylvia S Tognetti at 11:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
December 4, 2007
Farewell then, wimps of America
by Jerry Ravetz
All of a sudden, the wimps of America aren’t there. Now that they’re gone, we miss them. Come back please, we really do love you. After the wimps, it won’t ever be the same again.
What is a wimp? It’s one of those funny people who doesn’t sincerely believe that Greed Is Good. Or someone who knows about Adam Smith’s other book, the sentimental one about morals.
The wimps in America were the self-appointed guardians of our standards. They took pride in quaint things like ‘integrity’, even though it kept them poor. When the gave an AA rating to a financial product, it used to mean just that and no more, no less. We didn’t need to know what sort of junk had been chopped up and repackaged inside. We could just buy them cheap and sell them dear in confidence, knowing that what the wimps said was true.
Then something happened. The American wimps wised up. Perhaps they had heard all those students asking, “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?” Or they realised that they were behaving like irrational actors in the paradigm. So they joined the game. In addition to derivatives and SIV’s, their ratings went for sale too. What could be more natural?
Noone told us that that was happening. In fact we hadn’t even known that the American wimps were there. That’s not really our fault; who ever learned about Regulation? Only the people who took courses with numbers like 327, in other words the wimps themselves. The rest of us just learned how to make with the curves, so as to get our ticket for the professional gravy train.
But now the wimps are gone, and in New York another show is beginning. This is called ‘Mister District Attorney’. It involves exposing a scandal, getting newspaper headlines, sending a few guys to jail, and then going for a Governorship and beyond. Over there, the wimps have been replaced by the sharks.
After the sharks comes the outraged Great American Public, and their legislators. They want to make a Prohibition of sin in finance. So first we had Sarbanes-Oxley and now it’s to be FAS 157, standards for evaluating assets. Never mind that it’s all bad for business; the Great American Conscience will have been appeased.
But back here in Olde England, the horizon is still clear. We have really nice wimpy wimps for regulators. Normally they just murmur, “wonderful, wonderful.” When something really atrocious happens they whisper, “naughty, naughty”. For them it would be simply inconceivable for a city gent to do anything so vulgar as to go to jail.
So it’s very likely that in the present Puritanical reaction in the States, London will soon take an even bigger piece of the action from The Big Apple. Then with our own dear wimpy wimps as regulators, it will be like the kids taking over the candy store. ‘Anything goes’ will be the new theme song in The Square Mile. And it doesn’t need much history of economics to know that eventually, as night follows day, we’ll all be using that old American saying, “Buddy, could you spare a dime?”.
Posted by Jerry Ravetz at 11:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Book Review: Intervention - Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet
by Jerry Ravetz
Denise Caruso
Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet
San Francisco: The Hybrid Vigor Institute, 2006.
This book is required reading for anyone who still has illusions about the essential beneficence of science. With scientific insight and journalistic skill, Denise Caruso dissects the world of corporate biotechnologists, and provides a terrifying picture of what they are now doing to the world. She goes through the whole scene of biological interventions, including transgenic interventions of every sort. In every case, it’s the same appalling story.
The key to the problem lies in the researchers, perhaps motivated by scientific curiosity but definitely directed by corporate greed. Theirs is a Tinkertoy vision of reality, where all you need to do is to fit in a piece from anywhere and make it all work your way. Any idea of uncertainty, risks, unexpected effects or the reactions of complex biological systems, is totally absent from their vision. As to social consequences, this is left to the PR men who promise to cure any of mankind’s ills with their latest gadget.
The combination of myopic scientists, predatory corporations, and revolving-door regulators is totally lethal. Fortunately many of their productions have flopped on the market, and they hype each other as much as the public. But some of it will work, some time, somewhere. Only luck will save us from some sort of man-made Kudzu of some size, shape or form. We probably won’t know when it is happening, and may not even know about harmful consequences until much too late.
Of course there are still many scientists who work with breadth of vision and integrity, as well as citizens’ groups that raise the alarm. The question is, who will prevail. Our fate may well depend on the answer.
Posted by Jerry Ravetz at 11:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack