Obama’s energy and climate advisors 52
-
Posted 2:23 PM on 22 Aug 2008
by Joseph Romm -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Related Stories
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Threaded
gmobus Posted 7:26 am
22 Aug 2008
Where are the physicists and climate scientists?
I know. How naive to think real scientists could help determine policy. Well, given that so far it has been lawyers doing it for the most part, and look where we are, I think it wouldn't hurt to give science a real chance.
</snideness>
Question Everything
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
merrick Posted 9:17 am
22 Aug 2008
The Kyoto protocol was wrecked by the American delegation watering it down (introducing the Clean Development Mechanism, etc), and getting everyone to agree because they so needed the US to sign up. Having diluted it as far as possible, they walked out.
Who was the leader of the US delegation? Al Gore. The same man who is not only today's climate superhero, but was one before Kyoto too. His 1992 book Earth In The Balance was incredibly well-informed and prescient. Yet he ignored it all when in power and undermined efforts to act as if what he'd written were true and mattered.
Personally, I'd like to see Loy smacked in the face with a pie again, like he was at the Den Haag round of climate talks. Otherwise people might take him seriously and think he'll act in line with what climate science demands.
Bristling Badger
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:15 pm
22 Aug 2008
Look, I'm not against lawyers as such. They definitely have a place in the order of things. But they should not be the ones determining the nature of reality. Frankly my criticism is based on personal experience with lawyers acting as advisers on science matters with politicians. It is all about the political process and nothing to do with reality. Its what will win support and votes and that frequently doesn't include what will actually work in the real world. Lawyers tend to have a perspective which is simply counter productive when it comes to matters of scientific truth. Since most politicians are lawyers we are up against a particularly difficult barrier to progress. Politicians need to win elections. Lawyers need to win arguments. In both cases the reality of the world doesn't really matter. This is the system we have chosen. And it is the system that will decide our fate.
Ask any of these advisers to explain the 2nd law of thermodynamics and how it impacts our situation and see what answers you get. Ask them questions about scaling alternative energy sources and see what they say. It will most likely be bull crap.
Obama cannot tell us the truth. Either he doesn't really understand the energy problem or the global warming problem, or he can't tell the truth and expect to win votes. What a sad state of affairs we are in.
Anyone who claims human beings are smart enough to figure out what the best thing to do is is blowing smoke or smoking crack. Take your pick.
You will be known by the company you keep.
Question Everything
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 2:33 pm
22 Aug 2008
Other the other hand, people like Learner and Kammen have been pushing concrete change and are worthy of respect.
I do think Obama is surrounding himself with policy advisors who know their stuff. Whether he and they have the guts and enthusiasm to succeed in creating the new energy economy remains to be seen. But it also depends on public pressure (i.e. us), Obama's persuasive power, and Democratic political spine. These advisors don't do their jobs in a vacuum.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:55 am
23 Aug 2008
I agree about Kammen. Learner I don't know.
The problem is the mind set that must predominate a team composed primarily of lawyers. That mind set has generally proven to fall short when it comes to deep understanding of scientific and technical issues. The kind of understanding it takes to actually know what should be done to alleviate problems.
If the Obama team included people like David Goodstein, Ken Deffeyes, Richard Heinberg, and Mat Simmons (for financial issues) for energy, and oil in particular, or folk like Jim Hensen, Gus Speth, E.O. Wilson, and Paul Ehrlich for a holistic view of climate, biodiversity, and population, then I would be a very happy camper. What would make me even happier is to see Herman Daly and Robert Costanza on the economics team.
Lawyers are definitely needed to shape policy language to fit law, just as ecological economists are needed to formulate policies that will produce intended results. They all have a place in the process.
But that the team assembled is not only not heavily weighted with scientists who have demonstrated a high level of holistic systems thinking, but is composed of yesterday's "experts" gives me little hope that we will anytime soon get to work on solving the real problems.
Of course, I understand it's about getting elected. And that has very little to do with really understanding and solving problems. It's more an indictment of the political environment than of candidates and their advisers.
Question Everything
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
ids Posted 4:05 am
23 Aug 2008
Learner is not one to work with locals, and when he helped strike the Dec. 2006 deal to see the two Chicago plants install "modern pollution controls" by 2018, it was apparent he doesn't care and knew little of CAIR and the dirt around Chicago. He's a good demn company man.
Green Mom,
If it's "us" as you say that it rests upon, it is very troubling, considering green mom's are some of the dimmest boobs in the country. The Obama men's stuff is politics and money and live in a vaccum of their choosing.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:30 am
23 Aug 2008
People can be very expert in a certain area but still advocate and aid the wrong policies, because their priorities and objectives are not protecting and restoring the environment. Let's not obsess on who is how much of an expert, but instead on who will advocate for the needed changes in lifestyles and technologies that will provide the best environmental results.
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 6:17 am
23 Aug 2008
I do take your point about the advisers -- it would be great for some of those you name to have influence. But I agree more with Wolverine - what matters is who is the best advocate for what needs to happen.
First we need advocates for the most urgent specific policy actions (carbon trading or tax, lower CAFE standards, renewable portfolio standards, etc.). I'd love to broaden the debate at the outset, but then nothing would get done for too long.
IDS:
Too bad about Learner, if what you say is true. I don't know anything about him beyond the regional cap-and-trade program.
As for the rest of what you say, I don't know how to respond because I can't make sense of it. I can't tell if you are insulting me specifically, "green mom's" [sic] in general, or my specific body parts. Perhaps it's best that I can't tell.
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:39 am
23 Aug 2008
Obama is doing politics, so perhaps he's well-advised to have some advisors that understand policy, the history of the issue in D.C., and the contours of the current political situation.
Being too pure for politics is not a virtue. It's an affectation, and one that ends up getting people like W elected, and thereby putting thousands of people at risk of suffering and death.
grist.org
Permalink
GreenMom Posted 6:53 am
23 Aug 2008
Yeesh.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 9:00 am
23 Aug 2008
This thread is depressing as hell. Now we're going to stomp our feet and take our toys home unless we get to hand-pick Obama's energy team.
I don't remember talking about taking my toys home. Nor did I say these guys shouldn't be players. They should, in the right role.
The problem noted is that this team is stacked with people who look at the world pretty much the same way as we have been doing for nearly a century. During that time we have screwed up royally. It seems to me that a 'real' change would involve asking ourselves about our mistakes and be willing to try something different. What is wrong with pointing out that scientists have not played as influential a role as might be fitting to deeply understand the problems?
And we're going to stock it with scientists, as though Science is some secret Truth Ray that can cut through politics.
That is getting toward the top and you might end up going over. No one is saying scientists are going to 'cut through' politics. Besides it was science that told us about greenhouse gas effects and are currently telling us about the nature of fossil fuel production. We would do well to listen without assuming we know the 'real' truth, thank you very much.
Look I'll be very specific. Right now a popular 'policy' for dealing with CO2 is a cap-and-trade, market creating mechanism. There are lots of variations on the same theme. But they are all based on the supposed success of the scheme for sulfur emissions. But in reality the success of that latter has more to do with the physics and chemistry of point source monitoring. It is a scientific and engineering problem to determine if it is even feasible to do an adequate job of monitoring CO2. It is a scientific problem to determine what a cap would be in the first place. Now some climate scientists have weighed in (not so positively) on this approach and there are still a lot of scientific questions that need to be addressed if not answered before the policy wonks go off claiming that this approach will work. The harsh truth is that no one really knows if C&T can work for CO2.
I may be overly harsh on lawyers (though this is based on some real experience) but politicians and lawyers have a view of things that too often fails to take into account some real physics. They are willing to compromise to get their position through when compromise should not be an option.
A lot of decisions about energy are about to be made that could end up hurting us (shades of corn ethanol - a clear cut EROEI loser before the first acre was harvested) by people who have not shown a history of deep understanding of the problems or have a systemic view of how things really work.
There are very significant questions about re-tooling for alternative energy production and scale issues far from resolved, or even adequately questioned. Yet I hear a lot of commitment coming out of the Obama camp (as well as the McCain camp) about things that are still far from settled. There are a huge number of assumptions floating around about energy that are simply unwarranted yet promoted as if they are solutions (right up there with clean coal). I can only conclude that these are coming from his advisers. And that does not make me terribly happy.
Besides, what is wrong with getting some solid scientific advice from a few more real scientists? Nothing unless the lawyers are afraid they might lose their influence!
I'm not trying to be a downer. I would just like people to use some critical judgment on these things and not just accept that because they like Obama they should accept everything out of his advisers. I suspect our margin of error on getting the right mix of technologies and policies is very slim. We've dicked around so much so far that we've literally p***ed away our opportunities. And who was it that was doing this? Politicians and their advisers worrying about what is politically feasible rather than what if physically necessary.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:26 am
23 Aug 2008
Now its not leaving politics to the scientists even though science and politics involve different skill sets.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 11:41 am
23 Aug 2008
Excuse me!? Ideological purity???? Since when is science an ideology? I suppose that in the mind of an ideologue anything can be claimed to be an ideology.
But perhaps you meant that I was expressing an ideology that science should be a prime factor in today's policy formulations. Well, mea culpa I suppose. But I think the track record of science vs. say post modernism (or any ism for that matter) stands on its own.
Once again may I remind everyone that the so-called skill set of politicians, especially not informed adequately by science, is exactly why we are in the mess we are in today. How exactly do you believe that more of the same skill set is going to change the outcomes?
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:14 pm
23 Aug 2008
My point is, it's not lack-of-science that's preventing good policy. Obama, I feel quite confident, is well aware that the politically acceptable solutions to climate change are not equal to what the science says is necessary. I feel quite sure that if he were a dictator, he'd do something much stronger than what he's proposed. It's not lack of knowledge that will prevent him from passing that policy -- it's politics. So I for one would be quite happy for him to surround himself with people who knew how to play that game. Scientists have already made themselves quite clear on this issue.
grist.org
Permalink
ids Posted 1:16 pm
23 Aug 2008
If anything, the virtue of allegiance to R party put W in office, not to mention a broken democracy and devious msm.
Greenwashing enviros ignoring science will dig bigger holes for generations to come, putting millions and billions at risk of suffering and death. For instance in March '07, Howard Learner praised the dirty, rotten, Illinois Governor's long-term goal of 60% ghg reduction by 2050. With those type of advisers and accompanying gristwashing, the future looks grim. Try telling the truth, for a change.
BTW, if you ever want to see a dysfunctional government, take a look at Illinois, where the Dem's control both houses and the mansion.
Permalink
ids Posted 1:46 pm
23 Aug 2008
Here's something from today's msm snooze-
Some Obama critics have said that, by working closely with Jones once he got to Springfield, Obama betrayed his reformist credentials because Jones came from the "machine" wing of the Democratic party, not the liberal, independent wing Obama was supposed to represent. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1123166,CST-N ...
Obama is an empty vessel everyone fills in for their own good, to their detriment. He will surely continue the tradition of dirty Chicago Dems tied to trans-gnational corps, nukes, corn, coal, and corruption.
Permalink
ids Posted 1:53 pm
23 Aug 2008
Obama is a product of corrupt advisers and mentors skilled in lies and deceit. Dem's should be happy.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 2:51 pm
23 Aug 2008
Permalink
gmobus Posted 3:45 pm
23 Aug 2008
Obama, nor any president, needs dictatorial power to fund scientific investigation of feasibility or scalability. Funding was supposed to be made available for the hydrogen car (another boondoggle proposal) and for FutureGen to see if carbon capture and sequestration was feasible. That this current administration failed to carry forward with the funding is completely due to POLITICS as usual. Had the funding been done and the projects properly managed it is likely that we would soon get an answer to whether or not these programs were potential solutions. Of course they were themselves the result of politics from the get go. I'm sure the politicos were being told by knowledgeable people that these approaches were high risk and low payoff. But they sounded good to the public.
If Obama's crew included highly knowledgeable scientists in energy and climate (and several other major problems we are facing down) who could steer him toward supporting research in promising areas he could make a bold statement that if elected he would support that research to find real solutions and not play patsy with, for example, clean coal or more ethanol, etc. These people exist and currently do feel that they are NOT being listened to. I know a few of them. So far I have heard vague promises of 'change' from the Obama camp and no substantive details about what he would do. If he had some recognized names in science on his team, I would at least feel like there might be some substance behind those sound bites.
I do not believe his advisers are incompetent in terms of their ability to talk to scientists. But they cannot possibly see the world the way a scientist does. And that is the real rub. It's essentially like C.P. Snow's Two Cultures, only between the scientific world view and the political world view. And I claim the nature of the problems we face today demands more of the former if we hope to succeed.
Some time ago the main interest of life were ownership claims, disputes, and resolution. Fair allocation of land and wealth were based on opinion, not scientific investigations. At that time the legalistic and political world views along with legalistic policy development were quite appropriate. The predominant conceptualization of economics served well to support policies aimed at moving this nation forward. But everything has changed. We made our decisions to pursue economic growth, home ownership, and technology innovation as means to prosperity. Now we know that these were not necessarily the best policies, or at least should have been pursued with more care. Nevertheless, the types of problems society faced pre-WWII were such that an opinion-laden approach to policy might have been appropriate.
Today the biggest problems facing society and the world are of a technical/scientific nature. Opinions cannot rule the day when it comes to deciding what the proper level of CO2 concentration should be. Nor is it a matter of opinion as to whether solar PV is scalable in a time frame necessary to produce the electricity to replace coal-fired plants. There is a reality that only a scientific approach can determine within an acceptable margin of risk.
I suppose I must accede to the seeming pragmatic argument that political maneuvering is a necessary skill in today's political environment. This is what makes me depressed. The politics of compromise to get some 'action' led to the Kyoto Protocol. And we now know, and the scientists you allude to are being more vocal about this, that Kyoto is way too weak. So where has compromise gotten us? Are we better off because we finally got an agreement? Should we pat ourselves on the back for finally getting some words on paper that everyone could swallow? Even when that agreement will do nothing to mitigate global warming? Have the politicians and policy wonks solved the problem? Can we use the slippery slope argument - that at least it's a start? Do we have time to push the sled further down that slope?
I think that everyone who has fostered the notion that the same kind of thinking that has dominated our history of policy development should dominate in our current situation needs to take many steps back, get a look at the big picture, and seriously examine the results to date.
In the end I am not talking about replacing Obama's advisers. I'm talking about building a balanced team including some of the top scientists (actually in the world, not just in America), and I include ecological economists in that category. I know for a fact that many of these people are quite ready to work with an administration that wants to actually solve problems and not just posture.
By the way, if it is politics that prevent taking action to actually solve these problems, what does that say about us?
Question your assumptions and beliefs. Question Everything
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:03 pm
23 Aug 2008
I have never read Snow's famous essay; but please know that as a "liberal artist" (foreign languages, classics, religion, philosophy), I have no prejudice against the natural sciences whatsoever; quite the contrary, I regret never having had a real opportunity to study any of them, in a practical, realistic way, nice and slow, to suit my thick-headedness.
Anyway, you have written many excellent things in this thread, including that last shot about politics: "What does it say about us?" Thanks, and please carry on!
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:59 pm
23 Aug 2008
First of all WE DON'T KNOW that we need to make a 90% reduction. Some people SUSPECT that - that is not the same thing as KNOW.
Secondly, who is "we" kemosabe? Who gets to decide how to get to 90% by when and how? Again, without installing a dictator who has absolute power, it is impossible to do what you appear to be suggesting here. And what happens when that dictator does not act in a way that suits Wolverine? You empowered him, not you're stuck with him.
The more the environmental movement wants to treat this as a national emergency, the more it leans towards giving more and more power to the Federal Government to remedy the crisis. Yet these are the same people that are very concerned about the Federal Government expanding it's powers at the expense of the citizenry in the war on terror. You can't have it both ways. If you want uncompromising approaches to deal with environmental issues - you have to give government the power to tackle them. Once you do that, you can't take that power back. Remember, there are other competing interests out there - your views are not the only legitimate views. If you want differing views swept away to achieve your goals and opposing interests swept away as well, you have to surrender your voice to achieve that. You can't maintain civil liberties and have the kind of massive social and economic restructuring you advocate here. Those two things are mutually exclusive. Compromise - which here is being eschewed - is a part of the democratic process. If you don't want compromise, then you want to do away with the democratic process and have a dictatorial process.
Hence my previous allusion to Idi Amin Green.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 5:09 am
24 Aug 2008
who, on this list will advocate for us and for our wilderness? i don't mean in some abstract "kill all our deserts to recentralize Big Energy which will result in higher GHG emissions while we greenwash it" way. i mean in a "you can't kill off our open spaces until you have exhausted all alternatives, especially point of use alternatives which engage residents in a combined conservation/ generation model. i mean in a "if you must have a few centralized solar or wind 'farms,' then you must site them on brownfields and Superfund sites within 5 miles of existing transmission and they may not kill birds, deplete aquifers, burn gas or otherwise poison our planet" way.
Climate change is either very serious - in which case, there is NO excuse for stalling on a Marshall Plan for every structure to head to Net Zero, or it's not that serious - in which case, keep your money-grubbing mitts off our deserts! these ideas about individual responsibility and energy independence should not even be controversial, it is only Big Energy propagandists distorting the truth that make these seem anything other than simple common sense. ratepayers, taxpayers, climate and ecosystems are all saved from ruin - sounds like a slam dunk, right?
these policies would neither require a dictator nor an enormous, expensive infrastructure which obliterates millions of acres of our wilderness, forces tens of thousands of people from their homes, and subjects us to another era of Robber Barons in Big Energy who will hijack us again, and bribe our government to keep them firmly entrenched. all it would require is a little vision, a very modest investment in America and Americans, and a refusal to allow Big Energy to subvert democracy. is that really too much to ask?
sorry, that's the only change i can believe in, and the ONLY ones who would object are Big Energy Monopolists. why are you people so willing to let them have the dictator role in our so-called democracy?
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
ids Posted 12:47 pm
24 Aug 2008
If Obama admitted his plan falls short of the science he recognizes, and he tells what others in the world beside New Orleans will be lost, how he plans to budget for it (surely more military spending) I might be able to respect him because at least it would be the truth.
Stopgreenpath,
Obama/Daley happy plan for the 2016 Chicago Olympics includes turning a beautiful meadowland 100+ years old Washington Park, into an temp Olympic stadium. Don't just listen to his speeches, you know.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:01 pm
24 Aug 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:36 pm
24 Aug 2008
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/6/0846/97393#comm ...
Your recent mention of cellulosic ethanol brought about the thought that you were job shopping. Please reconsider, enlist today, your country and the earth needs you.
Get Lovins and Lester Brown to talk to Obama once a month. Report on how the energy re-evolution is going. Like Henry Kaiser reported to FDR.
Their first job, get all three automakers mass producing carbon fiber plugin hypercars in the millions, yesterday. It's a matter of national and global survival.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
vakibs Posted 5:52 pm
24 Aug 2008
If the Obama team included people like David Goodstein, Ken Deffeyes, Richard Heinberg, and Mat Simmons (for financial issues) for energy, and oil in particular, or folk like Jim Hensen, Gus Speth, E.O. Wilson, and Paul Ehrlich for a holistic view of climate, biodiversity, and population, then I would be a very happy camper. What would make me even happier is to see Herman Daly and Robert Costanza on the economics team.
George.. you are right. Obama's advisors are all lawyers and no scientists. You should never get advice from lawyers, they are useful only in a debate with opponents.
But I think Paul Ehrlich was a guy who lost his time. His predictions have been disproved time and again. We need someone who better understands the population problem.
@Wolverine :
People can be very expert in a certain area but still advocate and aid the wrong policies, because their priorities and objectives are not protecting and restoring the environment. Let's not obsess on who is how much of an expert, but instead on who will advocate for the needed changes in lifestyles and technologies that will provide the best environmental results.
That is some dangerous thinking right there wolverine. You are giving up all pretensions to be objective, and say that your ideology must count for whatever reason. This is not exactly "liberal". This kind of thinking is good neither for you, nor for the environment.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 6:13 pm
24 Aug 2008
I never claimed to be a liberal. I'm not even a progressive, nor am I a leftist. My ideology re environmentalism can best be described as Earth First!, which means 1) protection and restoration of natural areas and native species is my first and foremost priority, 2) every species has an equal right to live or, to look at it ecologically, an equal part to play in the web of life, and 3) no compromise in defense of Mother Earth.
Because the Earth itself, its ecosystems, and its species are my priorities, the environment is my first priority. All else is secondary. That doesn't mean I don't care about other issues; in fact, I care about almost all of them. But the Earth comes first.
What is not objective about saying that Obama's energy advisors should be people who would provide the best environmental results? What do you mean by "objective," that people who advocate that selfish human desires should be given equal priority with the environment should have equal say? This has nothing to do with being objective or subjective, it has to do with advocating for the environment.
Permalink
vakibs Posted 6:20 pm
24 Aug 2008
Unlike what you might think, environmentalism is a science. As any scientific discipline, it means we need to value things such as objectivism, experimental validation, open debate ...
All these values also happen to be "liberal" values.
You might have good intentions, but you might get crappy results if you don't do environmentalism the right way.
What do you mean by "objective," that people who advocate that selfish human desires should be given equal priority with the environment should have equal say?
No. Being objective means having no prejudice, staying neutral about which method obtains the best results. This will only be decided by experimental validation.
Having a lot of "experience", having "good intentions", being a loud lawyer etc.. don't count when it comes to understanding complex systems such as environment and human interaction with it.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:44 pm
24 Aug 2008
"Unlike what you might think, environmentalism is a science. As any scientific discipline, it means we need to value things such as objectivism, experimental validation, open debate ...
'What do you mean by "objective," that people who advocate that selfish human desires should be given equal priority with the environment should have equal say?'
No. Being objective means having no prejudice, staying neutral about which method obtains the best results. This will only be decided by experimental validation."
It is true that being objective doesn't mean people who advocate selfish human desires should be given equal priority - or more properly equal voice - but being a liberal DEFINITELY means that those people have an equal say - or more properly an equal vote.
Wolverine doesn't care what these people think. He considers their views, indeed he considers them, to be illegitimate. They should have no say, no vote. You either agree with his radical view or you don't count. Wolverine knows full way that since his view is extremely radical the only way the very few people can achieve what he wants is by bulling and killing those who don't agree. The EARTH FIRST ideal he subscribes means by definition any means to achieve it is legitimate. He also knows that for politics to get human numbers down to what he considers acceptable for the earth, and for technology to be curtailed in ways he considers acceptable, would require a mass extermination campaign that would make the Nazis look like rank amateurs. Ask him to what lengths he would be willing to go to see the "Earth First" movement succeed.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 7:45 pm
24 Aug 2008
I am a liberal, and I don't fall in the earth-first camp. I would like to have a reasonable discourse amongst all humans and democratically decide on our problems.
But anyways, I still would like to have a discussion with wolverine and others of his kind. Even if they care about just earth (earth first) and don't care about human beings, I am trying to point out that their strategies might not succeed the way they want to.
I already had a discussion with Wolverine on this, and continuing on the same thread. The topic of our earlier discussion was about whether we should have an energy rich world or an energy poor world, and what will be better for the environment. I was arguing for the former.
Even if you are a hard core earth-first person, you should study objectively what is really good for the environment, and not just go with your prejudices. Environment is a complex system and we should study it in an objective manner. Only then, can we decide about what trade-offs need to be adopted.
(I think these trade-offs will be decided democratically, and Wolverine thinks these will be forced down our throat. But that's another issue).
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 1:42 am
25 Aug 2008
Ehrlich has admitted making that bet with Julian Simon was a big mistake - heat of the moment decision. He really has been keeping up however. Indeed, some of his predictions are starting to come to pass, just many years later than he thought. Have you checked out the prices of some metals lately? And the rate of fisheries decline is indicative of serious damage to oceans caused by human numbers.
Here is a more recent work by Ehrlich and his wife that updates some of his earlier thoughts.
Ehrlich, Paul R. & Ehrlich, Anne H., (2004). One With Nineveh: Politics, Consumption, and the Human Future, Island Press, Washington.
Here is their newest book. I haven't read it yet (on order) but I did hear an interview with Paul on the Diane Rehm show and he sounded pretty competent.
I would advise being careful in judgments about people's competency when they are acknowledged experts in things like population studies. You'll note in the Wikipedia article that several fairly prominent scientists agree with Ehrlich's thesis if not his dated predictions. The thesis is just a beginning for research, not its conclusion.
*****
For anyone else who is still reading this thread I will offer one final thought about politics and where we are today in terms of actually solving the problems humanity faces. Several people, at times, have skirted the real issue that plagues us. Lawyers, scientist, MBAs, etc. are all very smart people. Intelligence and creativity are not in short supply. What is in short supply is wisdom. Wisdom is quite different from the first two psychological constructs. Wisdom involves vision, altruistic motives, broad and deep tacit knowledge and produces good judgment.
The problem we face is the lack of competency in wisdom. There are actually evolutionary reasons for this lack. I write about it at my blog Question Everything and am deep in research on the topic. For references I recommend these readings:
Goldberg, Elkhonon, (2001). The Executive Brain: Frontal Lobes and the Civilized Mind, Oxford University Press, New York.
Goldberg, Elkhonon, (2006). The Wisdom Paradox, Gotham Books, New York.
Sternberg, Robert J. (ed.) (1990). Wisdom: Its Nature, Origins, and Development, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Sternberg, Robert J. (ed.) (2002). Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Sternberg, Robert J. (2003). Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized, Cambridge University Press, New York.
I know it is a lot, but the subject is extensive and at the root of all of our problems as a species. It wouldn't hurt to look into it more! The real question about our presumptive leaders is: Are they wise enough?
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
gmobus Posted 1:47 am
25 Aug 2008
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H. (2008). The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment, Island Press. ISBN-10: 1597260967
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:56 am
25 Aug 2008
There is no scientific discipline called "environmentalism." You might be thinking of the discipline of "ecology." Environmentalism means advocating for the environment. That advocacy can be based on science, but it need not be. The best environmentalists are traditional indigenous people, who are not scientists and whose views are not based on what you would call science.
And the most basic definition of being an environmentalist is advocating for the environment. If you don't at least do that, you're not an environmentalist by definition.
As to getting good results, you don't get good environmental results if you allow people to fashion policy who have motives other than the best environmental results. That was the point of my post. I never advocated that those making policy should not be properly informed about how ecological systems or other natural systems operate. But worship of western science blinds you to the fact that traditional indigenous people have known these things for at least centuries. Western science is too anthropocentric and reductionist to provide the best environmental results. Traditional wisdom should guide policies.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:03 am
25 Aug 2008
Re No. 1, people should avoid making predictions as much as possible. There are an almost infinite number of variables in life, so that making accurate predictions consistently is almost impossible. Add the problem that we don't come close to fully understanding natural systems well enough to make those predictions re time, and you get results like this.
Re No. 2, the fact is that because of gross human overpopulation, humans and their environmental and ecological footprints cover almost the entire land mass of the planet, to the detriment to all other forms of life. That alone is proof of overpopulation. Starvation is not needed to show that there are too many people.
Permalink
DavidRedstone Posted 8:16 am
25 Aug 2008
The problem with respect to politicians and energy policy isn't wisdom. What needs to be done should be obvious to anyone who has the requisite knowledge, regardless of whether or not they are wise.
The problem is courage. Political courage.
Consumer behavior finally started changing for the better when gasoline reached $4 a gallon. If the price slips back under $3 people will start buying SUVs again, start driving again instead of taking the bus, and gasoline consumption will start rising again.
If we want to break our addiction to oil, creating a permanent floor for gas prices somewhere above $4 is by far the most direct way of doing it. (We do it by raising the tax on gasoline to keep the price at the pump over $4 whenever the price of oil falls. The tax revenues can be earmarked for job-creating infrastructure projects or can be returned to consumers as tax rebates, or income or payroll tax rate reductions.)
Price is the most powerful signal. Consumer behavior with respect to gasoline consumption will change permanently for the better only if consumers know for a certainty that gas will never again be cheap.
Wisdom is not required to see this. Courage is required for a politician to say it.
What politician has the courage to tell the electorate this truth?
Joe: Do Barak's experts have the courage to tell him the truth? Does Barak have the courage to tell the electorate the truth?
David Redstone, Editor & Publisher, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Investor
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 10:16 am
25 Aug 2008
Take David's example of the changing behaviors due to rising gasoline prices. A wise choice would be to forgo driving because driving is bad for the Earth, regardless of the personal convenience it provides. But even people who know driving is bad for the Earth will not stop driving for that reason. This is not for a lack of courage, but because they foolishly place their individual desires above the interests of the rest of the planet.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:28 pm
25 Aug 2008
This kind of thinking is so wrong. Let's take a quick look at Easter Island. Here we have traditional indigenous people who completely destroyed their environment.
"Traditional Indigenous" people don't have some secret formula for protecting their environments. Most practice slash and burn agriculture. Native Americans that practiced any agriculture often used this form. What they have that appeals to your backwards ass is that they are privative. They don't have any technological capacity, not because in their wisdom they eschewed it, but because they lacked the capacity to develop it. They live lives that are harsh, brutal and short, just as our ancestors did. That's what kept their population numbers low - not because they practiced birth control and not because they didn't have sex.
Indigenous peoples of any location are not far sighted, and the ideals that are now projected upon them are laughable.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
vakibs Posted 9:23 pm
25 Aug 2008
Until quite recently, we had no need to worry much about exponential functions. So it was not a big part of culture or folklore. Then everything changed in the 18th century. The industrial revolution created a positive feedback in the economic system of our society. This positive feedback resulted in an exponential growth of our wealth. Parallel to that, there was an exponential growth in human population.
Now when we calculate the per-capita income of the society, you divide economic product (e^x) and with the population (e^y) and you obtain another exponential function e^(x-y). If we think intuitively, we might guess that both these effects cancel each other out. They do not, and the per-capita income indeed is growing exponentially.
What is funny about an exponential function is that if something is growing exponentially (y = e^x) even the rate of its growth will be growing exponentially (dy/dx = e^x). Your intuition will never help you in imagining this.
Why I say all this is because, Wolverine's thesis that indigenous populations have some collective wisdom to save the environment is totally wrong. The culprit is the exponential function. Indigenous wisdom is good at handling linear changes, but it is not sufficiently evolved to handle the effects of exponential destruction of our environment.
We take inspiration from these ideas, but we need a drastically new science to understand these effects. This is called "the science of environmental studies". There are several scientists working on this area, they model complex systems with computers and study the effects. This is why I said environmentalism is a science. As people who care about the environment, it is our duty to listen to what these scientists say. It is not about wisdom, or courage, or experience, or any other thing. The most important thing is to get rid of the illusions of our human intuition, and listen to real scientists. Courage or wisdom or anything else will come later.
@Wolverine
There is nothing inherently bad with western science, or philosophy. At a basic level, there is nothing that separates the west from the east. If you see bad things happening to the environment and the various species of the earth, it is not due to western materialism or blah blah. It is due to the exponential growth I mentioned. Eastern philosophy is no superior to western philosophy in addressing these challenges. (And I am an Indian who is quite interested in Buddhist thought).
Human beings are not the root of all the evil on this planet. We have been just hapless so far, under the violence of the exponential functions. Further, we are the only species on earth which can do art, science and most importantly which can understand compassion. No other species has this feeling. If humans disappear from this planet, so will disappear the feeling of compassion. Just as Buddha preached compassion to other human beings and every other species on the planet, so did Jesus. So please trust in the inherent goodness of human beings.
@George Mobus :
Just as any other scientist, Dr Paul Ehrlich deserves criticism over his failures. He has clearly misunderstood the relative speeds of our economic growth (e^x) and our population growth (e^y). This is not to take away the dangers of population explosion. But the danger will not be famine, or poverty, or lack of metals, etc.. but utter destruction of the biosphere. This is the real constraint to our economic growth, not the lack of energy or metals.
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 12:58 am
26 Aug 2008
But for those who realize that wisdom is the beginning of courage and action:
What is Sapience?
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
vakibs Posted 1:19 am
26 Aug 2008
And I don't have anything against courageous people, either !
But wisdom or courage are very subjective words, and can be made to mean right about anything. And I don't want to talk in abstract.
What I have made is a very strong case for the limitations of plain human intuition. Your gut-feeling is insufficient to deal with the problems we have right now.
What we need is an approach driven by experimental validation, observation, objective analysis and so on .. commonly understood as "science".
Let's think in terms of eco-dollars.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:00 am
26 Aug 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:14 am
26 Aug 2008
Hunter - Gatherer societies have lives which are very short. They don't "live in Harmony with nature", rather, they are part of nature. And nature is not your friend, or the friend of it's own myriad of species. Nature happily wipes species out, it happily causes enormous amounts of pain and suffering..........
There's no reading, writing or meaningful art in hunter -gatherer societies. In fact, there isn't much time left over to do anything other than hunt and gather. Your child gets sick, it just dies.
In any event, the world is not going to go back to hunter - gatherer socio - economic structure. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it. So how about if we talk about realistic possibilities and options and forget about impossible nonsense.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:23 am
26 Aug 2008
When I was on the Dine (Navajo) reservation in northern Arizona, I learned that the Dine consider all forms of life to be people; four-legged people, two-legged people, winged people, rooted people, etc. The anthropocentrism of modern humans was completely absent from their thinking. This love and respect for all life instead of just human life results in things like the traditionals using no electricity and no vehicles of any kind, with the exception of being driven to events to campaign against the U.S. government throwing them off their land at the behest of coal and uranium companies. And while I only got to spend part of a day at the Hopi reservation (we weren't supposed to go there, but I had a close friend who was part Hopi and he took me one day), they were at least as reverent toward the natural world.
It is certainly true that some indigenous people didn't respect the natural environment, or were just too ignorant of their negative impacts on it, and destroyed their civilizations. But to say that "[t]raditional Indigenous" people don't have some secret formula for protecting their environments" or that "ndigenous peoples of any location are not far sighted, and the ideals that are now projected upon them are laughable" couldn't be more wrong and just shows your complete ethnocentrism, if not outright racism.
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 5:36 am
26 Aug 2008
What's wrong with western science is what I said in the post to which you responded. Because you're anthropocentric, you find nothing wrong with science's anthropocentrism. Because you apparently have some relation to formal science, you don't see anything wrong with its reductionist approach to looking at the world. Whether something is "bad" is subjective, but I define it, for the purpose of this discussion, as anything that harms the natural environment. Western science and its thinking has certainly done a great deal of that harm. That is obviously not your definition of "bad," so there's no basis on which to agree.
You are also dead wrong about wisdom, because it's the only thing that can properly guide behavior away from being destructive. It can't come later, it must be out front. And you don't seem to understand what wisdom is. It is not intuition, though that can certainly be a significant part of it. Wisdom is the sense of knowing whether to behave or refrain from behaving in a certain manner when you have the ability to do so. As George has been so brilliantly pointing out, the root of our problems is that human intellect has run amok while human wisdom has been absent from important decisions. Part of the reason for this could be overdeveloped egos, but I think it goes beyond that.
And BTW, if humans are not the cause of the evils on our planet, what is? I suppose this depends on what your definition of "evil" is, but who or what else could possibly cause it? Consider these facts: 1) the human race fits the medical definition of being a cancerous tumor on the Earth, and 2) the human species interacts with the natural environment more like a virus species than a mammalian one.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:47 am
26 Aug 2008
Aggressive, self-regarding competitiveness has traditionally been considered by many (far too many) Americans as the mother of all virtues. The truth is quite the contrary.
Another great friend of mine, MadMac, also misses, when he states that hunter-gatherer societies do not create "meaningful art." We human beings have always created art, in every condition and situation. We cannot help it, it is what we are.
Thanks to Vakibs for bringing up the important subject of art -- though I doubt Wolverine ever has intended to be so thoroughly inhumane as to want to suppress it.
More puzzling is why George has seen fit to erect the new-fangled Frenchified term "sapience," over against good-ol' "wisdom": sapientia is just the Latin translation of Greek sophia and Hebrew hochmah, all of which are conventionally translated in English as "wisdom" (French sagesse, Spanish sabiduri'a).
"Wisdom" and "courage" are surely not so relativistically loosey-goosey as Vakibs suggests. But he is right to say that the way we identify specific examples of those virtues is suspect and tendentious.
Cf. the use in current public American discourse of the related term "hero," to mean anyone in military "service" (another questionable term) risking getting shot up in Iraq, in order to "defend our freedom."
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:04 am
26 Aug 2008
And in this context may I plug a book I am reading, and enjoying very much, which should be of interest especially to our friends up there in Washington and Oregon: "Lewis and Clark Through Indian Eyes: Nine Indian Writers on the Legacy of the Expedition," edited by (the late) Alvin M. Josephy, Jr. (Also, the contributor of the first essay, renowned Indian activist and writer Vine Deloria, Jr., happened to die as this book was published.)
Those lovable Seattle kids might like the essay by Mark N. Trahant, editor of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (though his subject is his Bannock and Assiniboine ancestry), as well as the more complicated and challenging one by Roberta Conner (Cayuse-WallaWalla-Umatilla).
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 6:09 am
26 Aug 2008
The basis of everything you wrote was that some people (such as the Hopi) are somehow intrinsically in tune with nature. While others (read here white people for sure - add as necessary) are intrinsically out of tune with nature.
When you ascribe character to an entire race, that is the definition of racism.
Having said all this, again, what's your point? You know that mankind is not going to turn away from modernity. There is no mandate for that, there will never be a mandate for that. You know it as well as I. So why don't you come back to reality. Your posts are full of wishful thinking. You might as well post about talking animals.
Wolverine: "Yeah, I was talking to the spider in my bathroom today. You remember him don't you? Well, turns out his name is Zypher, and Zypher was really concerned that I wasn't leaving the bathroom window open enough. The screen was preventing flies from getting through. So last night I am getting ready to go to bed, and I hear this blood curdling scream coming from the bathroom. What happened? Well, Zypher bagged Little Jimmy, a fly who lived back by the garbage bins. I told Zypher we're just going to have to find another way to take care of his diet. I can't have this mayhem going on in the house. Zypher's anthropocentrism has really become a cause for concern. I mean, he just doesn't respect the other insects living on the property. I'd hate to have to evict him, but I can't have any more murder going on around here. Maybe the cops don't care in this case, but I do."
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
gmobus Posted 6:52 am
26 Aug 2008
Check out Sternberg's work.
Here is a more elaborate bibliography.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
gmobus Posted 7:09 am
26 Aug 2008
Basically I use sapience to describe the brain-based construct that is the basis for wisdom. The latter depends on a wealth of tacit knowledge that has to build up over one's lifetime as well as a processing capacity to use that knowledge in judgments. Just like intelligence is a native capacity that a person could have, but fail to have used and so is ignorant, so too sapience is a capacity that may or may not end up producing a wise individual. There is a strong cultural component to whether or not someone acquires useful and valid tacit knowledge about life. I find it helpful to separate the brain processing aspects from the behavioral results.
Then too, as the vakibs post shows, there is still common confusion regarding what wisdom is or means. It is too much like the term 'information' that everyone uses, but few actually know the technical definition of it. Wisdom carries some semantic baggage, especially some religious interpretations, that I try to avoid when talking about a mental competency.
Hope this clears up the reason. (Didn't claim it was necessarily a GOOD reason!)
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:57 pm
26 Aug 2008
Traditionally, "wisdom" is a virtue of older people in a society, e.g. people with a personal memory of some fifty-year catastrophe (storm, flood, plague, drought, famine, volcanic/seismic episode, etc.), or of accounts of still rarer catastrophes as described by long-dead predecessors. That is a bit simplistic, but it is still the connotation of "wisdom" in current English: it comes with age. And if a young person should happen to give us good advice (e.g., on which button to push in order to silence the sweet jingle-jangle of one's cell phone during a theatrical performance), we attribute it not to that young person's "wisdom," but to some other intellectual excellence.
So do you believe that?: not that wisdom comes with age, necessarily (God knows, I am living proof that it does not!), but that the only truly so-called "wise" people are people who have been "around the block" a few times?
You are certainly right about the "religious baggage" that the word "wisdom" carries about with it. In Judaism, the concept is associated with Torah, and the commandments contained within Torah, and the reception of Torah by Israel and/or by individual Jews, and so forth.
In Christianity, especially in its Eastern Orthodox form, Wisdom is hypostatized (personified and anthropomorphized), and, as an aspect of God, is identified with the Logos, the Word, i.e. the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, "through whom all things were made." Therefore the great 6th-century church in Constantinople/Istanbul, Hagia Sophia ("Holy Wisdom"), commissioned by the Emperor Justinian, and probably the architectural masterpiece of Late Antiquity, is in fact dedicated to the Logos, aka Jesus Christ himself.
On the matter of your intersecting ovals: What does "affect" mean? I have indeed heard that rather recently invented term from the mouths of others, but cannot claim myself to be in control of it.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
PurpleOzone Posted 1:01 am
27 Aug 2008
The whole produce gas from grains of corn fiasco shows what happens when a bunch of stampeded politicians come up with a "solution". The idea of growing an entire plant to harvest a small fraction of the biomass, while using nitrogen fertilizers derived from oil -- needed more thought. How much oil goes in versus what comes out? We need process engineers or life cycle specialists who can think through the end-to-end costs of an idea.
Permalink
gmobus Posted 2:39 am
27 Aug 2008
So do you believe that?: not that wisdom comes with age, necessarily (God knows, I am living proof that it does not!), but that the only truly so-called "wise" people are people who have been "around the block" a few times?
I do feel that tacit knowledge is largely a result of personal experience vs. learning explicitly from authority. Oral traditions, where knowledge is passed on through stories, might have some role but I'm not familiar with any literature on that aspect. The relationship of age seems to be simply the amount of time it takes to integrate experiences into a building framework. Different experiences need to be parsed for their support of the central models one is constructing (subconsciously). A sapient individual will be better at this integration and end up able to apply 'better' tacit knowledge in later life, generally to a wide variety of wicked problems.
But the native sapient capacity has to be present in order for one to make best use of knowledge.
On the matter of your intersecting ovals: What does "affect" mean? I have indeed heard that rather recently invented term from the mouths of others, but cannot claim myself to be in control of it.
Affect is the catchall for emotions, feelings, drives, and other limbic system (reptilian brain stuff) functions. The relationship between these and intelligence/creativity was explicated by Antonio Damasio in Descartes's Error. That, at least, is the way I use it.
George
George Mobus,
Associate Professor, Institute of Technology,
University of Washington Tacoma,
and Professional Student for Life
Permalink