Civilization Faces Many Crises, So Let’s Abandon Science
Wednesday, I was lucky enough to attend a conference presented by the Institute for Integrated Economic Research, a non-profit research organization focused on developing an unbiased view of global economic processes. I’ll be interviewing one of its key people and a presenter at the conference, Nate Hagens, for my next book, and Nate wanted me to come up to speed on his thinking before we spoke, so that I could ask better questions when the time came.
I’m very glad I didn’t miss this opportunity, as there were a couple of important take-aways. First: there is no such thing as a “natural environment” left on Earth; there are PCBs in the arctic, and the blood streams of every one of us carry between 140 and 150 different synthetic chemicals. There is not a square centimeter of the planet, nor a single animal or plant species that has not been affected by human activity of some kind. We need to become active in restoring our environment, just as we are in restoring our man-made infrastructure so that it does not crumble and fall apart.
The second major theme was exploring the global economic scenario in which continued growth in GDP simply doesn’t happen. What happens to a civilization of seven billion, which is in the process of expanding to nine billion by 2050, if the meltdown that began in 2008 marks the beginning of an extended period of negative growth? I’ll skip the details, and simply say that grappling with these issues successfully will require our best minds in the humanities and the sciences. Even if we can bring such thinking to bear, the prospects are scary.
And here’s something even scarier. It is quite possible that this country may soon be led by a person who wields an utter contempt for science. Each of the Republican front-runners expresses this somewhat differently, but the dismissal of science as elitist, corrupt, or “just one way of looking at the world” is an important theme in the discourse of Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and of course, Sarah Palin.
Rick Perry dismisses evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it.” Isn’t that a remarkable thing for a man to say who wishes to be taken seriously in the 21st Century? In the circle of biologists, the theory of evolution has the same status as Newton’s universal gravitation and Einstein’s relativity have among physicists.
On climate change, Governor Perry tells us: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”
The idea that thousands of scientists are conspiring in secret to perpetrate a hoax is preposterous, and the second part of Perry’s statement is patently false: the scientific consensus about man-made global warming includes 97 percent to 98 percent of researchers in the field, according to the National Academy of Sciences. Moreover, the evidence is becoming stronger, not weaker.
If we as a civilization truly are facing existential threats in terms of global financial crises and environmental catastrophe, I’m not sure that this a good time to disregard science and create important policies based on “gut instinct” or whatever drives these people’s thinking.
I’ve read somewhere that about half of the Chinese government is made of engineers and scientists and Germany’s chancellor was a chemical engineer – why wonder why they understand which direction to take instead of wasting everybody’s time with senseless political rhetoric? By negating all advances in science, America, through its elected representatives, is heading straight to stone age. The enemy within is way more efficient than any external threat. It was a time when incompetents and illiterates were losing – now they win in a big way.
Even more than that. 98% of climate scientists that publish in climate science understand that we are ALREADY WARMING the planet. Most of the few remaining understand that even if it is not proven beyond all doubt that we are already warming the planet, then we WILL – given that 1/4 of the CO2 in your room right now and everywhere on earth was dug out of the ground and burned by man in the last 50 years.
Some (republocrat) politicians seek to skew the issue by seeking to establish guilt for anthropogenic climate change. The issue is not finding guilt for it’s cause, but to reverse or correct the problem at hand. Right now, the conservative focus is on jobs of any kind, which, if gained at the level of “status quo”, may well increase the problems with climate change on our only planet. It is quite probable that “deniers” have decided to give up hope already and become clinicly insane. To ere in the safe side of the balance can only benefit the people of the world. Those species that do not enhance the life support for their generation will perish. That is irrefutably proven natural law.
Why are you including Romney in your class of deniers of science? Last I read, he agreed there was no reason to ignore the warming climate. He isn’t fully on board with the most radical, forced economic shifts, perhaps. And while Gingrich is in a wishy-washy zone lately, trying to find a good mix of positions for electability reasons. But over time he has announced and published a number of reasonable program suggestions that do not deny science.
If both sides continue the absolute stereotyping and winner take all attitudes (us or them), we are assured an even stronger divide and and less productive leadership. Granted, to pick a name, Michelle Bachmann may create a stronger divide along anti-science lines. But, the more productive position would be to acknowledge and honor those with more reasonable positions. Having a Mitt Romney as president or a Newt Gingrich influencing policy is not the end the climate debate in my view.
Something just don’t seem right. (SJDSR). We are seeing that Reaganomics didn’t have the trickle down effect that he forecasted. The monies retained by the wealthy (people and corporations) has caused industrial growth to move into global area’s that aren’t as concerned or aware of the “law of unintended consequences” that happens when safeguards in manufacturing to protect the people and environment from harmful chemicals and processes are ignored. The costs are there and going to be bourn-currently they are localized to the environs of production yet our costs are being bourn on a macroscopic level by our earth. Our Prez is attempting to get the world back on track by rolling the costs of the repair back onto the backs of those folks that have been able to avoid the costs of harm and now he is faced with significant “gut feel” and well versed arguments that fly in the face of logic. SJDSR
While it is sad that folks like this exist in a modern world, sadder still is the prospect that they will gain followers and achieve positions of power.
http://www.project.org/images/graphs/US_Imports_Oil.jpg
http://static8.businessinsider.com/image/4cf6ee6049e2aee95a0c0000-400-300/were-not-looking-at-an-oil-price-shock.jpg
http://thismatter.com/money/forex/images/graph-merchandise-trade.gif
http://imagesize.financialsense.com/http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/users/u567/images/2011/civilian-employment-ratio-2011.png
The problems we are having is that the money has left the country, and what remains here is in the hands of a rich few…the middle class is gone!
While everything you say about the American presidential candidates is correct, I don’t think their views represent the views of the American people who are smarter than that. I also think that you are confusing American problems with world problems. America is rapidly becoming less and less significant in terms of the world’s direction. China, Germany, the UK, the UN, will nullify the US if they elect a moron, a denier, to the Presidency. The world had to suffer the stupidity of Bush, I don’t think they are going to be so willing to do that again.
Really something is wrong.
Each new idea passes through three stages in an accepting by persons mind. The first stage is – It is nonsense. The second one – Something reasonable in this is. The third is – Who does not know this.
We are talking now about survival of population as a kind.
But the danger does not visible to the majority, because, as maximum, now is the second stage of the ideas spreading.
The question is, have we time for passing to the third stage or not.
The second question is, what price we will pay for this, if we will have enough time.
The third question is, how to explain to people and to their leaders that a consciousness but not a paunch is an advisor to survival.
Here is a citation from a business letter. I’ve received it as an answer on proposal to allocate some money on nature protection installations for the plant. “The situation right now is that if I bring money to this project I will get less money for more shares that mean I will have to take more action for less revenue”.
Until success will be measured through quantity of money (the basis of consumer’s society) the third stage of ideas spreading of global warming never comes.
It means to the most of people to join to the majority.
Until people will use imagination “…if something terrible happened but not with me it is rather comedy or news…”, nothing will change.
Science, especially climatology or economy, here is forceless.
Dear Vitaly,
You have some very good points to express, and your passion is clearly evident, but you need to improve your English so that you can be understood.
Well, while certainly it has no statistical significance, it seems that no one is (strongly) disagreeing with your main thesis … that’s a good sign!. Vitaly’s point (whether we will have time enough to make it to stage three) is a very important one, as illustrated by Jared Diamond’s account on Easter Island’s End (Discover Magazine August 1995, you can find its text at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/24/042.html) and his comparison between Earth and Easter Island (as isolated systems facing ecological disaster and not being perceived by their dwellers early enough) at the final paragraphs. There may be hope after all, in the information era realisation of the urgency of taking action seems to be developing pretty quickly, I would say … lets keep on.
Dear Mark,
Correct my mistakes, please. It will be the first step to improvement. Otherwise, call me Yoda.
Dear Mark,
To be accepted by person’s mind each idea passes three stages. The first stage is: “It is nonsense”. The second one is: “Something reasonable in it is”, the third – is: “Who does not know this idea”.
The second stage of spreading is taking place now (as maximum) and the dander is not visible to the majority.
The question is: Have we time for passing to the third stage or not?
The second question is: What price we will pay for this, if we have enough time?
The third question is: How to explain to people and to their leaders that consciousness but not a paunch is a single advisor for surviving?
I’ve received an answer on my proposal to allocate some money for assembling a nature protecting installation at a plant. Here is a citation from the mentioned business letter: “The situation right now is that if I bring money to this project I will get less money for more shares that mean I will have to take more action for less revenue”.
While the success will be measured through quantity of the received money (the basis of consumer’s society) the third stage of the global warming idea never comes.
It means to join to the majority to the most of people.
While people will use an imagination: “…if something terrible happened but not with me it is rather comedy or news…” nothing will change.
Science, especially climatology or economy, here is feeble. (“Forceless” is from NY Times).
Is the text more clear now? But I’m still waiting your correction.
But of course! Magical thinking is a symptom! In the way that overcrowded species take steps to decrease excess population, maybe the USA represents the Lemming State! War, as retroactive birth control, hasn’t slowed down our self-destructive tendencies, nor has murdering highly educated physician in order to secure a difficult life for some small zygote. Drugs, all kinds, work too slowly. My suggestion is to give all political Republicans a free trip to a small tropical island right before a seasonal high tide. LOL
Sorry, I must go put a new battery pack in my car today…
Excuse me for intrusion into political life of other country. But, the down-to-earth ignorant, as leader, is better than highly educated social dreamer. You can give explanation using the simple definitions to the first one and 50:50 it could be successful. It is impossible with the dreamer. He is all in his virtual world. He tries to spread and to impose on own dreams despite of the real possibilities.
Sorry to sound like a broken record, but a huge part of our problem is simple ‘resistance to change’. Main reason why Palin and Perry may be even more resistant is they represent states with super-abundant fossil fuel resources, so they do not want change or questions which rock their profit boats. After all, its those resource and production profits which allow Texas (Alaska too?) to have no state income tax. Lots of taxes collected on conventional energy, at many levels.
To a large extent, the Republican politcal debates include politicians from pretty diverse states, both the haves and have-nots. Massachusetts (Romney-land) is an importer of its energy so can be expected to have a different prevailing view from reps from energy-exporting states like Texas and Alaska. Super-crowded, high population-density states like Massachusetts are also completely different territories, politically, from sparcely populated states like Texas and Alaska where land seems still very abundant and resources are almost free for as many takers as desire.
Indeed, look at our blue-red political maps nowdays. Is it odd that the more rural, less population-dense, more food-producing, less cities-dominated regions are leaning one way while the more urban, more population-dense, less food-producing areas seem leaning the opposite ways?
To me most of the current politics is abt proposed changes (of any kinds) vs status-quo of yesterday or even years ago. But I think this may be because some folks in rural areas who produce more of their own food, energy and livelihood are actually living in a kind of yesteryear in the view of modern high-pace white-collar city and suburb life where physical resource flows have gotten very abstract, where nobody touches or handles physical energy or waste, where pollution and commodies are figures on paper rather than physical things. For example, I hear most talk abt grid-tied storage-free PV financed by humongous subsidies and sRECs in the cities. Clients who call me from rural setting still ask more commonly abt storage, since they have storage in other aspects of their lives, from food to water and waste. So they understand that just like the crops they grow, they need to store it after harvest so they have some left for winter. Many storage-free RE users in the cities actually believe their electric utilities are storing their summer and fall PV surpluses until they need them to run their geothermal systems during winter! This schism is huge, demonstrating how modern city and suburb dwellers have become almost unintelligent abt their physical energy and resource flows.
Indeed, I read a technical book abstract recently in which the author lists “urbanization” as one main reason why there is a modern energy crisis. Urbanization has allowed users to become too abstract about and disconnected from their physical energies and other resources. If urban and suburban people needed to take deliveries of their weekly needed physical fuels, to actually see and handle them personally as people did in the 1900s, they would certainly develop a different perspective. Heck, just imagine if we changed zoning laws to FORCE all combustion powerplants and fuel refineries to be within eyesight of users! Instead, I can’t name any Midwest USA cities where any sizable percentage of urban energy-guzzlers can see their powerplants. Zoning rules force those eyesores out in rural areas, far from business and residential districts. Who gets to experience the majority of mountaintop removal, coal-fire smoke, fly ash deposition and water pollution? Too often it’s not the same people demanding the resources causing all that.
We need a new brand of leadership which allows people to see and understand these matters more clearly. We need more purchase decisions to be associated with all the environmental, social and economic consequences. As long as we have a vast disconnect between our decisions and their consequences, we can pretty much stay the ways we are, keeping our heads in the sand so as not to see the big pictures. Recall the old axiom: think globally, act locally. Too many of us right now are thinking locally, trying to act globally. Acting globally AND wisely is extremely tough since it takes more wisdom and patience. Me-Now m.o. which dominates America isn’t even a good fit.
The #1 most important goal for us ought to be to reduce our demand and use of energy and other resources. Globally there are more and more of us, so less to go around per person. Yet most RE advocacy doesn’t even include use or demand reduction goals anymore, allowing subsidies to flow even when usage and demand grow. So while we’re growing RE, we’re allowing conventional energy use and demand to grow almost 40 times faster. Kinda sounds like our national debt, right? These are all physical resource flows. If we think more long-term, we would focus more on cutting our usage, demands and costs so that our renewable and conventional supplies are more in long-term balance.
Texas and Alaska won’t like this. Nor will Kentucky or West Virginia or Ohio which produce a lot of coal. So we can expect a “some states vs others” conflict for the foreseeable future. That doesn’t mean we need to ignore our own missions and mandates: cut our physical resource use and demands for pollution. Our use and demand dollars may eventually have more democratic impacts than our votes in coming elections. My own home’s energy use? It’s down by abt 30% since 1998. Only some of that from RE. My car fuel use is down abt 60% since late 1970s. None of that from RE or modern (i.e. hybrid) technologies. Imagine if every aware person cut like that. What a powerful democratic vote! Ready? Ok, begin to act now.
I should explain what I mean by “acting globally”. Many of us (including me) buy vehicles made on the other side of the globe, fueling them with oil from the other side of the globe. When the food I want isn’t available locally (usually because of the season), I buy fruit and other items which are shipped in from South America where it’s summer while it’s winter where I am. Our nation fights wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya using moneys borrowed from China and Japan, rather than raising the funds from its own citizens. These are all examples of “acting globally” instead of limiting ourselves to more local actions, opportunties and resources.
There is danger to our modern global access since it allows us to be sloppier abt what we do locally. Why store food locally when we can ship it in from South America all winter? Why store solar energy for night or cloudy tomorrow if a smart grid in the future can efficiently deliver as much energy as I can buy over thousands of miles from someplace else where the sun’s still shining or wind still blowing? Why should I invest in a locally-supplied grease-fueled or farm-waste ethanol vehicle when I can cheaply buy fuel from the Middle East or North Sea? Why should I hire a local employee for a higher wage when I can outsource to cheaper labor in India or Indochina? These are all questions I’d not need to ask if I didn’t have an option to “act globally”. Back before global access, we needed to act more locally because that was often the only choice.
Energy-wise, the most local choice is how much we use, not how much we produce. Our lack of focus on substantial reductions in how much energy we use is another great example of how ‘acting globally’ has diminished our practice of acting more locally. No coal in my county but there’s plenty coming down-river from the Appalachian Mtns…
Same with water. Imagine Phoenix without the heavily subsidized water from the Colorado many many miles away. Why bother to use less if supply from over way over the horizon is cheaper and seemingly ad infinitum, even paid for by somebody else?
Read this, please. http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/4055.html?hq_e=el&hq_m=2287397&hq_l=4&hq_v=48bf396b28