The Post-Normal Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He also now says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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