book | Andy Arthur.org

Field Notes from Catastrophe

Andy | May 2, 2011

In the summer months I spend a lot of time reading down at the Town Park in the evenings. Recently with the coming of Earth Day and because it seems like energy is such a big issue these days, I have been reading a lot about Climate Change.

Kolbert’s book tries to bring home the message of the enormity of the problem that has been unleashed by the excessive concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. She gives several examples of her experiences on trips to see sea ice melting and climates changing, and how pronounced these problems are becoming in some locations. She writes in alarm about forces, largely masked by environmental inertia that threaten the well being of humans and the planet alike.

Most of the book is delightful stories about her experiences. She reserves the last chapter to pass judgment on the progress we as a country are making on climate change. By being non-judgmental and non-political in most of the book, she provides some insight on what is really happening now and what is likely to happen in the future. The last chapter is largely scornful of what she believes the lack of action on climate change, something she believes is a tragic mistake to face generations to come.

Her message is hopeful if not a bit cynical. She is realistic but pragmatic. She does make a good case for getting on a pathway of Climate Emissions Control, and doing something rather then ignoring the increasingly obvious consequences of what we as a global society have unleashed by the often uncontrolled and uncaring burning of fossil fuels.

Merchants of Doubt

Andy | April 6, 2011

A local Climate Activist suggested I take a look at a new book that came out last year, known as Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. As somebody who has had a longtime interest in Climate Change and Energy Policy more generally, I was excited to find it at the Albany Public Library. I brought it home on a Friday night, and spent half the night reading it from cover to cover. Merchants of Doubt is the story of “How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming”. It details and follows the lives of some of the most well known scientific contrarians specifically, the late S. Fred Singer, Jim Tozzi, and Steven Milroy. These people spent most of their later career criticizing scientific reports, emphasizing uncertainty and cost of implementing reform.

The book is very critical of these contrarians, arguing that they have both mislead the public, the media, and policymakers. The book says due to the abuse of science, many Americans and policy makers make bad decisions. The book also argues that artificial delay and debate over policy response has had a negative effect both on environmental and human health, and increased the costs of resolving problems. Yet, are all these concerns expressed in the book with the scientific contrarians really legitimate? I find that conclusion hard to accept. In a pluralistic democracy, having more voices is a good thing. It is good to have debate and allow “popularizers” on both sides of political debates to take scientific research and make it easily accessible to the public. Science is much too technical for the layman to understand it unless an effort is made to make it accessible.

One can make a legitimate complaint when a “popularizer” distorts scientific reality in a way that is completely contrary to what widely accepted research says. It for example is not right for a “popularizer” to claim that Man-Made Climate Change is not happening at all whatsoever, when the evidence is clear to the contrary. It is however the moral obligation for the popularizer to put that scientific research in context, emphasizing what he or she believes is the proper political context for it to be considered in. Smoking causes cancer. Excessive sulfur dioxide emissions from large power plants causes acid rain. Climate Change and the associated disruptions is caused by excessive carbon dioxide by the mass burning of fossil fuels. These are all well established facts. It’s not a fact that we should use control greenhouse gases or sulfur dioxide emissions – that is a political choice.

There are many policy choices that ought to be debated. Just because science can predict a result does not mean we should necessarily adopt any one policy. Some may try to dodge reality because it’s easier then facing the facts, or admitting the true costs of one policy choice. That is a bad thing. However, nobody should act just because the science says one should do one thing. It’s unfortunate that Oreskes and Conway did not make it clear that while facts should not be debated, policy choices should. We should look at the science, weight costs, and decide on action or inaction. Regardless, it’s a interesting read, well worth your couple of hours time.

The World is Flat (?)

Andy | May 30, 2008

A colleague of mine recommended I take a look at Thomas Friedman’s book on globalization called, The World is Flat. Admittedly, reading the first few chapters of his book I was quite cynical. I felt that Friedman was overly obsessed with the promise of high technology, and ignorant of the hard material realities of our lives made out of silage, corn, cattle, concrete, steel, coal, and oil.

Friedman didn’t even mention such things until later chapters of his book in passing. His version of globalization entirely focused on information as being the ultimate resource that people cared about. The quick and innovative ways of moving information is what is flattening the world and making it more equal. Friedman attributes more and more of our lives to the quick movement of information across our globe, and the ability collaborate on information intensive tasks.

Friedman is right in noting how information technology is changing our lives and the way products are moved around our country. There is little guess work on how much of a product is needed any more nor where any product is at any one time. This means less wastage and more predictability. Supply chains can be globalized and efficient in cases where this makes sense such as limited resources of certain natural resources in certain areas. It also means outsourcing and global collaboration.

There is no reason why certain tasks that can be easily put into electronic format must be done in house or down the street anymore. As Friedman notes, with the Internet there is no difference between data transmitted from across the street or information transmitted from across the world. And unbeknown to many Americans, millions of Chinese and Indians are coming to age, and getting the knowledge needed to preform these tasks. There literally will be hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians who have grown up in the Internet age and will be able to do many of the tasks Americans might otherwise do.

Global collaboration is an exciting possibility. We should be tapping into the knowledge and unique experience of all of what the world has to offer to us. With inexpensive fiber optic technology being able to transmit information worldwide at minimal cost, it can bring a lot of information to us virtually for free. This is much different then just a generation ago when making a long distance phone call across the United States was an expensive luxury. There is a lot fewer limitations on the movement on information but not necessarily product, especially in an era of high oil prices.

At the same time, those hundreds of millions of Chinese and Indians will be able to tap into American products and services that might otherwise unavailable in their country. Specialties that Americans develop and refine, and take advantage of our unique culture, that can be transmitted over the Internet may someday be very valuable in an increasingly globalized world. Friedman argues that our culture and education must be changed to adopt the folkways of globalization.

I disagree. People should learn to embrace other cultures and understand their differences. Societies that choose to engage or partake in a specific activity should not be penalized for being uneconomic. There are many reasons why peoples are across do things differently from belief to compatibility with varying environmental factors where people live. There need not be any forced culture.

As a whole Friedman makes some interesting points but puts too much faith in technology. Technology is not energy and technology does not feed or cloth us. The best computer program in the world won’t fix the worlds problems and our lives can not be digitized and sent over a fiber-optic cable. Energy comes from coal or oil, and is a finite resource that comes under increased demand as China and India comes to age.