Story of Stuff

This is very well done, except that it makes a common - and, to me, fundamental - mistake. At the beginning, it describes the Earth as a closed system... meaning that we have a limited supply of resources. This "scarcity of resources" paradigm was true for thousands of years. However, it is no longer true... because we have the scientific capability to get all the energy we need from the Sun. I am very concerned about the environmental challenges we face. However, I am also concerned that people continue to be taught that there is a limited supply of energy available to us here on Earth. The only limit we truly face is the fact that - in our minds - we think we can only get energy from what's physically here on Earth... as if the Earth is a system separate from the larger system of our Solar System. When we realize that the Earth is part of the Solar System, then we know the energy from the Sun should be factored into the process of answering the question "Where are we going to get the energy we need in the future?" If we don't include the energy from the Sun in that answer, we are denying ourselves access to the greatest source of "free fuel" there is. So, I applaud the people who made this film. Their hearts are in the right place. But I have to point out that their minds are not yet aware of the fact that the Earth is not "a system unto itself". The Sun is out there, waiting for us to use it as a free source of energy. That's the true "materials economy story". And, in my humble opinion, the knowledge that we live in a system in which a limitless supply of energy is available to us if we look beyond planet Earth for its supply has the potential to transform humanity... to help us transition to a post-scarcity based global socio-economic system. As Buckminster Fuller used to say, "There is no energy crisis. There is a crisis of ignorance."

Steve

The sun has poured energy into the earth from the start. Sunlight is the basis for growth of all plants, n ot to mention the atmospheric heat that keeps temps within human limits. IGravitational pull creates the tidal energies on earth. think folks know there is this large source of external energy available. One issue for me is whether we can husband the limited earthly resources we have until we can harness the technology sufficient to build the enormous amount of solar energy collection capacity needed to effectively capture it for human use. Also, even if energy is for practical purposes, limitless, capturing and transforming it undoubtedly has consequences, and there are other resources which are not limitless. JFinally,just because it might be possible to squander huge amounts of resources does not mean it is necessarily the best approach to living.

Thanks for the feedback, Mel. From my perspective, it's all about political will (which is a product of both "the will of the voters" but also "the will of the global business community"). The International Chamber of Commerce released a "policy statement" document today - timed to the Bali conference - entitled "Business perspectives on a long-term international framework to address global climate change". I would like to see a similar document released by the ICC addressing the need to move beyond a "scarce resource" metal paradigm / business model. Also - regarding financing the shift to solar - I take obvious note that when our political leaders choose to do something like wage war (any war, not just the Iraq war), they "just do it" and worry about where the money will come from later. Am I saying this is the right thing to do? I'm not sure. But what i do know is that money is a human invention. We have the capacity to forgive debt, for example. So, I wouldn't worry about the cost. However, like you, I am concerned about getting from here to there... about surviving this transition period. But I believe this challenge can best be faced once we know that we are actually - all of us, worldwide - going through this transition period. A global statement - orchestrated by the UN or by the USA (or by some other global leadership entity) - is what is needed... and soon. Perhaps it will come out of the UN's Decade of Education for Sustainable Development... a fascinating initiative, to me, since it is focused on Learning (not so much on Doing). At the launch event for the DESD, I heard Gunther Pauli say "We must teach our children to be smarter than we are... to come up with solutions that go beyond what we know." This was a very hopeful statement. As for the "consequences" of living in a world of limitless energy... I would love to have the "problem" of dealing with the global psychological / cultural challenge of helping people adjust to a world "beyond scarcity". Give how much damage we've done to our planet... and to each other... because we believed there's not enough for everyone, I think the question "How do we live in a world in which we have enough basic energy - while other things are still limited?" would be an excellent cultural design challenge to tackle. I am definitely NOT into "squandering huge amounts of resources". What I AM into is relieving humanity from the burden... the fear... of having "There isn't enough for everyone. So, I have to get enough for me, my family, and the other people I like... and the rest of the world can worry about itself." in the back our its collective mind day after day after day. In other words, I want to put Darwinian - Malthusian Economics to bed once and for all. There is enough for everyone. It's time humanity starting figuring out how to live in accordance with that physical reality. It won't be easy. But it's a heck of a lot smarter than continuing to think we live in a world that no longer exists. That - some would say - is the definition of insanity. By the way, I just went to what appears to be your web site ( http:// www.jbsinternational.com ) and saw this... "Since 1985, JBS has provided consultation on social and health policy and program management, science and health services communications, and special initiatives to reach populations experiencing health disparities. Our JBS team of more than 200 full- time technical and support staff members offers expertise in child, youth, and family issues; criminal and juvenile justice; health care services delivery and financing; housing and economic development; mental illness; and substance abuse prevention and treatment. Our staff members work on programs targeted to populations of all ages and developmental stagesfrom infants to older adultsand on services that meet the needs of special populations, including people for whom English is not their native language." Is that your company? Even if it isn't, perhaps you and I should seek other members of the FSB group... form a Special Interest Group on this topic... and draw up a straw man document on the subject of shifting from a "Me against you" to a "Me and you" world. Would that interest you?

Best regards,
Steve 

Dear Steven:

Thanks for bringing this link to our attention. It is well done! You leveled your criticism of the "Story of Stuff" based on its suggestion that "resources" are finite. However, your comments only take a vague stab at one category of resource: energy. I personally am not an energy analyst. But, one of the world's leading thinkers on energy matters suggests in a concise little two page paper, that solar power is nowhere near being capable of meeting our present demand for energy, never mind keeping up with acceleration in our rate of energy consumption. Vaclav Smil wrote this little two-pager for the OECD Observer; see the PDF link below. Smil argues that the first principles of physics and engineering (Smil puts these in basic language) as applied to non-fossil energy sources like solar/PV technology simply do not allow for the near-term substitution of oil, coal and the like. In short, beware the sellers of quick fix energy alternatives. There is likely a lot more science and engineering to be done before any type of painless transition to renewables is going to happen. A partial solution, hopefully? But I don't see any evidence to suggest that our energy problems are over. To the contrary, as suggested in the "Story of Stuff", we are increasingly moving into a waste-to-energy economy. Burning our garbage is frankly a lot more scary than burning oil, gas or coal. While investments in developing solar technologies are indeed a good thing, innovation and concrete action on conservation of energy and resources are still likely the lowest hanging fruit on the tree of policy options. As they say, the most efficient bulb is no light bulb at all!

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/pdf_pubs/oecd_observer.pdf

Cheers, Neil

Hi All,

Yes I agree it is incomplete - it will be, as it is an overview. There is a lot more that could be fleshed out! But very good for communicating to people for whom these ideas might be new, and sparking debate. I disagree with the argument that we don't need to be worried about resource scarcity (which is a separate issue from energy scarcity), in fact I worry about what a limitless supply of clean energy would do. Allow us to consume more resources faster and faster I suspect. Apart from finite resources such as metals and fossil fuels, there is only so much bioproductive space on the planet, and it is this which is the limiting factor - the sun's energy may be unlimited, but there is a limit to the agricultural basis on which human civilisation rests (net primary productivity = plant matter produced by photosynthesis from solar energy). http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/2007/2007_plants.html

I am not a scientist and by no means an expert in this area nor have my head around it completely, so maybe someone else can provide further clarification?

Cheers!
Sharon
 

Are you saying we can't find the physical "stuff" necessary to build a solar energy-based global power system? We seem to be doing okay at building thousands of windmills all over the world (including, from the recent story broadcast on 60 Minutes, Texas). Every time a new technology has appeared that would make society a better place (according to the cultural definition at the time), "society" has figured out how to make the change. From horses to automobiles. From candles and kerosene lamps to electric lights. From land line based telephones to cell phones. Tearing down everyone's vehicles and homes to get rid of everything run on petroleum? Why do people keep saying "You won't do that over night."? Who's saying we will.. or that we need to? The whole "overnight" thing is a red herring. Sorry. The first cell phone was almost as big as an Army field phone from WWII. That was in the early 1980's. And the last time I checked, a lot of people already live in homes heated by electricity. You mention technical problems as if no change can be initiated unless we've solved all the technical problems first. That's not how change happens. First you have the vision. Then you have the commitment. Then you solve all the technical challenges... in part by including the people who say "It can't be done." in the conversation to help you identify all the challenges you need to solve. To those concerned about where all the resources are going to come from, I suggest you read Winning the Oil Endgame.. the comprehensive study produced by Amory Lovins and his team at the Rocky Mountain Institute. With forwards by such diverse people as George Shultz and Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, it's available for free here... http://www.oilendgame.com/ "Winning the Oil Endgame" does not champion a solar energy alone based strategy. And neither do I. But I use the subject to jar people... to get them started in Thinking Differently... because that's the only way we're going to get to the better future that's waiting for us. And as for the challenge suggested... that everyone is going to want "fine cars, artwork, a tranquil spot in the woods, etc"... I say "Why do people always think that a world beyond scarcity is one where everyone demands to have 'everything'?" The values the cause people to want to consume, consume, consume are NOT values we are born with. They are values we are taught. "Fostering Sustainable Development" has always meant, to me, that we deal with cultural values in addition to physical and technological challenges. There is such a huge difference between growth and development. We are taught that "growth is good". But what is really good is development... continuous learning and improvement... which is not the same as growth. Only a person with twisted values would say "I want everything... more and more of everything" in a world where they grow up learning that the macro cultural belief is abundance, not scarcity. We have a huge job ahead to transform our cultural beliefs. It's all part of looking in the mirror and realizing that a sustainable future isn't just about "those other people" living differently. And it's not just about saving energy and reducing resource use. British historian James Burke produced a number of television series that documented all the changes human society has gone through over the centuries. His first series - in the late 1980's - was called "The Day The Universe Changed". The other series were called Connection, Connections 2, and Connections 3. I highly recommend watching them, because they give you a larger perspective on what has happened in the past (some really big cultural changes!). Here's a link to the opening of the first episode of Burke's first series... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj9OB3Lq-ig Pretty much all the rest is on YouTube. And here's a link to the first part of a celebration of the 25th anniversary of James Burke's work... and his current Knowledge Web project... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGdc8cQNHfI

Happy Learning!
Steve

Steven G. Brant
Founder and Principal
Trimtab Management Systems
303 Park Avenue South, Suite 1413
New York, NY 10010
(646) 221-1933
Skype: stevengbrant
[email protected]

> I am not a scientist and by no means an expert in this area nor have my head around it completely, so maybe someone else can provide further clarification?

I think it's high time that those of us who "aren't scientists" stop apologizing for what we don't know. Some infinities are larger than others, and the infinity of what scientists don't know as scientists is, I suspect, larger than your garden-variety person-on-the-street infinity of unknowns (metaphorically speaking, of course). Scientists provide limited interpretations of even more limited data - and they know it. That's why they've been understating the effects of climate, and continue to do so. The rest of us (including scientists in their capacity as citizens) have to formulate and implement policy, which process is far more dependent on vested interests and influence than it is on data. We have more than enough data to turn policy from nonsense to sense should we choose to do so.

Sharon, I think that your non-scientist assessment of scarcity is right on the mark, and while requests for further information are always in order, no apologetics are necessary.

Cheers,
Adam in sunny, unseasonably chilly Lexington, Massachusetts, New England (U.S.A.), where the ski slopes are flightly and fluffy, and global warming is no more

To all:

Hydrogen fusion is another really promising technology, and very near implementation, as per this video from Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. But what it will take is multiple sources, and I hope our next president, whoever that be, will take a radical stance and ask the world for a truce while we take our military surge money and dump it into a renewable economy surge. http://www.pppl.gov/fuelingthefuture.cfm

Best,
Sally

Absolutely true that other resources besides energy are scarce. But I don't think solving the renewable energy problem will necessarily lead to further over-consumption of other resources, though it is a double-edged sword. As the video said, our government needs to step forward to help move us away from the "Golden arrow", and we all have to change our mindset on disposability. Hopefully, the scrape with dwindling fossil fuels and knowledge of global warming issues will remind us that all of earth's resources are finite, and our mindset will be pushed in total in a sustainable direction. The sense of urgency is real, not manufactured by the people who made the video any more than corporations and oil companies lead us to believe that we need stuff. No, it can't be solved overnight, and it may be entirely impossible to create a zero-waste economy, but we can prioritize and start with our most lavish and toxic wasting with very rational and practicable campaigns. Information and "re-programming" of our consumer minds is one key. I plan to spread this video around, even if it isn't perfect, as you said, it's a good overview and sparks debate. Thanks for passing it along. And the NASA article-the last paragraph the most telling-knowledge empowers us. I don't believe we will be able to feed everybody if we throw science out the window. The key is to use scientific methods purely, meaning unbiased, communicate clearly to non-scientists and policy makers, and support the policy makers that make honest decisions designed to help all the people, not just the ones who can own and buy stuff!

Best,
Sally

Steve,

I'm just an average "Joe" ... but, need evidence of your claim! You're insinuating that the world has unlimited "resources". Apart from sunshine, what else do you put in this "unlimited" category and what evidence do you have to make the claim? Be it sunshine or hydrogen, the key piece of business is how you take an abundant resource and convert it to usable energy. And as for forests, fresh water, wildlife habitat, etc., ... they're renewable in theory, but as the Story-of-Stuff suggests, they're not being managed as such. You can't even a wind farm on to the power grid without massive quantities of iron, copper, cement and gravel, all of which are now under major demand pressures in the market. Furthermore, making any of these usable, requires large quantities of diesel fuel. In considering recent innovations like cel phones, we need to bear in mind, that the ease with which engineers have been able to convert fossil fuels to usable energy remains absolutely unparalleled. I'll go out on a limb and say that the basic science and engineering that brought us the cel phone would not have happened nearly so rapidly without this easy conversion of fossil fuels. Virtually all progress since the industrial revolution has depended upon this fact. And just as the conversion process got easier as we moved from burning wood, to coal and then to oil, the evidence suggests that conversion will get a lot more difficult as we move away from oil. It is the first principles of science that dictate this trend, not political will. I do agree that if motivation and cooperation are strong and widely shared -- as was in WWII and the race to the moon -- great, even unbelievable things may be accomplished. But, do we see a global war on climate change and fossil fuel energy, with unity and zeal that mobilized during WWII? I hope I'm wrong, and this cooperation and fortitude can actually be realized in the very near future. However, when you see the "Who Killed the Electric Car" fiasco earlier this decade, it's hard to argue that our forces are so united. And unlike the WWII era, today bureaucrats seem to hold a comparable measure of control as do the politicians. Unfortunately, I'm not aware that anyone is really studying and measuring this trend today. But, our collective interest and efforts around fostering sustainable behaviours, really must consider the impediments of bureaucracy, as well as the mustering of political will. Well, at least, we're on common ground on the need for political will.

Cheers,
Neil

I tend to think of the open / closed earth system issue in terms of rates of energy transfer - fossil fuels represent a fortunate windfall of accumulated solar energy that we have been able to harness to escape the resource limitations of local ecosystems to get us to the ambiguous situation we are in today. Until our demand for energy shrinks to represent whatever fraction of solar radiation hitting the earth can be 'spared' from ecosystem services (we like plants, weather and all the rest don't we?) AND we can harness it efficiently, we might as well be in a closed system for all intents and purposes. Our species and civilisation have a brief window of opportunity to invest that energy capital wisely for our future. The only other 'outs' from the limits imposed by energy ultimately sourced from the sun hiting the earth's surface that I can think of off the cuff are nuclear energy (limited capacity, many undesirable consequences), tidal (part of the mix but not for everyone everywhere - same for wind which is a secondary use of solar energy), or accessing solar energy from off the planet and transmitting it back to earth (technically extremely challenging and possibly also undesirable - giant space laser anyone?). So yes, while I agree that the Earth is an open system in principle, and the sun is where it is at for our energy future, there is no purely technological fix to our energy consumption problems and we shouldn't pretend there is. Which us brings back to social change and economic transition....

One of my favorite Quotes - from an old magazine article about the solar car race in Australia (author unknown). I have had it on my wall for years. "The entire Earth is a solar panel. Fossil fuels are the battery, one that cannot be recharged. When the fuel runs out, we will be forced back to the daily dole of energy from the sun just like the other animals, insects and plants." I think that sums it up pretty well. Nothing is limitless we need to learn to live in balance with the inputs that we have.

Thanks & Adios,
CJD ----

Carol J. Dollard, P.E., LEED AP
Utility Engineer
[email protected]

Dr. Kaufman-

You are dead on target. We are in a short window of fossil energy. However, I do believe massive conversion to wind and solar, both PV and solar steam would help very much. Both of our countries are laden with sun and wind. But- look at how miserably Los angeles has continually failed to reach any pollution reduction targets. I have been surveying water use in LA, and it is appalling. At this moment- the primary water providers know how dire the future is, and our Nat. public radio is telling LA how dire it is. Yet, there is no movement on the ground. LA will definitely be in the same spot as Australia in a couple of years, with no idea how they got there. I interviewed several local water providers that have not done one single water efficiency upgrade project, in an area with among the highest per capita water use in america. I felt a strong perception there that if one is wealthy, then one is allowed to use all the water one wishes to. Truly a place where ego supercedes physics and the laws of nature. Given the immense level of complacency in LA re water use, how quickly could LA and Cal switch to green energy? I see it going the same way as green housing in colorado- only for the very wealthy, who have the capital to invest in it.

Laurence Budd, CLT, CLIA

www.urban-water-conservation.com
cell 970-402-3216
off. 970-490-1080

As a scientist, I certainly agree that you don't have to apologize for not being a scientist, but if you are a policy maker that ignored a scientific consensus of several scientists, you should be apologizing. Scientists are people, like myself, who live in the world and have kids and a house, who make dinner and clean our own toilets, who put on pants one leg at a time, go to work, and sometimes make mistakes. Speaking for myself and all my scientist friends, we try our best just like everyone else at their respective jobs, to do what is asked of us. We found in high school that we were smart at doing certain things, and followed that path through college and often graduate school. We got jobs, and mostly don't get to choose what we work on, like those who were told to build an atom bomb. Our job is to follow certain protocols to investigate how things work and find things out, and we hope they are useful things that empower everyone. We also are often mistrusted because sometimes we don't communicate our findings well enough, and sometimes because people don't like hearing what we have to say, and sometimes the information or inventions we provide have been misused by people trying to profit from them. We don't know everything, and we are the first to admit how little we know, and tend to apologize for not knowing more. There are no people in the world who don't use science, even if it's just the technology harnessed by that very early unknown scientist who figured out how to use fire. If you are reading this, thank a scientist.

Skol,
Sally

This is a good overview, Stefan. The only thing I would add to your list of energy sources non-solar in origin is geothermal. Some would have it being potentially very significant. Of course, accessing and using it will require a large infusion of energy and resources in itself -- just as all the alternatives will. To me this is a compelling reason to husband the oil and gas we have rather than squander them as if they were unlimited.

Joel Gagnon

Hi Sally

I don't buy that a scientist has no choice not to build a bomb, or a GMO monster gene, or a better torture device. Scientific decisions are not amoral. Every citizen has, I believe, an obligation to make those decisions and act accordingly. Pete Seeger did that years ago, for example, when one of the Weavers sold a song to a tobacco company, and he quit one of the best folk groups ever to walk the planet. Said Pete: "We didn't need the money that bad": http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120407A.shtml

In any case, I'm not attacking scientists, I'm only pointing out that they play a part in a system that directs and limits them in ways that may not be driven by science. Nor is a "consensus of several scientists" necessarily a reason for a policy decision - scientists, like the rest of us, often have agendas of their own. Not to mention the inherent limitations of scientific findings and the nature of scientific revolutions (thank you, Thomas Kuhn). People often distrust science and its twin, technology, for good reason: scientific and technological "progress" are what brought us climate change in the first place, along with many other horrors, from Hiroshima to PCB's and CFC's. Policy is complex, and science is only one consideration, varying in importance depending on the situation. I do agree that science is of considerable importance with respect to moving on climate, but ultimately policy decisions are made in response to political pressure. Political pressure is a function of culture, and until we understand how lethal all our toys and conveniences are, that pressure will be missing.

Cheers,
Adam

So Adam,

you say you're not attacking scientists, but you say "People often distrust science and its twin, technology, for good reason: scientific and technological "progress" are what brought us climate change in the first place, along with many other horrors, from Hiroshima to PCB's and CFC's." You point out the negatives very readily, as you sit at your computer in a warm abode utilizing numerous products of science as you type. You also have the choice not to use these things. You could eschew the computer and internet, products of science & technology, and consider walking the planet, like Pete Seeger, to preach against these evils. You're very lucky if you've never been sick, gone to a doctor, used modern, relatively painless dentistry, or even taken an aspirin. People are ready to jump all over scientists when they hear something bad, but happily turn around and use all those conveniences and life-saving technologies without even pausing to think that those things also came from science too. Everybody created the demand for all these things, both evil and good. DDT, for instance, saved millions of lives, but the bad effects were not known until years later, and then were also pointed out by scientists, just like global warming has been for a number of years, but people didn't believe it. We too easily allow ourselves to accept when we're told everything's fine, rather than have to give up our conveniences or think too hard about how we do things. Certainly there are scientists with agendas, but I'd trust a decision based on the consensus of a number of scientists before I would trust a decision based on pressures from any other sources, especially when a science-mistrusting populace is misinformed by politicians and commercial interests with sharp marketing campaigns. "Progress" has to be re-defined not in terms of economic growth but planet-wide sustainability. I don't believe that can be done without science, and with that paradigm has to be an increased flow of information among all parties--scientists, policy-makers, and the population at large. I think the video said that very well.

Skol,
Sally

Interesting quote, Carol. To the best of my recollection, those old solar car races require the use of solar energy converted by solar cells. There is no battery technology involved that saves the energy use at night (for example). Why people who say they want to create a better future are satisfied to only consider technology as it has existed in the past.. and refuse to allow for the entire subject of Innovation is beyond me. There is a quote Al Gore uses in his "An Inconvenient Truth" presentation that I believe helps get to the core of this "mental model" challenge. The quote goes something like this... "It's difficult to get people to see the world differently, when their paycheck depends on them not doing so." I am NOT saying that everyone who believes we live in a world of limits and / or that the Sun's energy is not a practical aspect of the solution to creating a sustainable future believes that because their salaries depend on maintaining those beliefs. I am, however, saying that the whole of our society is mentally "wired up" around continuing to use those beliefs... those patterns of thought.. that we are used to using. To give up a set of beliefs is a very difficult thing to do... whether there's money involved or not. Perhaps Einstein said it better than the person Al Gore quotes, when he said "The specific problems we face cannot be solved with the same thinking that got us into those problems in the first place." I am enjoying the dialogue with you all, but it saddens me to see the degree to which so many people are past (rather than future) thinking focused. To think we can create a world That Has Never Existed - a sustainable world in the context of an industrial society model - using only that which is already known denies the entire concept of human technological and sociological evolution. I was happy to read the comment from the person who thanked me for mentioning "The Day The Universe Changed" by James Burke, because it showed me that there is a recognition in this group that we are truly engaged in bringing a new world into being (not just stopping some bad stuff from happening)... a new world that requires new thinking. That series and its sister series (Connections 1, 2, and 3) have tremendous potential to teach people the story of humanity's ever evolving process of changing what it believes "the truth" to be... in many different aspects of society, but especially the technological. It is being used to this date as an educational took in a great many schools. Here, once again, is the YouTube link to the beginning of that series... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj9OB3Lq-ig One thing I am looking to set up is an on-line opinion survey. I want to survey the members of this list to find out how many believe in a limited resource / fear-based mental model and how many believe in an abundant resource / hope-based mental model. I'll post a link to that survey as soon as I can... (unless there's someone in this group that has done surveys before and can do one more quickly). Are there any on-line survey experts in this group?

Steve Brant

Hurrah, for a sobering and truthful reply.

Thank you.
Lucille Bertuccio

Hi Sally -

I don't buy that a scientist has no choice not to build a bomb, or a GMO monster gene, or a better torture device. Scientific decisions are not amoral. Every citizen has, I believe, an obligation to make those decisions and act accordingly. Pete Seeger did that years ago, for example, when one of the Weavers sold a song to a tobacco company, and he quit one of the best folk groups ever to walk the planet. Said Pete: "We didn't need the money that bad": http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120407A.shtml

In any case, I'm not attacking scientists, I'm only pointing out that they play a part in a system that directs and limits them in ways that may not be driven by science. Nor is a "consensus of several scientists" necessarily a reason for a policy decision - scientists, like the rest of us, often have agendas of their own. Not to mention the inherent limitations of scientific findings and the nature of scientific revolutions (thank you, Thomas Kuhn). People often distrust science and its twin, technology, for good reason: scientific and technological "progress" are what brought us climate change in the first place, along with many other horrors, from Hiroshima to PCB's and CFC's. Policy is complex, and science is only one consideration, varying in importance depending on the situation. I do agree that science is of considerable importance with respect to moving on climate, but ultimately policy decisions are made in response to political pressure. Political pressure is a function of culture, and until we understand how lethal all our toys and conveniences are, that pressure will be missing.

Cheers,
Adam

Holy Gosh Folks! You're missing a big one! Possibly the biggest one! PLASMA FUSION! I posted it in the last set of emails, but apparently nobody noticed. And it seems the folks at US DoE, the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab and others just don't have the snazzy marketing campaign that the solar and wind people have, who are mostly in conjunction with the coal-burning power companies. Those are available now, but putting massive resources into them may not be the answer. Fusion energy is limitless, fusion reactors won't blow up or leak radiation (the radiation is about 100,000 times less than nuclear reactors), it doesn't need the large infrastructure of wind or solar and will dwarf those sources in energy production. It is not 30 years away-a demonstration plant will be online in 2009, and the next step is full-steam power plants. I urge you to view the PPPL video at http://www.pppl.gov/fuelingthefuture.cfm Enjoy a soberingly positive vision of the future!

Skol,
Sally

Blanket statements with no solid proof or scientific consensus such as "science and technology has brought us climate change" are what incite mistrust. Chicken Littlers, apocryphal predictions, bad science, urban legends, and mass hysteria, are the reason intelligent people instinctively distrust, whether it's science, technology or partisan politics. Science has been wrong in the past, and as further research continues, we will find that current science could be wrong again. Every week, new research comes out on what's good or bad for us, and every few years, you can find another study that reverses that information with new facts. Humans perceive facts differently. Some look at the glass half full, others see it half empty. Looking at the results of research, studies, tests, polls, no matter who publishes them, one has to take into consideration the agenda behind them and until fully convicted that the science is sound, it should always be taken with a grain of common sense. Science and technology have benefited humanity more than mankind will ever appreciate. For some, mankind will always be the enemy.

Teresa Watkins

University of Florida/IFAS
Florida Yards & Neighborhoods
Multi-County Coordinator
Lake, Orange, & Seminole
6021 S. Conway Road Orlando, FL 32806
407-254-9224
http://cfyn.ifas.ufl.edu

Hi Teresa -

No evidence that "science and technology have brought us climate change"?? Without science and technology there would be no burning of fossil fuels. Q.E.D. And that "science and technology have benefited humanity more than mankind will ever appreciate" is more arguable than you allow - many indigenous communities would take issue, I suspect, and given the enormous destruction that science and technology have made possible I question whether the balance sheet adds up in the favor of these human pursuits. This is not to say that we haven't gotten great things from science, only that when you consider the whole earth system it's a very mixed blessing and we need to examine the evidence as carefully as we can. All of us, scientists and non-scientists alike. But underlying those decisions must be basic principles. Currently it's that corporate-funded science has a blank check with little restraint. As Sally said, scientists have to do what their employers tell them to do. The precautionary principle is a far better basis for charting the course of science, but that means we have to take decisions out of the marketplace. Not going to happen in the current (and suicidal) cultural worldview.

Cheers,

Adam P.S. - I would appreciate it if you would avoid name-calling such as "chicken littlers" - I don't think it adds to clarity of discussion.

Dear Neil,

I still need to respond to Mel's latest email. But first I want to make sure people understand that I am NOT saying solar energy can replace all our current sources of energy immediately and without further design and development work. What I am seeking to address - in the near term - is this Mindset Challenge... this "we're running out of resources" story line that Is Not True! I'm sure Vaclav Smil has his science right... for now. But it is known in the engineering community (and I have a background in civil engineering) that when President Kennedy said "We shall go to the Moon by the end of the decade" there were literally a million things the engineers at NASA didn't know that they needed to figure out in order to make that happen. And what enabled them to solve those one million challenges? Political will backed by the dollars to support the research and testing necessary to get us there. We are where we are today not just because our science doesn't have all the answers we need. We are where we are today because there is no equivalent political leadership as we had here in the USA in the 1960's. That spirit is practically non-existent in today's political community. Scientific leadership exists in the form of people like Amory Lovins - http://www.rmi.org - and William McDonough - http://www.mbdc.com - but they don't have the political base to drive the political process the way it needs to be driven. So, please, when you say "beware the sellers of quick fix energy alternatives", I say "Don't put me into that category." The only "quick" thing I am seeking to accomplish is that miracle of understanding... the "light bulb moment"... that takes a mere nanosecond to occur... when people suddenly say to themselves "Wow... there really is an alternative, hopeful way we can direct our energies. We don't have to be scared anymore." And then what follows is Lots Of Hard Work to wake everyone else up and get political policies in place that have our political leaders spend the time and money in pursuit of this new future that they are currently wasting on fruitcake activities like the war in Iraq. Current estimates, by the way - including the cost or replacing worn out equipment, and long term care for 20-something year old soldiers who will be physically and / or mentally damaged for the rest of their lives - range from $2 to 3 Trillion Dollars (US) as being the final cost of the Iraq War. That would buy a LOT of solar energy research, development, and (initially subsidized) power generating facility construction. Once again, I am not talking about the "near term substitution" of solar power for oil, coal, etc. And - just to be clear - I am very pro-energy conservation. Of course we have to adopt ways that give us today's standard of living for less energy. But doing "less of what doesn't work" is not the final solution. Starting to do What Really Does Work is. I am talking about the recognition that the current thinking when it comes to energy planning is - with the exception of people like Lovins and McDonough - "dinosaur thinking". It is based on a world that does not exist... a world of scarcity. The world of abundance is out there waiting for us, just as the world of rockets to the Moon and Mars was waiting for us in 1955 (when Walt Disney and Wehrner von Braun collaborated on a series of TV specials that taught the American people that the science of space travel was no longer a fantasy... laying the groundwork for the public's acceptance of the creation of NASA). It took 14 years for us to get to the Moon after those landmark TV shows were on the air. I say that 14 years from now, we could be a long way towards creating the infrastructure (both physical and political) necessary to make this transition. These can be exciting - and even fun - years. Or they can be years filled with fear. Am I saying that no more "bad things" will happen once we make this change in our mental model? No. We may very well have some more major disasters (including more wars). The global sociopolitical economic system does not turn on a dime. But as long as We know that we are headed in a healthy, constructive direction these will be good years. We will spend them solving the technical challenges that need to be solved (rather than writing papers that essentially say "Based on what we know today, it can't be done.") Do you know how many people said building an airplane that worked was impossible? Or a light bulb? As Bill McDonough says, "Leaders must become designers. And designers must become leaders." The Earth is not and island unto itself. The journey to designing our way to a sustainable future free from fear - one based on an abundance rather than scarcity paradigm - starts with a single step... a single thought! (By the way, Neil. I can't tell what you do for a living / where you work. Why don't you tell us a bit about your background.)

Best regards,
Steve 

Well, Adam,

I didn't think to do this when I wrote the survey.... but based on your statement I guess we should get a sense of how many people in this list are pro-science and technology and how many are against science and technology. You sound like someone who wishes humanity had never progressed beyond the lifestyles of the indigenous peoples to which you refer. I remember in the '60's there was this "back to the land" movement. People thought that technology was our enemy, so they went to live in communes. A memorable part of the classic movie "Easy Rider" took place on one such commune. Science and technology exist. You cannot put that Genie back in the bottle. What you can do is deal with the values of the person who is in the position to command the Genie to do various things... either for good or bad. Humanity's values - I say - are a product of a many thousands of years long experience that (essentially) "there isn't enough for everyone"... and from that experience (which was true thousands of years ago) the decision was made to "same myself, my family, my friends, and those people who agree with me and with whom I agree"... and from that humanity split itself up into separate "tribes"... either based on geography, religion, or the distinguishing characteristic of your choice. So, where do we find ourselves after all these thousands of years?.. split up into many, many groups... but living in a world that No Longer Requires That We Split Ourselves Up... because the original motivation for that split: Scarcity Of Resources, is no longer the true nature of our physical reality. Oh... and if you don't want to agree with this because I'm saying it... how about if Gerard Piel, the founder of Scientic American says it? In "Only One World: Our Own To Make And To Keep" (published in 1992 with a forward by Maurice F. Strong, Secretary General, 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development), Mr. Piel writes: "The prospects for the transfer of such assistance are strongly conditioned by the long-standing relations between the rich and the poor. Ever since the begining of civilization, people have organized their social institutions to secure the inequitable distribution of goods that were always, until recent times, in short supply. Now the inequity that divides humankind is international; people are inhabitants of rich nations or of poor nations. And the rich go on living at the expense of the poor. For historic habit, nations make policy and people continue to root their morality in the assumption that there can never be enough to go around. The industrial revolution has confuted that assumption. If people will use industrial technology equitably and wisely, they may at last, in the words of Indira Gandhi, "make this only Earth a fit home for man."" Gerard Piel's good friend, Buckminster Fuller, laid out this same case in his landmark book "Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth". Fostering Sustainable Development is about the human side of the equation as much as if not more than it is about the scientific side of the equation. The Genie is out of the bottle. The question is: Are we going to command that Genie to "make this only Earth a fit home for man" or not? The Genie is waiting for an answer.

Steve

"this 'we're running out of resources' story line that Is Not True!"

Steve, sorry to be blunt, but although you're expressing our very popular cultural infinite abundance myth you couldn't be more wrong. For a great explanation of the phenomenon of exponentiation and how problematically counterintuitive it is to everyday human experience, see http://www.npg.org/specialreports/bartlett_section2.htm

Cheers,
Adam

> You sound like someone who wishes humanity had never progressed beyond the lifestyles of the indigenous peoples to which you refer.

Hi Steve - I am not going to defend a statement I never made. Your thinking, like your survey, is far too binary. I would suggest that all of our thoughts are far more complex, and that attempts to reduce the complexity usually winds up in the fundamentally simplistic thinking (so well expressed in our number one medium, television) that chronically drives us in the wrong political and environmental directions.

Cheers, Adam