Before I turn my attention to the aftermath of the elections and the environmental policy road ahead, I need to say a few words in the wake of the passing of sci-fi author Michael Crichton. Dr. Crichton's books are some of my favorite works of contemporary fiction. He wrote a type of science fiction that was distinct from the Star Wars/Trek mode of robots and aliens and spaceships and lasers. Crichton's sci-fi takes place in the here and now, and is built upon current scientific knowledge. His work is in the tradition of Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, and reading Crichton made me go back and re-discover those earlier sci-fi masters. He studied an area of science, understood the state of the game, and then made some leap or tweak to what we know or what is possible in order to craft a tale beyond the realm of the possible (or at least beyond the realm of the probable). His books are each about some scientific discipline: Jurassic Park is not about dinosaurs, it's about genetic engineering and cloning. The Lost World is also not about dinosaurs either, it's about community ecology. Unfortunately, the movie adaptations of his books rarely did justice to them (JP is a notable exception). That his main characters are generally ordinary scientists who become heroes by finding themselves in extraordinary circumstances is an element that certainly resonates with me: It fed my longstanding dream of being Indiana Jones!
Of course, Dr. Crichton's last years were defined less by his creative work and more by the role he adopted as a critic of global climate change. State of Fear, his second to last book, tells a tale of a plot hatched by environmentalists desperate to prove the veracity of human-induced climate change in order to reap the financial and political gains that come with a crisis connected to their issue. As a work of fiction, this is an intriguing and potentially interesting concept, and one I might have even picked up despite the implicit indictment of people in my line of work. After all, it's a story, and I can stomach being made into a villain for storytelling purposes. The problem, however, was that Crichton didn't stop there. He accompanied the novel with a manifesto of sorts decrying the predominate theory of anthropogenic climate change. And he then began a speaking crusade that included a series of lectures on the topic and, most significantly, testimony before the U.S. Congress. Given that manifesto and his activism, it became clear that the book was not simply a story, perhaps with a message or perhaps simply a test to see how seriously environmentalists take themselves and whether they can cope with being fictional villains. Rather, the book was part of, indeed the launch of, a propaganda campaign.
Now, I am not opposed to famous people using their celebrity to speak on public policy issues. After all, in a democracy, we all have the right to express our views, and we should all take advantage of any opportunity afforded us to voice our ideas and opinions. The fact that those opportunities are presented disproportionately to the famous is not their fault (in fact, it is the fault of the rest of us), and they should not willingly avoid the platform presented. In a nation of 300 million people with a complex chorus of perspectives, anyone should seize any chance to be heard.
Nor is my grievance with Dr. Crichton's climate change campaign his use of his art to convey his message. This is what artists have done throughout time. For example, Bob Dylan, on the left, and Charlie Daniels, on the right, have sung songs that convey their critiques of American politics. At the moment, I am working my way through the Genesis of Shannara trilogy of novels by fantasy writer Terry Brooks. Terry and his wife Judine have become friends of mine, and I know that he is an avowed environmentalist. The Genesis books are set in a post-apocalyptic world brought about by war, disease and rampant environmental degradation. There is an unmistakable political message in the books, and if asked in front of a camera or microphone I have no doubt that Terry would very clearly make his views known on what we need to do differently.
The difference, however, is that Terry speaks directly and through his work as an advocate, but not as a specialist. He speaks as a citizen with a point of view that is worth hearing. Crichton, on the other hand, crossed a line from advocacy to technical advisor. He used his fame and credentials to speak as a technical expert. The problem is that he is not a technical expert. His background is in medicine and genetics, not in meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, oceanography, ecosystem ecology, or any of the other disciplines at the core of understanding global climate change and its consequences. Dr. Crichton had a remarkable ability to learn the state-of-the-game in a scientific discipline, to a point where he could craft mesmerizing tales of adventure with a believability stemming from his homework on the core subjects. But learning a discipline well enough to write a plausible sci-fi novel does not make one an expert on the subject. That requires years of study and research, of probing the inner workings of a system (the global climate, a coral reef, the human body...whatever), understanding as much as possible how it works, identifying where the key uncertainties lie, and working to answer those questions, all the while continuing to revisit and challenge the working paradigm. When it came to climate change, Dr. Crichton did not have those bona fides. But somewhere along the line, Dr. Crichton either willingly adopted the guise of climate change specialist or fooled himself into thinking he was an expert, and subsequently set out into the policy arena as an expert in sheep's clothing.
I have now written one paragraph celebrating Dr. Crichton's craft and the joy it brought me, and several more criticizing his work against action on climate change. I feel somewhat badly about that, and do not want to belabor the point. But I feel it is an important illustration of the difference between being a citizen with a view and a voice versus acting as an uncredentialed technical expert, and a caution against others trying to blur that line. Ultimately, however, I want to thank Dr. Crichton for (most of) the body of work he left behind and the hours of joy his tales have brought me.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Bad Idea
Back when it was funny, Saturday Night Live did a classic spoof commercial for "Bad Idea Jeans". A group of guys (including some comedic icons) were shooting the breeze while getting ready to play basketball. They spew out line after line of sheer idiocy (my favorite concludes, "...when am I going to make it back to Haiti?"), each followed by a black screen with only the words "bad idea" (btw, I couldn't find the clip on YouTube, but did find a commercial for what is apparently a real Swedish company that is actually called Bad Idea Jeans).
A re-make of this ad might include something along the lines of the plans of Planktos, a new company looking to get ahead of the game in the carbon market that will burst onto the scene when the U.S. eventually passes a carbon cap-and-trade bill. NYT environmental blogger Andy Revkin covers their plan in a recent post. The idea is basically to dump tons of iron into the sea to simulate natural settlement of dust containing iron that stimulates blooms of microscopic algae. The algae photosynthesize, which captures the carbon dioxide that is in our atmosphere in great excess and causes the greenhouse effect and all of its consequences.
The problem with this plan is that algal blooms are, by definition, episodic and even extreme events. They represent a temporary yet drastic change in the ecosystem that then subsides with a return to more normal conditions. Algal blooms are akin to the pulse of wildflower blooms that can color woodland meadows or coastal dunes for brief periods at the right time of year, but they likely cause much greater biological and chemical changes given the nature of photosynthetic activity. We know very little about the natural frequency, intensity or effects of algal blooms, and therefore cannot possibly predict the consequences of stimulating more of them.
Furthermore, we have no idea what other ecological impacts might take place. As noted in a previous post, we are only just beginning to catalog the microbial and planktonic communities of the marine realm, let alone understand how they are structured and function. This makes me think of another recent NYT article that really drives home our very limited understanding of the natural world and the need for humilty and prudence in managing our effects upon it. It was discovered recently that a decades long effort to protect the endangered greenback cutthroat trout in Colorado might have been focused on the wrong fish, which instead was the more common Colorado River cutthroat trout.
I point this out not to mock those involved with the effort. Biological taxonomy is neither simple nor straightforward. Defining and identifying species is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty. I once asked a leading ichthyologist for the best guide book to help me distinguish the longfin damselfish from the dusky damselfish in preparation for a field study. His response was that there was no such book because every book got them wrong (so don't put much stock in the info provided in the links). And these are two of the most common fishes on clear, shallow and well studied Caribbean reefs. Similarly, the greenback trout misidentification happened with a large vertebrate in a system that is relatively easy to observe and study (i.e., a stream, compared with the ocean) and surrounded by biologists, fishery managers and anglers who all know fish and know them well. If we are prone to make these very basic errors, then we should be very wary of the potential to make far more profound errors in systems for which we have much, much less basic understanding. But it is one thing to call a fish by the wrong name, and another to disrupt the fundamental chemistry of an entire ecosystem.
Curbing global climate change is clearly one of our greatest challenges, not simply among environmental issues but among all public policy issues. However, we should first strive to make headway on energy efficiency, development of renewable sources, and less risky carbon-capture approaches (e.g., planting trees stimulates photosynthesis and carbon dioxide uptake in a much better understood way). Dumping iron into the sea is the environmental equivalent of standing over a beaker containing a pile of unknown solid white cubes with a beaker of water. If you pour the water in and the cubes are tofu, you've got miso soup. But if they're pure sodium, the resulting explosion will make you lose your eyebrows if you're lucky and more likely go blind. Bad idea.
A re-make of this ad might include something along the lines of the plans of Planktos, a new company looking to get ahead of the game in the carbon market that will burst onto the scene when the U.S. eventually passes a carbon cap-and-trade bill. NYT environmental blogger Andy Revkin covers their plan in a recent post. The idea is basically to dump tons of iron into the sea to simulate natural settlement of dust containing iron that stimulates blooms of microscopic algae. The algae photosynthesize, which captures the carbon dioxide that is in our atmosphere in great excess and causes the greenhouse effect and all of its consequences.
The problem with this plan is that algal blooms are, by definition, episodic and even extreme events. They represent a temporary yet drastic change in the ecosystem that then subsides with a return to more normal conditions. Algal blooms are akin to the pulse of wildflower blooms that can color woodland meadows or coastal dunes for brief periods at the right time of year, but they likely cause much greater biological and chemical changes given the nature of photosynthetic activity. We know very little about the natural frequency, intensity or effects of algal blooms, and therefore cannot possibly predict the consequences of stimulating more of them.
Furthermore, we have no idea what other ecological impacts might take place. As noted in a previous post, we are only just beginning to catalog the microbial and planktonic communities of the marine realm, let alone understand how they are structured and function. This makes me think of another recent NYT article that really drives home our very limited understanding of the natural world and the need for humilty and prudence in managing our effects upon it. It was discovered recently that a decades long effort to protect the endangered greenback cutthroat trout in Colorado might have been focused on the wrong fish, which instead was the more common Colorado River cutthroat trout.
I point this out not to mock those involved with the effort. Biological taxonomy is neither simple nor straightforward. Defining and identifying species is fraught with difficulty and uncertainty. I once asked a leading ichthyologist for the best guide book to help me distinguish the longfin damselfish from the dusky damselfish in preparation for a field study. His response was that there was no such book because every book got them wrong (so don't put much stock in the info provided in the links). And these are two of the most common fishes on clear, shallow and well studied Caribbean reefs. Similarly, the greenback trout misidentification happened with a large vertebrate in a system that is relatively easy to observe and study (i.e., a stream, compared with the ocean) and surrounded by biologists, fishery managers and anglers who all know fish and know them well. If we are prone to make these very basic errors, then we should be very wary of the potential to make far more profound errors in systems for which we have much, much less basic understanding. But it is one thing to call a fish by the wrong name, and another to disrupt the fundamental chemistry of an entire ecosystem.
Curbing global climate change is clearly one of our greatest challenges, not simply among environmental issues but among all public policy issues. However, we should first strive to make headway on energy efficiency, development of renewable sources, and less risky carbon-capture approaches (e.g., planting trees stimulates photosynthesis and carbon dioxide uptake in a much better understood way). Dumping iron into the sea is the environmental equivalent of standing over a beaker containing a pile of unknown solid white cubes with a beaker of water. If you pour the water in and the cubes are tofu, you've got miso soup. But if they're pure sodium, the resulting explosion will make you lose your eyebrows if you're lucky and more likely go blind. Bad idea.
Monday, July 2, 2007
Simplistic and shortsighted
My friend Hal sent me a recent opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal that is critical of the modern environmental movement, yet is so full of holes that we should be calling for Dear Liza. A few quick (by my verbose standards) responses to claims in the article:
1. Perhaps the most mind-bogglingly naive statement in the piece is the following: "If cost-effective technologies to boost energy efficiency actually existed, industry would adopt them automatically, global warming or not." While I am attracted to many elements of libertarian philosophy (Dalmia works for the libertarian Reason Foundation), this gives far too much credit to the rationality of the free market. If the statement were true, the EPA would not have needed to cite and fine Wal-Mart for violation of idling regulations, a practice that needlessly burns 2.1 million gallons of diesel fuel each year (note: that fuel costs them money), despite a fairly simple cost-saving and environmentally beneficial solution (turn off the freaking engines!). As a fisheries biologist, the number of examples I have seen of fishermen irrationally outstripping the reproductive capacity of the resources that support their livelihood also challenges the assumption that industry will find the most sensible solutions.
2. The argument against energy efficiency ignores the tremendous savings that can be achieved by improvements in private homes, in addition to those by industry. If our government provided better information on how to make homes more energy efficient, as well as grants, loans and tax breaks to help bring about needed improvements, we could drastically reduce the need for hydropower.
3. On alternative energy sources, the piece states that most "...are still far from economically viable." This is true, but it ignores a huge factor. Dalmia notes that huge subsidies were originally provided to make many hydro dams possible. She fails to mention the subsidies still provided to make fossil fuel use "viable" (but likely adopts the alternative view). If solar, wind, wave and tidal (a.k.a. hydrokinetic), and other sources were given the same government support, these might be more economically viable sources in the near future, if not already. It's become somewhat cliche, but it's still true nonetheless, that if we had the same sort of "man on the moon by the end of the decade" vision and leadership today on renewable energy that JFK provided in 1961 on space exploration, we'd be having a very different debate right now.
4. There are a series of examples of green groups opposing alternative energy developments. The implication seems to be that if environmentalists claim that climate change is our most serious threat and therefore we do not unquestioningly accept all such renewable proposals, then we are obstructionists and hypocrites. This is a dangerously simplistic view. We need energy, and ALL energy sources have environmental impacts. That cannot be avoided. But asking questions about where to best locate facilities to minimize impacts is not only legitimate, it is irresponsible to not ask those questions. Although some will oppose all wind power, for example, if it has any impacts on birds whatsoever, many will want to ask the reasonable question of where to place a wind farm to achieve the optimal balance between ecosystem health and energy production. Indeed, one of the more radical environmental groups provides one of the more thoughtful analyses of a highly controversial wind farm proposal (the controversy stemming less from genuine environmental arguments and more from concerns over aesthetics and property values). The debate does not have to be between low-carbon energy and birds (or salmon - "damn" them?). With sound planning and ingenuity, we can have both.
5. The jab at Vice President Gore is a cheap shot. The progress toward mitigating climate change that Gore is helping to bring about is unprecedented in the history of environmentalism. We'd probably need to go back to Teddy to find a leader of such stature who has put environmental issues at the forefront of public policy. When Gore helps Congress pass a carbon cap-and-trade bill (which will let the free market do most of the legwork toward sorting out the problem), he will have done more than offset whatever greenhouse gases his mansion and cross-country flights are producing.
1. Perhaps the most mind-bogglingly naive statement in the piece is the following: "If cost-effective technologies to boost energy efficiency actually existed, industry would adopt them automatically, global warming or not." While I am attracted to many elements of libertarian philosophy (Dalmia works for the libertarian Reason Foundation), this gives far too much credit to the rationality of the free market. If the statement were true, the EPA would not have needed to cite and fine Wal-Mart for violation of idling regulations, a practice that needlessly burns 2.1 million gallons of diesel fuel each year (note: that fuel costs them money), despite a fairly simple cost-saving and environmentally beneficial solution (turn off the freaking engines!). As a fisheries biologist, the number of examples I have seen of fishermen irrationally outstripping the reproductive capacity of the resources that support their livelihood also challenges the assumption that industry will find the most sensible solutions.
2. The argument against energy efficiency ignores the tremendous savings that can be achieved by improvements in private homes, in addition to those by industry. If our government provided better information on how to make homes more energy efficient, as well as grants, loans and tax breaks to help bring about needed improvements, we could drastically reduce the need for hydropower.
3. On alternative energy sources, the piece states that most "...are still far from economically viable." This is true, but it ignores a huge factor. Dalmia notes that huge subsidies were originally provided to make many hydro dams possible. She fails to mention the subsidies still provided to make fossil fuel use "viable" (but likely adopts the alternative view). If solar, wind, wave and tidal (a.k.a. hydrokinetic), and other sources were given the same government support, these might be more economically viable sources in the near future, if not already. It's become somewhat cliche, but it's still true nonetheless, that if we had the same sort of "man on the moon by the end of the decade" vision and leadership today on renewable energy that JFK provided in 1961 on space exploration, we'd be having a very different debate right now.
4. There are a series of examples of green groups opposing alternative energy developments. The implication seems to be that if environmentalists claim that climate change is our most serious threat and therefore we do not unquestioningly accept all such renewable proposals, then we are obstructionists and hypocrites. This is a dangerously simplistic view. We need energy, and ALL energy sources have environmental impacts. That cannot be avoided. But asking questions about where to best locate facilities to minimize impacts is not only legitimate, it is irresponsible to not ask those questions. Although some will oppose all wind power, for example, if it has any impacts on birds whatsoever, many will want to ask the reasonable question of where to place a wind farm to achieve the optimal balance between ecosystem health and energy production. Indeed, one of the more radical environmental groups provides one of the more thoughtful analyses of a highly controversial wind farm proposal (the controversy stemming less from genuine environmental arguments and more from concerns over aesthetics and property values). The debate does not have to be between low-carbon energy and birds (or salmon - "damn" them?). With sound planning and ingenuity, we can have both.
5. The jab at Vice President Gore is a cheap shot. The progress toward mitigating climate change that Gore is helping to bring about is unprecedented in the history of environmentalism. We'd probably need to go back to Teddy to find a leader of such stature who has put environmental issues at the forefront of public policy. When Gore helps Congress pass a carbon cap-and-trade bill (which will let the free market do most of the legwork toward sorting out the problem), he will have done more than offset whatever greenhouse gases his mansion and cross-country flights are producing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)