Copenhagen Crib Sheet

December 14th, 2009

This week there are going to be lots of headlines, inches and screen time about the Climate Conference in Copenhagen. Rather than have you be overwhelmed, or just bored and annoyed, let Saturday’s LA Times article by Jim Tankersley reduces it pretty nicely -

1- They’re one big optical illusion- it’s a circus on the outside with a few key players wrestling with breaking down the barriers to an agreement. Even today’s headlines about developing nations boycotting are theater.

2- Many activists are going to leave disappointed.- No matter what agreements emerge, they won’t be anywhere near the estimates of scientists say will be necessary to avoid the upper range of climate change possibilities predicted by existing models.

3- Scientists are striking back. In their own way, scientists are responding to the attack upon climate consensus led by the release of hacked emails. In addition to numerous interpretations of the three main emails actually used in the attack campaign, scientists are releasing data, and making presentations reaffirming this as the warmest decade on record, among other things. BTW- the cooling over the last few years fits with the solar cycle as we are in the low years of the 11 year variation of the sun’s radiance.

4- Language matters- The details of whatever announcement/agreement emerges will evidence a mastery of linguistic diplomacy as the need for both emerging and existing industrial nations to appear to be committed to both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving or keeping their standards of living are great.

5- The circus is coming.-Last week was nothing. This week the world’s leaders show up- including Obama. The theater in the street will explode as the tens of thousands of environmentalists with no real access to the inside track at the talks strive to make their case, and those on the inside track elbow each other in ways that make the speed skating competition at February’s Winter Olympics look like kids going for cookies.

Here at home, while we won’t be hearing about it until next year, Cap and Trade is the big subject. From Anne Leonard, whose “Story of Stuff” explains our economic system’s accounting problems with the environment, comes “The Story of Cap and Trade”. Leonard’s short online presentations are simple yet sophisticated explanations of complex and very significant subjects. Her position is clear, but doesn’t obscure or ignore the full picture. While she uses the shorthand of ‘saving the planet” she doesn’t pretend that the economy doesn’t matter. Her annotated footnotes- appearing beneath the movie window as it plays &documenting the facts stated-  are a model for media that makes me jealous for her staffing support.

Meanwhile, winter is at hand. You can probably feel the places in your house where the heat isn’t, or is leaking. However you may feel about climate- the science or the politics- your best course of action is to keep that heat in. It will keep you warm, make the most of your energy dollars, make our nation more secure (especially if your heat comes from imported oil) and, if you hire local and buy domestic, help generate prosperity here at home.

Happy Holidays!

Posted in Capitalism, Geology, Human Nature, Leadership, Media, Politcis, Science, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Who are we? A timeless question reduced.

October 16th, 2009

Want to point out this excellent audience segmentation study done and ask you, which of the “Six Americas” are you? And if you aren’t one of the ‘Alarmed’ or ‘Dismissive’ what brings you here?
If you are Alarmed or Dismissive, the study says you are both more likely to engage in conservation activity, as well as dialogue with others as well as political actions.

That just leaves about 70 something percent of us with some opinion, but not sufficient conviction to move outside our comfort or busy zone. What would get the four in the middle to show up and come to agreement?

Watch out- the link to the full report is 129 pages, and even with lots of charts and graphs is a lot of reading prose version of statistics.

Posted in Human Nature, Media, Politcis, Science | No Comments »

Glen Beck doesn’t know jack about science

September 10th, 2009

The resignation of Van Jones from his post as green job advisor to the White House this past weekend was both cheered and lamented this week by various champions of reinvention of the building, energy and transportation sector. Arianna Huffington thanked Beck for freeing Jones to, like Sarah Palin aspires, do better more important work outside of government.

In attacking Jones on his past, Beck reveals his preference for ideology and history over economics and the future. The question I would ask Beck is whether or not he thinks the laws of economics trump those of physics and chemistry. Economists tell us that since the industrial revolution humans have burnt coal and oil in amounts that have changed the proportion of carbon dioxide in the oceans and atmosphere. The increase is calculated to be about 35% more. Physics tells us that CO2 retains heat disproportionate to its volume and chemistry that CO2 proportions impact the PH of a fluid. These repeatable testable laws are what informs the basis of climate change science. Well before most of us had any idea about global cooling or warming, scientists predicted numerous changes in our world based upon these laws. Today observation confirms those predictions.

The future of the economy – something Beck does seem to care about- derives from those changes. Beck, and others who have focused upon ideology and referencing the laws of economics while ignoring those of physics and chemistry, are missing the emerging theme of the 21st Century – clean technology leadership in energy, transportation and building is going to translate to leadership in banking, employment, foreign exchange, and probably military might as well.

So it isn’t just science Beck doesn’t know about, but economics as well. In going after a leading author and hands on leader in putting people to work in green building, Beck and others have done damage to investors in the US economy. As pointed out by Thomas Freidman this week, China, by virtue of a mono party government, has been able to make the longterm policy choices to invest in the markets that are clearly driving this century’s development. Those busy distracting this administration instead of engaging in the discourse to find the best practices to answer the challenges that will not only secure our energy independence, reverse our balance of trade, and most immediately important, put our population to work, are betraying their claim to capitalism.

At it’s simplest level, capitalism values self interest. On a societal level, that self interest is served in serving the needs as defined by others. And the global need, where willing buyers are standing by right now, is for clean sustainable energy at or near the coal price of a kilowatt. Again chemistry and physics point to plentiful ubiquitous sources that are free, above ground, and need technology developed to be converted cost effectively. Silicon Valley, with a rich deep vein of talent, experience and cash, is eager to dive in.

But even the most liberal of investors wants to know that the rules are going to be before getting in the game. Until the energy and climate legislation gets done, they won’t. And getting Van Jones out of the jobs position means that one component of the recovery stimulus will be further delayed. Until building and home owners get the word on federal tax credits for upgrading energy efficiency, those installation jobs won’t be posted in the want ads.

Conservatives of the country are getting shortchanged. Instead of having a place at the table, making sure that the regulations are the best least practice, yet also stable and securing the place of capital in the societal investment, they are left out of the discussion. Those representing conservative thought who are engaged are being vilified by those crowing about socialism and job killing.

Meanwhile the self proclaimed communists of China have positioned themselves to out invest the US in critical growth areas. They have an even bigger number of people to put to work. There are populations in China greater than the US just striving to achieve running water and electrification. Yet they have the political will to invest in the future and the US doesn’t. Makes one wonder what was so bad about Jones having identified with communism.

The fact is that Beck doesn’t know jack about any of this, and doesn’t care either. His self interest is in that extremely short term commodity known as ratings. Serving up Van Jones as communist boogie man to his audience seems to have been the racist play that has made his calling the President a racist old news. He can be ‘hot’ again, and we can count on him to be even more hyperbolic in finding his next mark.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Capitalism, Human Nature, Leadership, Media, Politcis, Science | No Comments »

I’m sick and tired of sick and tired false debate. or Haven’t we heard this before?

July 28th, 2009

Do the arguments on health care sound familiar ? One of the clearest examples of how form and posture has come to dominate policy, as opposed to substance and common sense, comes to us in the current discussion about health care. The similarities to the current back burner climate legislation discussion are great.

Maybe its just summer lethargy. Warm days, short nights. The recreational opportunities everyday of the week. It might be some sort of cold. But I think it is the less than forthright speech coming out of political leadership that is giving me this sluggish condition.

First is that there are voices that are committed to philosophical concepts above all, and the facts be damned. “Markets’ we are told are more important than facts, however those facts might be arrived at. “Freedom of choice” is of greater concern than care for all, as if they are mutually exclusive.

While there are political parties and associations that represent these positions to one degree or another, what the fundamental similarities in the discussion really turn out to be is who wants to scare you, and who is willing to let you to make your own choice on where to stand on the individualist-collectivist spectrum.

To some degree, many of the people ranting the loudest at this stage of the health care debate are not really too concerned about health care. Like those who are to one degree or another minimizing  climate concerns, they are far more concerned about ‘big government’ or ‘socialism’ than they are about reforming our health care, or its impacts upon the nation’s economy.

To be sure, some of these voices are for those who benefit from the status quo. Others are from those who think their interests lie in the promised change. But the voices resorting to scare tactics (“Obama’s plan could kill you” was one I heard yesterday) are consistently originating in ideology first.

As someone residing in the middle of the bell curve, not on the line between the polar opposites, and where most of us by definition of the bell curve must be, I want relief- Relief from those whose misrepresentations, bad logic, or just flat out irrelevant arguments fill the media; relief from repetitive stating of refuted or discredited positions; relief from a health care system that is failing millions of people, frustrating many of the dedicated professionals working in it, and burdening our economy in micro and macro ways.

Clearly, we are a people and a nation capable of amazing unprecedented accomplishments (moon rocks anyone?) and everywhere I look, I find hardworking sensible folk. Why these attributes don’t seem apparent in the health care or climate debates makes someone like Larry Lessig, who says that the appearance of money’s influence is sufficient alone for almost all of us to doubt the legitimacy of any discussion of an issue.

So if you are sick and tired of simplistic argument, and reductionist and negative discussion, I can’t recommend any media on the health care issue. On climate change, well you are already there, here in the middle of the road.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Capitalism, Leadership, Media, Politcis, Science | No Comments »