See the video above for an interview with Reiner Grundmann, a sociologist at Aston University in Birmingham, UK and co-author of The Hartwell Paper. Reiner has some smart things to say about climate change and the media, and climate policies more generally.
However, again this is the viewpoint of an environmentalist. His ideas on how global warming can be best sold to the public. Moving away from the science based approach.
Decarbonisation as a basic principle is favoured by an incredibly tiny minority of individuals. Without the science, it is absolutely dead in the water. That's why Mike Hulme called his book 'Why We Disagree About Climate Change -Understanding controversy, inaction and OPPORTUNITY'.
In my view, the enormous public resistance in Britain is due to the idiotic, patronising government and corporate propaganda which culminated in the 10:10 film. Produced by people living in a intellectual and social bubble. Simply put, the electorate just aren't that stupid. Climategate burst the bubble.
There is no amount of hand waving that will cover up the extreme naughtiness of those involved. The lordships and knighthoods that senior academics love to be adorned with and the media use to promote corporate science, counted for nothing as their image landed in the gutter with its trousers at its feet.
I support the Hartwell principle on the basis of scientific and techological progress. However, it would have exclude an increase in the cost of home heating. That is very simple progressive politics.
"Well I think both climate and the .. forestry regime put too much emphasis on .. scientific aspects. We should realise that we can do many things without knowing in great detail what the science tells us, because in many cases this will just be used .. as an excuse for inaction.
If you put the science at the centre, it seems as if there is some rational voice that knows it all and tells us what to do. But this is a political issue, essentially."
It is indeed a political issue. It is only masquerading as science. At some point, it will be necessary to make the concession that the shift to decarbonise is ideological rather than scientific, and to accept the shrinking of the ranks in the environmentalist movement that will inevitably result.
A very reasonable, low key presentation with a much more pragmatic perspective. However, there is still an assumption of that which is not in evidence - namely that climate change (a poorly defined and unsized issue)is a problem and a solution set (i.e., renewable energy) that may or may not be the most practical solution to whatever the specific problems are. Presumably "renewable" means non-fossil, non-nuclear. Define the issues, size the problems and develop practical and political feasible solutions. That is how most issues are dealt with. As Eric notes,a focus on generalized solutions to poorly defined and sized problems bespeaks of an agenda. This is the essence of Cohen, March and Olsen's Garbage Can Theory of Decision Making - characterized by "solutions in search of a problem".
That's great, very measured and thoughtful. I'd say this notion of 'decarbonization' may only have small pockets of support at present because everyday people just don't know what that signifies. If we were to do a better job communicating what this means, I suspect support would build.
For a closer look at the figure he was filmed looking at on his computer, we have it here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/
Grundmann's comments make sense, but I wonder how long it will before they are widely heard. There are so many politicians, activists, media, and scientists that are committed to the Cap-and-Trade/Kyoto path that the inertia is enormous. In the absence of some face-saving opportunity, they will continue on that path. It may take a decade or more to see a shift toward the Hartwell Paper. During that time, many of the current players will drop away and make way for people that haven't locked in on an unrealistic solution. Maybe Roger's new book will speed things up a bit.
"Decarbonisation as a basic principle is favoured by an incredibly tiny minority of individuals. Without the science, it is absolutely dead in the water"
Protectionism is favored by a substantial number of individuals. How many countries are 'fossil fuel independent'? How easy is it for the politicians in those countries to stir up protectionist/nationalist sentiment?
one thing he gets right is that the all the Big Media warmies preach morality but don't practice mortality.
Si when High Priests of Warmism like Al Gore and David Suzuki, who have multiple homes and carbon footprints the size of Utah order us to get inline and live less well off, the sanctimonious message just gets rejected.
Kind of like a couple of drunks who own liquor stores telling the rest of us booze is bad so live without it.
The whole warmy thingy has moved beyond rationale thought into the world of utopian spiritual beliefs, beliefs that the warmies now believe they have a right to inflict and impose on others less enlightened than themselves.
Isolationism / protectionism is historically a much bigger issue in the USA than elsewhere. Despite Anglo American warnings, the Germans seem to have a full blodied economic relationship with Russia including the new gas pipeline.
Russia has now come round to Israel's point of view. It cancelled Iran's S-300 missile contract, signalling that it is an ally and no longer an energy security threat. The Middle East is no security threat and Chavez will only exist as long as the oil flows.
If the USA was interested in energy security, there are vast areas that are closed to fossil fuel development including the coastline that could have been opened a long, long time ago. With Saudi oil being virtually free to extract, that was never going to happen. Tar sands alone represent a pretty secure future.
The alternative to fossil fuel scarcity in France and Japan has been nuclear. Britain in next (carbon trading). Can environmentalists really believe that is suddenly, out of the blue, a great idea ?
10 comments:
Impressive delivery and presentation.
However, again this is the viewpoint of an environmentalist. His ideas on how global warming can be best sold to the public. Moving away from the science based approach.
Decarbonisation as a basic principle is favoured by an incredibly tiny minority of individuals. Without the science, it is absolutely dead in the water. That's why Mike Hulme called his book 'Why We Disagree About Climate Change -Understanding controversy, inaction and OPPORTUNITY'.
In my view, the enormous public resistance in Britain is due to the idiotic, patronising government and corporate propaganda which culminated in the 10:10 film. Produced by people living in a intellectual and social bubble. Simply put, the electorate just aren't that stupid. Climategate burst the bubble.
There is no amount of hand waving that will cover up the extreme naughtiness of those involved. The lordships and knighthoods that senior academics love to be adorned with and the media use to promote corporate science, counted for nothing as their image landed in the gutter with its trousers at its feet.
P.S.
I support the Hartwell principle on the basis of scientific and techological progress. However, it would have exclude an increase in the cost of home heating. That is very simple progressive politics.
Yes. Interesting comment from Grundmann:
"Well I think both climate and the .. forestry regime put too much emphasis on .. scientific aspects. We should realise that we can do many things without knowing in great detail what the science tells us, because in many cases this will just be used .. as an excuse for inaction.
If you put the science at the centre, it seems as if there is some rational voice that knows it all and tells us what to do. But this is a political issue, essentially."
It is indeed a political issue. It is only masquerading as science. At some point, it will be necessary to make the concession that the shift to decarbonise is ideological rather than scientific, and to accept the shrinking of the ranks in the environmentalist movement that will inevitably result.
A very reasonable, low key presentation with a much more pragmatic perspective. However, there is still an assumption of that which is not in evidence - namely that climate change (a poorly defined and unsized issue)is a problem and a solution set (i.e., renewable energy) that may or may not be the most practical solution to whatever the specific problems are. Presumably "renewable" means non-fossil, non-nuclear.
Define the issues, size the problems and develop practical and political feasible solutions. That is how most issues are dealt with. As Eric notes,a focus on generalized solutions to poorly defined and sized problems bespeaks of an agenda. This is the essence of Cohen, March and Olsen's Garbage Can Theory of Decision Making - characterized by "solutions in search of a problem".
That's great, very measured and thoughtful. I'd say this notion of 'decarbonization' may only have small pockets of support at present because everyday people just don't know what that signifies. If we were to do a better job communicating what this means, I suspect support would build.
For a closer look at the figure he was filmed looking at on his computer, we have it here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/media_coverage/
Grundmann's comments make sense, but I wonder how long it will before they are widely heard. There are so many politicians, activists, media, and scientists that are committed to the Cap-and-Trade/Kyoto path that the inertia is enormous. In the absence of some face-saving opportunity, they will continue on that path. It may take a decade or more to see a shift toward the Hartwell Paper. During that time, many of the current players will drop away and make way for people that haven't locked in on an unrealistic solution. Maybe Roger's new book will speed things up a bit.
eric144 said... 1
"Decarbonisation as a basic principle is favoured by an incredibly tiny minority of individuals. Without the science, it is absolutely dead in the water"
Protectionism is favored by a substantial number of individuals. How many countries are 'fossil fuel independent'? How easy is it for the politicians in those countries to stir up protectionist/nationalist sentiment?
one thing he gets right is that the all the Big Media warmies preach morality but don't practice mortality.
Si when High Priests of Warmism like Al Gore and David Suzuki, who have multiple homes and carbon footprints the size of Utah order us to get inline and live less well off, the sanctimonious message just gets rejected.
Kind of like a couple of drunks who own liquor stores telling the rest of us booze is bad so live without it.
The whole warmy thingy has moved beyond rationale thought into the world of utopian spiritual beliefs, beliefs that the warmies now believe they have a right to inflict and impose on others less enlightened than themselves.
Blow up any kids today?
Harrywr2
Isolationism / protectionism is historically a much bigger issue in the USA than elsewhere. Despite Anglo American warnings, the Germans seem to have a full blodied economic relationship with Russia including the new gas pipeline.
Russia has now come round to Israel's point of view. It cancelled Iran's S-300 missile contract, signalling that it is an ally and no longer an energy security threat. The Middle East is no security threat and Chavez will only exist as long as the oil flows.
If the USA was interested in energy security, there are vast areas that are closed to fossil fuel development including the coastline that could have been opened a long, long time ago. With Saudi oil being virtually free to extract, that was never going to happen. Tar sands alone represent a pretty secure future.
The alternative to fossil fuel scarcity in France and Japan has been nuclear. Britain in next (carbon trading). Can environmentalists really believe that is suddenly, out of the blue, a great idea ?
Reiner has regularly smart things to say at Hans von Storch's Klimazwiebel website: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment