“Our (energy) problem in America gets solved when we aggressively go for domestic (oil) exploration. Our problem in America gets solved if we expand our refining capacity, promote nuclear energy and continue our strategy for the advancement of alternative energies, as well as conservation.” -GWB
I read this in a recent Washington Post article. Notice how he just threw ‘conservation’ in there at the end to make sure it got included in print? Nevermind the fact that his first strategy, drill the heck out of the country, is the polar opposite. AGGGGHHHH!
Well he did say it at least, but politicians typically try to “say everything” but do whichever thing is most advantageous to them personally. I’m sure he listed them in his priority order — new oil fields, new refineries, new nuclear plants, (mumbling begins here…) alternative energies i.e. we capture space aliens and put them into giant hamster wheels, then finally, conservation, a word most Americans are completely unfamiliar with. Why should GWB bother pandering to 5% of the people?
Good point, and this touches on something I’ve been struggling to answer in my own mind for a while now. Who’s responsibility is it to steer policy if the people don’t ‘know’ what is best for the country/world/environment/state/etc? Politicians typically do whatever is necessary to get reelected so they say things that will appeal to an uninformed majority. But politicians typically know better than that so are encouraged to ignore it (a la GWB). Who is at fault more, the people for not taking the time to learn the facts, or the politicians for ignoring them completely?
Sorry for being stupid, but why is energy conservation the opposide of oil exploration?
Btw, regarding your question
Who’s responsibility is it to steer policy if the people don’t ‘know’ what is best for the country/world/environment/state/etc?
That’s interesting because I am actually writing a book about exactly this issue. My point of view is clearly it’s in the responsibility of the scientific community – we’ve been quiet and patient for far too long.
First, we shouldn’t bother talking about fault. The responsibility is everyone’s, but certainly the ‘informed’ (i.e., scientists, educators, media) should be making every attempt to provide information to the uninformed (i.e., the majority of the population). The voters are a mixture of the informed and the uninformed. The legislators are, too. Of course, most of the legislators mainly just care about being able to continue legislating. So the pressure on them has to come from the voters and if you want to steer the system you have to inform both the voters and the legislators. Oh, and they each speak a different language. So have fun with that!
Sabine, I guess the two actions aren’t necessarily opposites, but the ideas behind them at this point in time certainly are (at least in my opinion). Promoting more and more drilling for oil, especially in protected lands, seems to promote the idea of more consumption and energy use. To me, those are the opposite of conservation.
Betsy and Sabine, I guess we as a scientific community need to develop better communication skills and invest more time and energy (and money?) towards educating the public and government. I don’t think many scientists would argue with that, but with the other pressures of academia etc., so few scientists actually act on promoting these things. I certainly don’t know how to fix that but it would be nice if there was some motivation (besides for the sake of saving the world) for scientists to get involved on these social levels. I just don’t see it happening for the majority of professional scientists.
Well…scientists are voters, too. They can get involved to whatever extent they’re able. Anything is always better than nothing. A letter to a congressperson is something. A letter to the editor of the local newspaper is, too. Giving an interesting presentation at your kid’s school is something. Participating in the media and government outreach efforts of your professional association is something. Most have probably never done any of that stuff.
I completely agree!
In the end, conserving energy and resources is all about money – and like charity, it begins at home, with changing attitudes such that voters will demand easier access to eco-friendly measures.
I am doing my bit to save the planet, but economies of scale mean that many useful schemes that one should like to buy into – serious rainwater harvesting, solar panels, microgeneration and so on – are too expensive for individuals to sustain, and beneath the radar of politicians concerned with the ‘big picture’ (I’m not about to install a nuclear reactor in the cupboard unders the stairs, nor do I plan to drill for oil in my backyard).
Such things are, however, in the purview of local/municipal authorities and their planning departments. In Norfolk, where I live, strenuous promotion of recycling means that the county recycles 45% of its waste. It’s a good start. But the council could still do more to give grants for people wanting to get more serious about environmental projects (e.g. grants for installation of wind turbines combined with flexible planning legislation that allows you to do such things without people objecting).
However, retrofitting old houses with new eco-technology is more expensive that building new houses with such technology fitted as standard. Changes will only come when house builders — who build loads of houses at once and who can therefore benefit from economies of scale — get inducements/tax breaks to do this, and/or such features are required under building regulations and planning bylaws. Paradoxically, such things might be easier in crowded cities than in the rural idyll – it would be relatively easy, I’d have thought, to install rainwater harvesting, thermo-solar water heating and electrical microgeneration in big blocks of flats and office buildings than in individual houses.
Hi Nick,
Thanks for the clarification. I am actually very happy to hear Bush doesn’t attempt to violate basic laws of physics, and is all for energy conservation.
As to the scientist’s involvement, I believe we need a serious change in thought. Yes, education of the public and government is one of the points necessary, better communication as well. The problem with the communication though is two-sided, there also has to be a willingness to listen. But most notably, we’ll have to realize that our present political systems don’t sufficiently take into account there is a scientific method that can also be applied in the social/political sciences. Basically what I’m saying is our political systems are presently inappropriate to deal with the problems we are facing, this reflects in scientific knowledge (e.g. about ecological problems) being only very slowly incorporated, and ‘world leaders’ who are more or less incompetent and useless (which in turn leads to an erosion of trust).
Best,
B.
I think (most) people are more than willing to listen. But if our political systems are capable of dealing with today’s economic/environmental problems, then we really are doomed. What type of system would be more appropriate? A vast global autocracy run by Al Gore? ;)
You’ll have to read my book ;-) But it’s not actually that hard, to begin with a global political system of some kind would already be an improvement. But more important is that we need some scientific method in political/economical decisions. The present method (that has prevailed for centuries) is mostly trial and error, plus rhetoric and fog-making. It doesn’t matter whether there is any evidence in studies that what you say is correct, but only whether you convince the right people. What kind of a procedure is that?
It will become increasingly more important (it already does) to find out what consequences decisions have (e.g. carbon tax), as well as what institutional and organizational design leads to the best outcome. These are questions that have to be scientifically addressed, and shouldn’t be left over neither to incompetent people, nor to biased lobbies. Such a process needs to be incorporated in an appropriate manner.
What I am suggesting is to disentangle the actual political decision from the way they are put into place, i.e. the politicians from the academic research (in social and natural sciences, and especially the overlap of both), and to give more weight to the latter. I am really tired of hearing politicians saying we want X therefore we do Y, but you suspect they actually do Y because of Z. (Fill in whatever you like.) This isn’t going to help us solve the challenges we are facing. You can already see during the last decades that we are way too slow to react to new problems, the more complex the worse.
Hmm… yes, I like what I hear. I’d be interested in reading it. How long until it’s on the bestseller list?
Good question. Not this year. If you like I could send you a draft, maybe in 6 months or so?