Posted by anythingintelligent on August 3, 2009
Last week AI featured the first installment of a debate over whether climate change or global poverty should be a higher priority. Austin Thompson of the A. Thompson Monitor argued that global poverty is a more pressing problem and that developing countries should focus on economic development and poverty reduction, even at the expense of climate change. He acknowledged that sustainable economies are vital to the planet’s future, but disagreed with fast-tracking sustainability measures that would impede economic growth.
This week, Alexander Hurst of The Hurst Critique argues that the broad impact of climate change is too severe and pressing for developing countries to ignore. He frames climate mitigation as a long-term effort that will ultimately benefit the poor more than direct poverty-reduction strategies (without mitigation). In his post, Hurst calls for immediate action against climate change because climate policies take many years to become effective (as illustrated in this AI post). An excerpt from his argument appears below. The entire post can be found here.
Such pursuit of economic development at the cost of status quo (and more realistically, increased) emissions will backfire massively on the very people Austin is trying to protect from the vastly negative consequences of climate change. He seems to take a slightly defeatist attitude, acknowledging that even if all emissions were to cease today, the world would still experience warming and the subsequent consequences. However, as the recently released Stern Review, commissioned by the British government, reports, “The consequences of climate change will become disproportionately more damaging with increased warming.” While we are committed to a certain degree of warming, we still have a choice as to how much more we will cause. The consequences of further warming are, as I have stated, exponential with every degree increase in temperature, and will also be disproportionate in their effect on the world’s poor…
The energy generation facilities being built today will continue to function well into the next thirty years, which makes it even more imperative that we begin acting now to reduce emissions and make sure these new jobs will be at clean energy generating facilities. Furthermore, alternative energy offers the additional benefit to the third world of being independent from western control of oil. Many of the world’s leading solar manufacturers are from developing economies, and draw foreign investment (and will continue to do so) to those countries. Significant world spending on curbing emissions will necessarily involve the developing world, which means massive foreign investment in their nations (which happen to mostly be located in the best places for solar installations on earth).
Alexander Hurst is the author of The Hurst Critique, a blog on politics and other social issues.
Posted in climate change | Tagged: austin thompson, climate change, economic development, emissions, energy, global warming, hurst critique, poverty, public policy, stern review | Leave a Comment »
Posted by anythingintelligent on July 29, 2009
The worldwide response against climate change has a variety of opponents. Some object to the scientific basis of global warming; others believe committing vast amounts of time and money towards climate change is not the world’s top priority. Those resources, they say, should address pressing issues like global poverty and greater economic development. Over the next few weeks, Anything Intelligent will feature a blogger debate over prioritizing climate change and poverty in the international community.
This first installment from the blog A. Thompson Monitor lays the groundwork for “A Pro-Poor Approach to Reducing Carbon Emissions.” With consent from the author, the first few paragraphs appear below. The full post can be found here.
This post is one in a series of debates between myself and Alexander Hurst of the Hurst Critique. http://www.hurstcritique.com/ In this first post I explain that while carbon emission cuts in the long-term are necessary, developing countries should be prioritizing poverty eradication and sustainable economic growth with their public investment dollars.
Environmentalists and political commentators in the US recently went into a tizzy when India’s Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, told the United States’ Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that he refused to submit to pressure from the U.S. to lower carbon emissions.The United States is among a host of other rich countries that want to see a coordinated strategy to cut global greenhouse gasses that are contributing to the un-natural warming of our planet. India, like China believes that any significant reduction would impede their attempts at high-speed economic growth—a necessary aspect of poverty eradication.
Of course there is indisputable evidence that global warming is a threat to all countries rich or poor, but scientists agree that the impact of climate change will not be shared equally among actors. Poorer developing countries will bare the larger brunt of a warming process that was almost exclusively generated by pollution in richer nations over the last 200 years. It is unrealistic for industrialized countries to expect poor nations to commit to excessively broad carbon emissions reduction proposals. In this part of the world it is poverty eradication, not an impending environmental catastrophe that is the spending priority for governments.
Austin Thompson is a recent graduate of Howard University in Washington D.C. His blog A. Thompson Monitor focuses on international development.
Posted in climate change | Tagged: austin thompson, carbon, climate change, emissions, global warming, hillary clinton, jairam ramesh, poverty | 1 Comment »
Posted by anythingintelligent on July 20, 2009
On July 9, the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science released a large survey of scientists and the public. The report, descriptively entitled “Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media,” highlights the gap between scientific knowledge and its spread into the general public: the very rift that we are trying to close at Anything Intelligent.
Pew found that the public holds science in extremely high regard:
- 84% believe science has a “mostly positive” effect on society
- 85% — “mostly positive” impact on healthcare
- 66% – “mostly positive” effect on food and the environment
- about 70% believe science and technology “does more good than harm”
- 70% believe scientists contribute “a lot” to society, behind soldiers and teachers
- 60% feel government funding “is essential for scientific progress
The survey also asked scientists and the public about different issues; the disparity in results was striking. Scientists overwhelmingly believe in evolution (87%) and human-induced climate change (84%), views shared by a much smaller portion of the surveyed public at 32% and 49%, respectively. The graph below shows differences in opinion on these and other scientific issues.
Data source: The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
Why does this large gap exist? When asked about several potential problems facing science, most scientists thought the “lack of public knowledge” (85%) and “sloppy news coverage” (76%) were sources of major problems. The results depict fundamental flaws in the public’s source of scientific knowledge. Large bodies of research accompany major issues like evolution, global warming, and nuclear power — work that much of the general public has little exposure to. As a microbiologist quoted in the survey suggests, perhaps our grade schools do not adequately spark scientific interest, an apathy that carries over into adulthood. (54% of the public did not know electrons were smaller than atoms.) The information that the public receives may also contribute to their lack of scientific exposure: only 20% and 13% regularly read science magazines and websites.
The rift in scientific opinion and understanding has profound effects on policymakers. They must juggle the evidence from science experts and their constituents’ popular opinion, two distinct and often contradictory forces. How can these be reconciled? The Pew survey illustrates the need to capture and elevate the public’s scientific understanding and awareness. The green movement is already thrusting new information and technology into mainstream discussions. Now, we hope the rise of the blogosphere and new media will allow more scientific issues to reach the masses.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Anything Intelligent, climate change, Pew Research Center, public knowledge, public policy, survey | Leave a Comment »
Posted by anythingintelligent on July 3, 2009
AI – Anything Intelligent is a new, collaborative blog focused on expanding the role of science in public policy. AI is written and edited by college students with varied interests in the applied, natural, and social sciences.
Despite attending different schools and studying in different academic fields around the U.S., our common philosophy is simple: to bridge the gap between scientific developments and their real-world impact on lifestyles, economies, and society. The scientific community grows with fresh minds tackling the next frontier in research and technology, yet a much smaller focus is placed on turning relevant advancements into useful public policy. At this weak and confusing intersection, major forces like industries, countries, and politics drive conflicting interests, often times resulting in a frustrating deadlock.
However, there are signs of increased movement between science and public policy, especially in today’s environmental and climate change movement. President Obama pulled the Nobel laureate and current Energy Secretary Steven Chu directly from the scientific community. None of Chu’s recent predecessors had background in academia: both Bill Richardson (Clinton Administration) and Spencer Abraham (Bush 43) were lifelong politicians; Samuel Bodman (Bush, second term) held engineering degrees but pursued a successful financial and business career. It remains to be seen whether an accomplished scientist like Chu can push for science and technology in the political arena, although his arrival signals the next step to utilize science in policy-making. In an interview with National Geographic, Chu describes his view on the Department of Energy’s role:
“The Department of Energy is the biggest supporter of the physical sciences in the United States, but it also has a mission to take what is developed in national labs and universities and transfer this knowledge to applied research—research that will lead to really new ideas about sources of energy and ways of using our energy more efficiently. So that’s one of the things the Department of Energy will be focusing on—how do we make that transition?”
We will cover this transition from scientific knowledge to application, and furthermore from applicable uses to policy decisions. Our ultimate goal is to emphasize and expand the discussion connecting science and public policy, from small but interesting developments in science to sweeping policy changes. We don’t seek to advocate a specific set of policies — in fact, contributing writers may disagree on policy issues. Any relevant and grounded topic is fair material: where science connects to policy, Anything Intelligent goes.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Anything Intelligent, department of energy, public policy, research, science, steven chu | Leave a Comment »
anythingintelligent
mmiller12
elu1299