 | The Bullroarer - Friday 8 February 2008 | TOD: Australia/New Zealand | Climate Code Red: The Case for a Sustainability Emergency |  |
The dangers of short-termism
Posted by Phil Hart on February 10, 2008 - 3:00pm in TOD: Australia/New Zealand
Topic: Policy/Politics
Ian Dunlop has kindly given permission to post this article originally published in ECOS, CSIRO's magazine on sustainability in the environment, industry and community. (Ian's biography is at the end of the story).
If confirmation was ever needed, the recent federal election campaign has demonstrated just how dangerous our craven idolatry of ‘here-and-now’ shorttermism has become.
After months with reality suspended, the new government now has to face the stark fact that we are in the midst of nothing less than a global emergency, brought about by the rapid escalation of human-induced climate change and the imminent peaking of global oil supply.
The news is universally bad:
- In Australia the drought is worsening, capital city water supplies are deteriorating and the bushfire season does not bode well. The latest CSIRO and IPCC assessments highlight the risk of
continuing climatic deterioration. - Arctic sea ice is melting more rapidly than even the highest IPCC forecasts. This has serious implications for the warming of northern waters and global climate in general.
- Extreme weather events are escalating worldwide, from widespread flooding across Africa, to intense storm activity in the US, Europe, India and China.
- The price of oil could head north of US$100 per barrel, yet peak oil is barely on the agenda in this country, despite the first, grudging, official admissions internationally that it may soon become a reality.
Unfortunately the system we have created has rendered us uniquely illequipped to handle this emergency. Despite our impressive advances in science and technology, our ability to use the power these advances have bestowed responsibly has dramatically declined, bearing out Robert Theobald’s lament that ‘as information doubles, knowledge halves and wisdom quarters’.
Politically, in earlier eras we had statesmen and women, prepared, in the interests of humanity, to take a broader view than narrow national self-interest. Nowadays, spin and party loyalty dominate, with a time horizon no further than the next media poll.
Corporately, perverse incentives have led to a paranoia with short-term performance. Organisations previously highly regarded for their long-term thinking have dispensed with that expertise, in the process losing valuable corporate memory.
Research organisations, such as CSIRO, are under pressure to find external funding, which, given the current paradigm, means a focus on short-term projects, to the detriment of long-term fundamental research. At a time when we are in desperate need of a long-term view, we are moving in exactly the opposite direction.
In particular, we need an ability to ‘jointhe- dots’, to develop inter-disciplinary, holistic solutions to the major issues that are bearing down on us, rather than treating them in separate silos as at present. We need scenarios, unadorned by political spin, that allow us to explore the futures confronting us, globally and nationally, and the extent to which we can create those futures. But it does not seem to be happening. Why not? It should be a national priority.
Part of the process is to re-think our values, to ‘think the unthinkable’! An ideological preoccupation with a market economy based on short-run profit maximisation is rapidly leading toward an uninhabitable planet. As inconvenient as it may be politically, conventional economic growth and rampant consumerism cannot continue. Markets are important, but they operate within rules.
Henceforth, the rules must change to ensure long-run sustainability.
Ian Dunlop was formerly an international oil, gas and coal industry executive. He chaired the Australian Coal Association in 1987–88, chaired the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading from 1998–2000 and was CEO of the Australian Institute of Company Directors from 1997–2001. He is Chairman of the Australian National Wildlife Collection Foundation (CSIRO), and Deputy Convenor of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil.
Ian Dunlop said:
'Politically, in earlier eras we had statesmen and women, prepared, in the interests of humanity, to take a broader view than narrow national self-interest. Nowadays, spin and party loyalty dominate, with a time horizon no further than the next media poll.'
You must have studied a radically different version of history to me!
Not a lot has changed since the days of Machiavelli, and long before.
Neither have the cries of those bemoaning the wickedness of the present world, and remarking on the decline from the morality of their fathers, at a time in the past conveniently remote.
You seem to have missed re-stating significant parts of the full pastoral fantasy anyway, after we have repented, or perhaps back in some golden age- if we are going back to Walden pond, let's do it properly.
People, and politics, do not really change very much, you know.
Ian might be right. you need to read no further than LaoZi. though no statesman himself as far as we know, in less than 2000 words he did give all the answers to the sustainability plus some of the greatest wisdoms known to the mankind.
I also am baffled by the frequently cited "Myth of the Golden Age", when our leaders were so much better, and selflessly acted for the nation. There has never been such a time. In previous days, the media were much more controlled by government, and it was much easier to push government propaganda. I think any Roman political candidate of 2000 years ago would slot right in to modern politics with ease! They also knew just how to "buy" the populace for the sake of the next election.
Our current situation is not some new trend that has gone awry, and just needs fixing, putting us back to "where we should be". It is a continuation of the same exploitation of the planet that started thousands of years ago. Both leaders and people are equally wrapped up in creating this mess.
I would have to agree with Dave on this point. I think human behavior (at least in modern history) would point to most of our leaders going for short term gain without too much thought at the long implications of their actions. However, with 6.5 billion (and rising) people on this planet, the failure of our society to think in the long term has consequences for our planet and our civilization (such as it is) that we have not had to deal with previously, at least not on such a monunmental scale. If our climate is changing as rapidly as I fear, and our access to cheap energy is no longer something to be taken for granted, we are a uniquely dangerous point in our history...far too dangerous to ingore the long term implications any longer. Individually, I think human beings are fine, but when you get a bunch of them together...well, there goes the neigborhood.
SubKommander Dred
The problem:
If you don't come out on top in the short term, your plans for the long term are wasted.
And conversely ... if you don't leave behind a survivable environment for your offspring, all your child rearing efforts were for naught.
(Note how much energy we humans invest into having children, providing them with a good education, good jobs, etc.)
Many are stuck in a short term niche that they may or may not be aware that they are contributing to a non-sustainable economy.
If they can't feed, house, and clothe the kids today, what difference does it mean that such children and future generations of children will have nothing left?
It would be understandable if these Americans were living simply, but the consumer mentality, the acquisition of things and status symbols has flourished, despite the anti-materialism that seemed to be popular in the 60's.
Even if these sell-out boomers come back to earth in their values they are stuck with their SUVs, the big screen TVs, the plethora of eletronic gadgets,a killer mortgage, etc.
People develop the over acquisitive mode, maximizing their standard of living, because their niche in the economic status quo has rendered their lives meaningless.
It may be too late to resurrect the quality of life vs. standard of living argument as it may be too late to try to reconcile the short term vs. the long term. But we must proceed thus anyway. W
as information doubles, knowledge halves and wisdom quarters
a succinct footnote to the wisdom of LaoZi -- 绝学无忧
塞其兑，闭其门，挫其锐，解其忿，和其光，同其尘，是谓玄同.
There are good reasons for short term-ism:
1. In the long run we are all dead.
2. Those who claim to be able to see the future long term are frequently wrong. The second coming of Christ has been proclaimed for over 2000 years and believed by many yet is completely wrong so far.
3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.
4. The long term is made up of a series of short terms. If the short terms do not support the long term thesis, few will believe the long term forecast. For example, if climate change does not occur in a straight line, which seems very likely to me, the periods of reversal will be taken are evidence that global warming is false. Similarly, periods of mitigation of Peak Oil by recession, bio fuels, and conservation will make Peak Oil look false to the average Joe.
I see manipulation all over the place. There are all sorts of folks who deny that climate change is even real. Everything to them is political, and those on the far right live in an alternate reality where the world conforms to their beliefs.
That's called people having different opinions, Eric.
Global warming is an hypothesis, one with quite a lot of support behind it and which I personally think is probably right, but it is not the word of God or something, and it is not remotely on the same level of implausibility to think that it may not be right as to be a creationist.
It is an attempt to describe a highly complex system with a great many variables, and in which it is hypothesised that the impact of greenhouse gasses is multiplied many times by mechanisms of which we have a poor understanding.
I happen to think that it is the best explanation we currently have, but dislike fundamentalism on either side of the argument, which seems to me simply absurd on when seeking to describe such a complicated system.
"...it is not the word of God or something,..."
When, how long ago, was the word of god something on which there was universal agreement? ;-)
On the present situation, I am puzzled about how one can expect smart people of good will to come to a consensus view. And suppose we do not limit the discussion to global warming as seems to have been done by Ian. Should we not also include peak oil in the statement of the problem?
If it was only people of good will that we needed to reach, the problem would be much less hopeless...
First order of business, get the peak oil issue to the forefront of public awareness and discourse.
Second order of business, start developing and IMPLEMENTING long term and shorter term demand and supply side plans
>1. In the long run we are all dead.
But our children, children's children, and suceeding generations are not.
>2. Those who claim to be able to see the future long term are frequently wrong. The second coming of Christ has been proclaimed for over 2000 years and believed by many yet is completely wrong so far.
Peak Oil, Energy, and other resource constraints are real.
Jesus Christ hs come back many times in true Christians who have taken to heart and mind the teachings of Jesus and tried to live their lives in the best tradition of Christianity (e.g. Quakers). They have suffered much persecution for their efforts. Wouldn't you think of Gandhi (although not a "Christian"), MLK, and George Fox were "second comings"? Jesus was not a savior in the sense of the realization of worldly goals, and neither have been the many true Christians that have followed him since.
>3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.
We should try more to get the word out. We may be surprised at how many understand. The problem is with the access to communication channels that will reach them. If we could secure those channels then we would want to target those markets by framing the discussion in terms that they would understand.
>4. The long term is made up of a series of short terms.
And long term interests often clash with short term ones. If you don't make it in the short-term, there is no long-term. People are going to cling ferociously to their competitive and comparative advantages and/or their niches in short-term going concerns. We need to couch solutions within the context that "nobuddy gets hurt". Such however, goes against human nature and nature itself, and will be viewed with suspicion especially if a person has something, everything, or a lot to lose.
You make yourself sound remarkably like one of 'The chosen people', and it is unclear why you feel that you happen to be the one in possession of the truth, and that you may be entirely mistaken in your wish to 'educate' those who disagree with you, by which you seem to mean to cause them to agree with you, rather than have any wish to encourage that diversity of thought and opinion which is the necessary result of any liberal education.
Your statement:
'3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.'
is remarkably patronising, and might cause the unkind to wonder whether you are possibly the one untrained in logic and independent reasoning, and have been 'easily manipulated'
A little more respect for others, and a little less self-satisfaction might make it less difficult for others to take your opinions seriously, and that is what they are, opinions, not some revealed truth you have brought down the mountain.
First of all, I want to make it clear that the quote you took exception to was not mine. I posted it in order to respond to it.
Secondly, when you write about "liberal" education, are you referring to "laissez-faire"?
I think that it is important to educate with the goal of trying to reach a consensus because we are all in this together and we will have to work together for any hope of acheiving a sustainable, equitable, peaceful world.
Apologies for the misunderstanding on the quote.
No,a liberal education is an entirely different things to laissez-faire.
I entirely dislike any use of the word 'education', when that is a cover to cause others to agree rather than encourage them to form thoughts which may be at variance , and which should more properly be termed indoctrination, since the conclusion is pre-ordained, so disagree strongly with the source you quote.
And the idea of reaching a 'consensus' is either threatening, as it is perfectly clear that by one means or another they intend that others shall be made to alter what they think, and have no intention of changing themselves, or entirely divorced from this world, possibly a little of both.
I certainly hope that there are many that I will never be in consensus with, but respect their divergence.
We are in a world of our peers, and any attempt to put oneself on high above others is entirely illegitimate.
Hi Dave,
I think that it is important to make all people aware of the problems that we face as we are all stewards of the earth and the future. Peak oil is a huge impending problem. I wish someone of Al Gore's stature would champion it.
After the awareness problem is overcome, then we will have a better chance to brainstorm and propose solutions (and there are solutions, but it certainly won't be easy).
I think that the "agree to disagree" philosophy is dangerous. That's how wars get started. But you are right, respecting all others as equals is imperative to progress relative to peace, equity, and sustainability.
Practical said
3. Complex forecasts can not be understood by the average voter who has a high school diploma and a "C" average grade to go with it. They are not trained in logic and independent reasoning and are easily manipulated by the media, propaganda and religion.
This is also true of all of our leaders and most of their advisors.
The forecasts don't have to be complex. If presented properly, peak oil can be a relatively simple concept.
Just how do you communicate your ideas to political candidates and their advisors?
I have submitted some concise policy ideas to Clinton and Obama websites, but the chance that they will get to them are nil.
Political candidates and their advisors are intelligent people. However, they have rose through the ranks by playing the game the way that the status quo wants them to play. Also, they always have at least one eye on the perceptions of targeted voting blocks. Both these items interfere with their ability for them to see that fundamental change, not incremental, will be necessary to deal with the extant and looming problems, including peak oil.
IMHO, "training" won't help.
The structure of the human brain is dictated by random and fickle forces of evolution. Our brains were not intelligently designed and they are not put together in a way that inherently leads to logic and reason.
Until we come into better grips with who and what we are (the structure and functioning of our brains), we don't stand much of a chance in correcting the situation. When it comes to social engineering, we are mostly dabbling in alchemy. The real chemistry has not yet emerged. We're still doing the fire, sky, earth and water thing. A periodic table of the brain has not been assembled.
I think a lot of us DO understand but as the quote which appears sometimes on the top right main page of "theoildrum" in words to the effect of :
"no man will understand something which goes against what his salasry depends on "
I am sorry I cant remember who said it, and quote it accurately enough to find it.
Which is why the HTML-savvy enclose such text in <blockquote>...</blockquote> structures, so this is clear to the reader.
Mike: It's my understanding, as a Quaker, that there is "that of God" in all of us; you, me, George Fox, King, etc. The labels that folks chose to assign to themselves or others mean little if anything in this respect.
Cheers
Hello Friend John,
According to George Fox:
"God" (or good) is within all people. It is incumbent upon us all to cultivate such within ourselves and others. "Christ within can speak to thy condition".
I agree that labels set borders, and wars start at the borders.
"2. Those who claim to be able to see the future long term are frequently wrong. The second coming of Christ has been proclaimed for over 2000 years and believed by many yet is completely wrong so far."
GREAT example of a scientific prediction proven completely wrong.
In fact, Keynes is currently dead. Altough the problems people pointed on his policies did come and made a lot of harm.
In this article it states, "Nowadays, spin and party loyalty dominate." Think about how much effort is put into the two party system in the US fighting over various ideals. So much time and energy is wasted on bickering, holding diametrically opposed positions, instead of taking action on imperatives such as Peak Oil and Global Warming. They say you can't take it with you, but I'm beginning to think DC politicians would rather go down with the proverbial world ship, as long as they can wave their own party's flag while doing so.
As an example, Bush just canned the first clean coal plant. Obviously there was no real intent to build one in the first place, just a way to manipulate the other party to think something was being done. But in the end, what is achieved except the cruel, vindictive assault by one party onto the other, with no appreciable results to show?
We are in dire need of new leadership.
I have long argued that expecting a top-down answer to our various problems is a waste of time. Further, in the US at least, every politician remembers what happened to Carter. This is way out there but what the world needs is a new hippie movement.
Todd
Carbon Sequestration by this sort of means is utterly impractical on anything than a show-case demonstration.
Here is Greyflcn on the subject:
'
Something a lot of people ignore, is that CO2 is a much bigger molecule than plain Carbon.
__Molar Weight of C: 12.01kg
Molar Weight of CO2: 44.01kg
Over 3.5x as big
This is why cars are able to spew out their own weight in CO2 every year.
_
This of course has storage implications as well.
According to MIT’s 2007 “Future of Coal” study, capturing and compressing just 60 percent of the carbon dioxide produced by U.S. coal-fired power plants would demand a new pipeline network big enough to move 20 million barrels of liquefied carbon dioxide each day from power plants to suitable sequestration sites (which depend on particular geology)—a volume equal to all the oil piped daily throughout the country. Sequestration sites would have to be honestly administered, closely monitored, and tightly sealed. Such demanding technical requirements led journalist Jeff Goodell to write that “the notion of coal as the solution to America’s energy problems is a technological fantasy” www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/506
_
Even if carbon capture was cheap, and compatible with all existing power plants, the cost of this infrastructure, (and the parasitic loads) required by it would be astronomical.'
Here is the link, in the comments:
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2008/01/futuregen-scrap.html#c...
There is also the little matter that it was projected to cost way more than a nuclear plant, BEFORE you add fuel costs or pay for the actual sequestration!
"...cost way more than a nuclear plant, BEFORE you add fuel costs or pay for the actual sequestration!"
OTOH, cost numbers for nuclear seldom use honest numbers for decommissioning the plant at end of life, or for sequestration of the spent nuclear fuel rods.
The ball-park figures I was using to make that statement are from the actual costs incurred in the Finnish plant under construction, which is so far running at around $4bn for a 1.6GW plant, average output likely around 1.4GW.
With generous allowance for more future over-runs, we appear to be talking in the area of $6bn, although this is for the first of a kind in a country with no experience of nuclear build - the build in France of the same configuration will likely cost less.
Anyways, the real point is how similar this figure is to the costs given per MW for the bare-bones plant for sequestration, before you add fuel costs which are higher than for nuclear,and also higher than for a conventional coal plant or actually do any sequestration!
Engineer-Poet, your point about how far you have to transport the CO2 is a fair one, but surely this will vary due to the precise location of the plant.
I do not think sequestration impossible, but prefer means which are not point of source, such as agrichar, which would have the additional benefit of improving the soil and providing some fuel, although not enough to run an industrial society.
If you read his blog, you can see that he's trying to copy another blogger you should know. However, he doesn't have the expertise to completely fill those shoes.
One of the errors in the above-referenced comment is that, while the total daily volume of CO2 might be similar to oil, the barrel-miles would be much less. We can only get oil from where it is, and most of it comes in from the coasts; we can dispose of CO2 anywhere we can find suitable structures.
I agree that out of the original hippie movement the first renewable revolution got a minimal initiation, and the Reagen elimination of tax cuts for renewable and removal of solar panels from the roof of the White House ended that progress from the top down. However, I disagree that we need a 2nd hippie movement, but rather we need an extended period of time (16+) with the right leadership to scale up renewables to a level that has lasting, entrenched impact, prior to another Reagen type getting into office. Hopefully by that time enough momentum will have been achieved that no level of pure hatred for the planet will stop that momentum.
The hippies lost. Nixon, Reagan and Bushes won.
"liberal" and "enviornmentalist" are epithets, and "conservative" (but not of course "conservationist") is a compliment.
In the end, of course you can't fool Mother Nature, but the right will once again accuse the left of causing the problems and most people will believe it.
Wow. talk about a Pyrrhic victory!!
Yes. "We had to destroy the planet to save it," seems to be the mantra of the Republicants.
As an example, Bush just canned the first clean coal plant...
It seems to me that Bush was faced with two very poor outcomes if he proceeded:
1) The sequestering could not be done.
or
2) The sequestering could be done but was an economic disaster.
Either way... the going-forward concept of coal is killed.
Then what?
I just finished reading "Freedom from Oil" by David Sandalow.
First of all, the title is a misnomer because he only writes about strategies for REDUCING oil use, and mostly from a supply side approach. He briefly addresses "smart growth", but does not nearly give enough press to this demand-side strategy.
He NEVER mentions peak oil!!!
With respect to the short-term vs. long-term controversy, I think the following quote summarizes just how long, the long term is for this Brookings Institute "scholar" and former Clinton Cabinet holder:
>"At current consumption rates, U.S. coal supplies will last for more than 100 years"."
My immediate reply was, THEN WHAT?
Also, he advocates the electrification of transportation vehicles, which will probably require an increased rate of coal consumption. Although he addreses the various pollution problems that comes with burning coal, he doesn't mention the environmental destruction associated with mining it.
However, all in all, it is a book that I would recommend.
"Smart growth" is a pernicious oxymoron.
>"Smart growth" is a pernicious oxymoron.
I agree. That's why I put it in quotes. I prefer the term smart redevelopment, but for purposes of expediency, often I defer (perhaps wrongly).
Infinite growth within a finite world is not possible. The measures of GDP measures waste in addition to production. Econometric models are ridiculous abstractions. The strategy of growth is the strategy of cancer cells.
A few years ago at a conference, I saw a presentation about a mixed use new community de