Ethics in Business and Government
Talking Renewable Energy: a Cognitive Dissonance
At PNWER, we didn’t hear about global ecological responsibility or serious conservation requiring sacrifice or inconvenience.
By Jill Kuraitis, 7-21-09
Last week’s Boise summit of the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region organization’s leaders and members was a forum for presenting research and new ideas about energy, land and water, economic development and more. It was a serious endeavor with hundreds of impressive minds who contributed, but it fell short of success.
Something was missing.
PNWER has a noble purpose, which is to form and implement a collective vision about the future of our region, consistently update and educate its members on the changes and innovations that affect common issues, and organize working groups, keeping everybody on track. It’s an impressive coalition, and the conference was one of the best I’ve seen in producing tangible plans with accountability checks and ways to measure results.
But whether it was mindset or neglect, the energy innovations track of the PNWER conference was strangely weak on proclaiming a fundamental concept about saving the planet: the sense of urgency and ethical responsibility to respond in human terms. It was missing the bedrock “we must do this to rescue the earth and our children” – a statement of moral imperative that should come before, and with, talk of money and profit.
It was also alarmingly devoid of serious discussion about conserving energy instead of producing more of it.
It wasn’t, however, a gathering of unprincipled leaders - far from it. The collective sum of business and government experience, scientific IQ, and dedication to excellence from the attendees was an extra-heavy total. And it isn’t that PNWER ignores ecological and environmental ideas. In its mission statement and goals there are the statements that PNWER exists partly “to increase the economic well-being and quality of life for all citizens of the region,” and to “achieve continued economic growth while maintaining the region’s natural beauty and environment.” Some speakers did use data and analysis to address the environmental impact of their research or projects.
The program handed out at the summit has the tagline “Global Challenges – Northwest Imperatives - Through Excellence, Innovation, and Leadership.”
Yet in energy presentations made by impressive authorities, the theme was mitigate, not fix. Environmental impact standards were quoted with “acceptable levels” instead of “better than acceptable levels” or used terms like “start reducing by 2015” instead of “immediate reduction with the urgent goal of elimination.”
Milt Wakefield of Bruce Power, an earnest and sincere man, repeated some pro-nuclear old saws like, “you get more radiation flying to Hawaii than you do around a nuclear generator” – and a polite question or two from nuclear skeptics were dispensed with as if mere fluff. The atmosphere was markedly restrained, almost timid. It begged the question of whether ideological dissent would be tolerated in this circle. When talking about the politics of nuclear energy production and the storage of nuclear waste, speakers made it clear they were tired of having to justify their positions, and paid only lip service to possible problems.
A presentation by Idaho Office of Energy Resources administrator Paul Kjellander was crammed with facts and statistics about renewable energy. Smoothly delivered, Kjellander’s speech included the statement “We need to recognized the concept of blurred borders – there are no borders” which made me scribble, “alien concept to Idahoans?” in my notes. Kjellander’s statement sounded encouraging until he continued along purely economic lines, saying, “We may need to play broker in how resources get to market.”
Missing was the idea of blurred borders as a cooperative moral concept. Also missing was mention of conservation; of usage quotas; of cutting back. In an interview with Kjellander after his speech, I tried twice to get him to talk about conservation programs, and after a brief “of course we have to educate people” or its equivalent he would immediately turn back to his blizzard of energy talking points.
The confab at the Boise Centre included hundreds of people - engineers and scientists of many specialties, elected officials, researchers, bureaucrats and administrators. The keynoters were Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick, the Canadian Premier of the Northwest Territories Floyd Roland and CEOs of several huge energy companies and projects such as Stephen Wright of the Bonneville Power Administration. To differing degrees, all these highly educated men are somehow engaged in trying to solve environmental problems.
How strange that we didn’t hear more from them than a passing whisper about global ecological responsibility and serious conservation requiring sacrifice or inconvenience. But plenty was heard about stimulus money.
Ecological ethics opinions often sound like this: economic excuses that entities sometimes make to justify their lack of planning and nonexistent or inadequate solutions to environmental emergencies are at best a problem, and at worst an ethical failure. The duties and responsibilities to others of global ethics means decisions should never be made based on our interests, without including the interests of others.
Pure principle that ignores the complexity of the biggest problem we’ve faced so far – including its economic complexities - that’s no good.
The captains of industry, in their most ruthless form, reject the idea that the interests of others are part of a morally upright business plan. That’s no good either.
Disappointingly, the PNWER summit lacked humility – and humanity – in not basing its work on environmental ethics, and the valuable conference murmured with a strange cognitive dissonance. The voice which should have been louder was either muzzled or muffled, so the important words were only distantly heard.
[End of article]
Jill - there is good reason that "humanity" and "saving the planet" were excluded from discussion: like it or not, that message simply does not resonate with a huge cross section of America. If our collected political leadership is to be successful at implementing renewable energy policies, sources, and practices, they must package this transition to green energy so that it will be adopted by the largest amount of people possible. So the core message that we can all relate to is this: "America is still one of the fastest growing nations on Earth, and we cannot currently produce enough power to accommodate that growth, thus new forms of energy production are needed."
That's my $.02, anyway.
Jill, I'm not sure why you're surprised by corporations not echoing the global climate change scientific conclusions. While you readily acknowledge the intelligence of the elite guests, you seem to ignore the evidence at hand: corporations can not acknowledge AGW because of liability and legality. Pure science gatherings can be more blatant. After all, they aren't the ones doing the polluting.
You also don't seem to acknowledge that what they are doing has been proven to be profit driven in a greener economy.
I for one can appreciate the "being green for the sake of being green", but I also have to recognize the scientific background that is the foundation of the latest environmental push.
Face it, Jill, the conference didn't quite fit your religious environmental belief system. The belief that global warming is a serious threat to mankind and the environment has a striking similarity to the biblical paradigm of sin, guilt, and the need for redemption. The author Michael Crichton has described the modern secularist's subconscious need for religion by the secularist's uncritical environmental reverence. Quoting Crichton: "There's an initial Eden, a paradise a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability, Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe."
Comment By Jay Kanta, 7-22-09Yeah, a science-FICTION writer is a great source for the anti-AGW debate.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 7-22-09Anybody with a brain is a better source than you.
Comment By Jill Kuraitis, 7-22-09Mickey and Jay, cut it out. Adhere to our Terms of Service. There will be no name calling, absolutely no referring to each other or other commenters' level of intelligence, nor will there be this accusatory tone - toward each other or other commenters.
If you wouldn't say it that way to your mother, you shouldn't say it that way at all.
Example of how Jay could have said the same thing: "A science fiction writer is not a legitimate source for the anti-AGW debate."
Example of how Mickey could have answered: "I disagree. Crichton is intelligent and has a lot of legitimate points, such as....."
Learn to write in a civilized way. Learn not to inflame but state opinions using facts. The idea is to have a CIVILIZED CONVERSATION like big boys and girls, to treat others with decency and civility, and to encourage others to join in. Your pissing matches cut off debate because other people don't want to get in the middle of it.
I'm sick and tired of this, and will show you the door if you can't be gentlemen.
The alternative to sustainability would be...
Something Biblical, no doubt about that. I don't know where Crichton's coming from, but aside from a clever parallel, his argument (as paraphrased here) is not convincing. Believe it or not, the local version of monotheism is not somehow imprinted on the human species.
Failing a bet on divine intervention, the only thing debatable about sustainability is what all it should comprise.
I don't know if you've noticed, Jill, but most public policy disputes end up being a pissing match, whether you're pissing with facts, fables, insults or a combination of all three. Hurling insults at your political, religious, or policy opponent is older than the republic. I won't boor you with numerous examples from history. In any case "cognitive dissonance" is just a back door way of insulting the opposition. Claiming that the conference was immoral or amoral from your point of view. So is an insult, polite and cloaked in fancy words,better than a direct insult?
Comment By Dave Skinner, 7-23-09Mickey does have a point, Jill. What precisely entitles you to render a moral judgment on the proceedings anyway? Never mind the mission of the PNwhatever, "to increase the economic well-being and quality of life for all citizens of the region,” is boiled down to improving the human condition. That's about as implicitly moral as it gets without saying it outright.
I further must raise the point that energy availability is an enormous means of improving the human condition. Just try pumping water and then heating it for your bath. Just that one little trivial thing is an enormous boon to the human condition, eh?
So, if I can pump and heat it in an efficient manner, with acceptable impacts, sorry, but that's what I want. That's what the vast majority of us, troglodytes or not, ask for....an acceptable balance.
I would say that the lack of humility in the proceedings was based on cold hard science. The same sciences that are providing incremental improvements in battery technology, alternative energy sources and cost of production, efficiencies that ultimately produce the same amount of work for the less energy than previously, LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) of any given alternative--"it takes energy to make energy". It is not about a revolution, it is about evolution.
There are those studies that indicate we already past the point of no return on CO2 concentrations and global temperature increase. You do not have to believe those studies or even in "global warming"... but, let us take those studies as a call to solve current problems, and work towards resolving future symptoms--CO2 concentration is not going to be reduced with increases in population in second and third world countries just emerging as first world countries. The associated energy for servicing those populations (electricity, heat, food -- the three basics) --is the driving force. But with deliberate, thoughtful and analytically driven solutions, rather than the ideological silver bullet, we can become more efficient, produce less pollution, and find a steady state lower growth life.
LCA provides a path to efficiency and conservation and energy diversity. LCA provides a path to profitability and the natural drive for capital that drives innovation. That same analysis drives economic development and jobs. LCA is not just about the cost vs. benefits, it involves the entire supply chain. As an example, Where does that cell phone come from? What does it contain? How much energy did it take to make? How much energy does it consume in its lifetime? Where does it end up when it dies? [and socially, who made it?]
We need to face reality. Hydrocarbons are not going away until they are too expensive to extract--right now they provide one of the most cost effective LCA for usable and transportable energy sources--unlike those other touted sources such as food based ethanol, biofuels, and hydrogen. But, along with solar, wind, nuclear, ALL of these can be part of a diverse set of regional solutions that slowly will come together with the proper analysis. One step at a time.
Just like tariffs, cap and trade will make the energy markets more competitive, along with actually applying the fines for violations of current EPA regulations. That will help drive nuclear from a stage where subsidies are required to a more permanent profit generating venture. Americans will have to pay a slight bit more for their energy, but that also forces more efficiency solutions, which will drive bills lower and lower.
As for the studies that indicate that we are past the point of no return, I would suggest that that requires an absolute knowledge to conclude, which is something climatologists don't necessarily have at this time. With deep sea temperatures and troposphere temperatures not matching any of the previous models, it indicates that there are temperature forcing feedback loops within the environment that we still don't quite understand. We're getting there, though.
But reductions in CO2 are absolutely necessary for levels are to the point where we threaten our very existence. Acidification of the oceans has the very likely result of reductions of the very basic sources of food for larger animals. Bleaching of reefs continues at a fast pace, destroying large swaths of populated habitats. There are still ways to drive down our footprints through large scale sequestriation and renewable, low carbon energy creation.
CO2 Facts: 1. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is an essential nutrient for life on earth like oxygen and water. CO2 is not a pollutant. And all life, both plants and animals benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide. 2. Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants. 3. At 380ppm CO2 is a minor constituent o earth's atmosphere, less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times earth's current atmosphere is CO2 impoverished. 4. Atmospheric CO2 is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans. 5. Even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions, would have a negligible effect on global climate.
Comment By Jay Kanta, 7-24-09Wow, so much wrong. Did you copy and paste that from Anthony Watts' site? Do you know the angle of reflection of short-wave vs. long waves for CO2 and how even minimal changes in density have exponential increases in the greenhouse effect?
Comment By Jay Kanta, 7-24-09OH, New West should just delete my posts. This is a waste of time. Goodbye NewWest.
Comment By Monty, 7-24-09Yes, technology has improved the human condition. But we can never get to the seminal issue--or if we do the name calling starts--which is human numbers and consumption rates. Los Angles, 50 years ago was a lotus land of orchards, unpolluted beaches, open uncrowded highways and reasonable crime rates. Look at it now, paradise has been lost. For those who continue to ignore the obivious--run away human numbers--they should visit China or India. What is our national goal: to exceed China & India in the production of "human tonnage"?
Comment By Jill Kuraitis, 7-24-09Dave, Mickey can post any opinions he wants, any time. It's the attack-dog toward other commenters that isn't okay. All opinions are okay; all writing styles are not. If you'll re-read my post about Terms of Service, you'll see I did not refer to anything about the criticism of me or my article; only about the exchanges between Mickey and Jay.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 7-24-09Speaking of long waves and short waves, "Greenhouse gases" absorb all radiation available to them in a few meters. The limiting factor is in the radiation, not the greenhouse gases. More of the gas cannot absorb more radiation. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance for absorption of radiation from 10 meters to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature.
Comment By Mickey Garcia, 7-24-09Speaking of insults, one of my favorites is attributed to Winston Churchill, quote: "He's a modest man who has much to be modest about". Hopefully no one here has "much to be modest about".
This article was printed from www.newwest.net at the following URL: http://www.newwest.net/city/article/talking_renewable_energy_a_cognitive_dissonance/C108/L108/