My latest DeSmogBlog piece is about the unfolding nuclear power debate, and how it fits into the context of arguments about the left, the right, and science. This is something that has been on my mind for some time:
When I and other demonstrated, during the George W. Bush years, that political conservatives had grown very strongly anti-science, we often heard what I would call the “nuclear counterargument.” The point was made that, hey, during the 1960s and 1970s, it was the political left that attacked science illegitimately—particularly around nuclear power.
Here’s a typical example of the charge, from the George C. Marshall Institute book Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking (2003):
To attack the nuclear power industry, [activists] needed ammunition, and it was readily found. They only had to go through the nuclear power risk analysis literature and pick out some of the imagined accident scenarios with the number of deaths expected from them. Of course, they ignored the very tiny probabilities of occurrence attached to these scenarios, and they never considered the fact that alternate technologies were causing far more deaths. Quoting from the published scientific analyses gave the environmentalists credibility and even made them seem like technical experts. (Bernard L. Cohen, “Nuclear Power,” p. 146) (more…)
I’ve been thinking a great deal about nuclear energy lately in preparation for last week’s Energy at the Movies event at UT. We included clips from 1979′s The China Syndrome followed by real news reports immediately following the Three Mile Island accident–which took place just 12 days after the film premiered. Some energy experts believe that movie contributed to halting nuclear development in the U.S.
Thirty-two years have passed, so I became interested in whether attitudes on nuclear energy may have changed. A few days before the earthquake, I conducted this poll via facebook and twitter:
Within hours, I had 71 response: 63 yes, 2 no, and 6 undecided. How do you think the same question would fare now?
It’s too soon to speculate how U.S. energy policy will be influenced by the weekend’s tragic events in Japan, but regardless of advances in technology and safety measures, public sentiment will likely play a tremendous role in what happens next.
Precipitated by the horrible unfolding disaster in Japan, we are poised to have a big public policy debate about nuclear power in this country–and the advisability of the much touted “Nuclear Renaissance,” which President Obama has thrown considerable weight behind.
Whatever happens next–and it is not clear right now just how bad the problems at the two afflicted Japanese nuclear plants are, or how well those problems will be contained–I’m hoping that the unfolding debate over nuclear power will based on the best available science.
On this front, risk assessment scholar David Ropeik, writing at Scientific American, has already thrown down the gauntlet big time. His view well represents the pro-nuclear side of the debate: (more…)
Nuclear power is evil. Solar power is our savior. Or…is it the other way around? On Wednesday, March 9, at 7:00 p.m. EST, the University of Texas will present an entertaining lecture about how movies have depicted energy sources and therefore shaped public opinion and government policy, for generations. The evening will be filled with video clips and expert debates, and you can watch the whole event, live, right here at ScientificAmerican.com
We’ll be taking questions on Facebook & Twitter (tag #energymovies) and I can report that this is one of the most unique and engaging projects I’ve been involved organizing. We’ve got quite a cool and interactive show, so tune in and you won’t be disappointed!
My latest DeSmogBlog item is about an upcoming hearing before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, entitled “Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations.” What’s strange is that previously, the committee (or at least its GOP majority) had appeared to have its mind all made up about climate science–namely, it’s just plain bunk.
Now, though, we’re actually going to hear from a lot of scientists, albeit including several “skeptics”–which is certainly an improvement, but still a mixed blessing:
My view is that it’s certainly better to hear from scientists than not to hear from them—but “science fight” hearings are rarely very enlightening. Some members of the media, the Congress, and the public are able to parse the flurry of claims and counterclaims. But most walk away with the impression that there’s a big “debate” and a lot of “uncertainty.”
In three days–and just in time for SXSW!–the film event I’ve been planning with colleagues at UT hits the historic ACL stage! Energy at the Movies will navigate through 70 years of energy on the big screen as we explore cultural perceptions of oil, coal, industry stereotypes, renewables, and much more. Best of all, you can watch via the livestream.
As a panelist, my role will be to discuss the portrayal of women in these films. To introduce the subject, let’s start with the Bechdel test. Heard of it? Here’s a great explanation:
There are lots of examples to discuss, from Leslie Benedict in 1956′s Giant to Kimberly Wells in 1979′s The China Syndrome. More coming soon, but for the time being, I’m interested to hear readers’ thoughts…
So, I really, really, really disagreed with this Judith Warner piece in the New York Times magazine over the weekend, drawing an analogy between left wing postmodern attacks on science and present day right wing climate science denial. I’ve just done a lengthy rebuttal at DeSmogBlog, showing that if anything, climate deniers are clueless about science studies and its insights; if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be able to take the positions they do. Brief quote:
…the idea that science is the embodiment of “truth” is something with which climate deniers blithely agree. They think that they are right and that the scientific consensus about global warming is wrong–objectively. They’re not out there questioning whether science is the best way of getting at the truth; they’re out there talking as though their scientists know the truth.
Can you picture James Inhofe citing Derrida or Foucault? The very idea is comical.
Frankly, if climate deniers were more conversant with science studies, I have to believe that they would feel a lot less sure of themselves—and they would never have been able to make such a big fuss about “ClimateGate.” “ClimateGate” is the quintessential example of scientists showing, through their private emails, that they’re people too; that they have passions and feelings, that they say things they shouldn’t and make mistakes. No shock at all to people in “science studies,” who can tell you the same thing about, say, the private writings of Isaac Newton.
CM already discussed Gasland, and I want to encourage readers to check out another film called Haynesville: A Nation’s Hunt for an Energy Future. This documentary explores the discovery of the largest natural gas field in the United States – a 170-trillion cubic foot reserve located in northwestern Louisiana. Director Gregory Kallenberg and producer Mark Bullard followed three residents whose lives are dramatically affected by the “Haynesville Shale” in ways they could not have imagined.
A single mom takes up the defense of her community’s environmental protections, an African American preacher attempts to use the riches to build a Christian school and a salt-of-the-earth, self-described “country boy” finds himself conflicted as he weighs losing his land to an oil company’s offer to make him a millionaire.
They also interview environmentalists, scientists, and oil and gas industry experts throughout the movie. Haynesville recently premeired on CNBC and (full disclosure) I know the filmmakers. It’s well-worth watching and provides an interesting look at the socioeconomic factors and people beyond the headlines.
Registration is open for Energy at the Movies on March 9, or you can sign up to watch the webcast:
From the gushing geysers of Giant, to the plutonium-powered time machine of Back to the Future, Hollywood has entertained us with unforgettable, often iconic images of energy. Whether intentional or not, films frequently serve as a snapshot of society, capturing sentiments of each time period. Many films have themes or scenes that memorialize collective optimism, fears, and observations about energy. Using film clips as a historical road map, Energy at the Movies is an entertaining lecture that will enlighten audiences about the ways films influence how we think about energy, and in turn, how we influence energy policy.
Dr. Michael Webber will present an engaging interactive lecture followed by our panel discussion:
Nick Sundt of the World Wildlife Fund has a post about the congressional attack on the IPCC, showing that critics appear to have dramatically overstated how much money the U.N. body receives from the U.S. In particular, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, who sponsored the amendment to cut IPCC funding, claims on his website that his bill “would prohibit $13 million in taxpayer dollars from going to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization fraught with waste and engaged in dubious science.” But as Sundt writes:
Our sources suggest the U.S. contribution to the IPCC fluctuates depending on the stage of the assessment process, and that in recent years it probably has averaged $2 million per year. For FY2011 it might be closer to $2.4 million, assuming no law is passed to the contrary. That is less than one-fifth of the $13 million cited by Leutkemeyer.
So where does the $13 million figure comes from? It turns out that the number represents the combined expenditures related to the IPCC and the U.N. Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The IPCC is engaged in scientific assessments while the UNFCCC involves international negotiations. The combined budget for activites related to the IPCC and UNFCCC was $13 million in FY2010, $8 million in FY2009 and $5.5 million in FY2008, reflecting stepped-up activity in both the IPCC assessment process and in the UNFCCC negotiations. Most of those funds are not contributions to the IPCC.
You can read Sundt’s full post here. Talk about know-nothingism….
My latest DeSmogBlog piece is about the unfolding nuclear power debate, and how it fits into the context of arguments about the left, the right, and science. This is something that has been on my mind for some time:
