date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:43:22 +0100 from: John Turnpenny subject: Re: Adaptation paper and post-meeting thoughts to: Nick Brooks , John Schellnhuber , Alex Haxeltine , dust-health ,Emma Tompkins , Neil Adger ,Rachel Warren , Jonathan Koehler dear Nick, thank you for your analysis and passionate words, which are often missing from academic discourse. As you know, I think it vital that the areas of research you are suggesting be included within climate change research. We need to be able to address the questions "what OUGHT we to do?" as well as "what CAN we do?". i think your characterisation of the two opposing camps certainly has some truth in it, especially at the scale of world politics, but i would describe it somewhat differently. Your difference is between the 'prometheans' and the 'green' approach, but i believe the true 'prometheans' are a small minority, with the vast majority having some sympathy with the need for some type of sustainability. The dominance of prometheans on the global stage at present is, i believe, not permanent, and has skewed the picture about where the real battle front lies which is in the divide within the 'sustainability' camp between "light" and "deep" green. Both types of green are opposed to the prometheans, but have very different concepts of what is meant by sustainability. Many people and organisations, including the UK government, have a light green approach - for example, while considering environmental issues, they argue that economic growth is the overarching objective. Your greens, Nick, which you set up as in opposition to the prometheans, "seek to preserve the environment and foster stability, in which human beings are seen as one part of the natural world rather than as separate to it and dominating it". I would say this is a much deeper green position and is opposed to the lighter approach. In all seriousness, i have heard the precautionary principle explained as "we shouldn't stop development while the knowledge of damage is uncertain", and this from a hydrologist who considers himself green. All in all, I think the trend in the west is slowly towards very weak sustainability and the real conflict will be between this and the deeper approach which is much more radical, more environmentally and socially aware, and would require major changes in the way societies are run. By the way, I disagree that religion is a part of the promethean outlook. Perhaps one particular cultural brand of protestantism is so (for example, the woman I met in Santa Barbara last year who sincerely thanked God for having enough money to have a facelift), but this is the exception. Most religions (not least Islam and many many Christians) oppose the promethean ideology, not least because it is a form of idolatry. Cheers, John At 11:14 30/08/03 +0100, Nick Brooks wrote: >Dear all > >Attached is a working paper that will be coming out over the next few weeks >(once Laura has cleared the admin backlog from the Sustainability Days). It >is relevant to the discussions we had in the Tyndall-PIK meeting that some >of you were at earlier today, and the rest of you might find it of interest >and want to comment. One or two of you reviewed it so the final version >might be of interest, if only for the records. > >Also in this morning's meeting the topic of economics and the need to move >beyond the neo-classical model came up. I think it might be useful to >explore the philosophical background to the current debate on economics and >the environment, although I don't know whether this is the sort of thing it >would be appropriate for Tyndall to engage in publicly. My own thoughts on >the philosophical context are summarised below for anyone who is interested. > >I think the coming century will be characterised to a large extent by a >clash between a "promethean" approach to the environment that seeks to push >technology (and economic growth) forward with little or no attention to risk >and environmental stability, counting on the same technology to get us out >of any tight corners, and a "green" approach that seeks to preserve the >environment and foster stability, in which human beings are seen as one part >of the natural world rather than as separate to it and dominating it (as in >the promethean view). I think this conflict is already underway, between the >promethean extreme neo-classicists, and the sustainability movement. Climate >change is the most obvious battleground between these two opposing >philosophies, with the prometheans deploying all means at their disposal to >oppose sustainability. Neo-classical economics is now a supporting ideology >for the promethean view, and in the United States has effectively become a >state religion deployed against those who challenge the economic or >political orthodoxy. This orthodoxy has also to a certain extent merged with >traditional religion and the enterprise culture to produce a philosophy in >which any attempt to manage innovation, enterprise or economic growth is >seen as morally wrong. I think this explains some of the vehemence of the >opposition to processes such as Kyoto - it isn't just a question of costs >and benefits, but rather a question of the struggle between good and evil, >with any perceived interference with US policy being firmly identified with >the latter. (see "America is a religion" by George Monbiot in the Guardian >for an interesting discussion on this: >http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1007741,00.html). > >I think we should recognise that much of the argument against mitigation is >based on what I call "faith based economics", which starts from the certain >knowledge that growth is always good and any attempts to manage or constrain >economic activity are bad - thus anything argument that suggests such a >course of action must by definition be wrong. Economic models are wheeled >out to support this line, as long as they are the right models. The >promethean movement is absolutely certain that we will always be able to >solve any environmental problems through technology, and loathes the >precautionary principle in any form. An article in The Economist the other >week dismissed the precautionary principle as pseudo-philosophy, and I read >similar things in the Australian press while I was away - the precautionary >principle is the latest target of the prometheans. > >There is a need to stand back from the debate and unmask it for what it is - >a battle between two ideological movements in which the science is often >lost or deliberately suppressed and/or manipulated in its interpretation. Of >course there are extremists on both sides, although I suspect many more on >the promethean side, as this is the side that tends to appeal more to base >self-interest, even though some of its faith in human ingenuity and >adaptability may be appealing for nobler reasons. We have to recognise that >neither extreme is likely to be viable or realisable in the long term, and >that, short of a radical decline in the human population, our future will be >one of constant adaptation to change coupled with environmental management >designed to make the world as sustainable as possible (adaptive >management?). There should be a place at least for a "soft" precautionary >principle that involves risk assessment - technological innovation will >continue but perhaps as a society we should be more conscious of what sort >of technological developments we think are desirable (these sorts of choices >are already being made at governmental level in connection with technologies >such as cloning, but the debate is curtailed when it comes to nuclear power, >GM foods and defence - the vested interests are stronger than the moral >objections). > >A final thought - those that oppose the precautionary principle most >vigorously are often those that strongly support precautionary spending on >defence to guard against possible future attack by unidentified enemies - >odd eh? We are much more certain that the climate will change (with or >without human intervention) than we were that the Soviet Union would launch >a nuclear attack on the West. In the end it comes down to vested interests, >paranoia, ideology and machismo. I think someone should point this out to >the Washington "think tanks". > >Does anyone think there is any mileage in Tyndall exploring some of the >issues above, in a more considered manner than I may have done here, as a >sort of meta-analysis of the climate change debate? > >Cheers > >Nick > >-- >Dr Nick Brooks >School of Environmental Sciences >University of East Anglia >Norwich NR4 7TJ >Tel: +44 1603 593904 >Fax: +44 1603 593901 >Email: nick.brooks@uea.ac.uk >http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~e118/welcome.htm (personal site) >http://www.tyndall.ac.uk (Tyndall Centre site) >http://www.uea.ac.uk/sahara (Saharan Studies Programme) >-- > > >