I was going to proceed chapter by chapter through Ian Lowe’s new book ‘A Big Fix: Radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis’ but by the time I get to chapter 6 I’ll have missed the key points, or lost my audience, or both. So here goes the dive bomb.
Lowe begins the book by stating that he is a scientist.
Then on page 86, he says,
“Sustainability science [which he supports in previous paragraph] differs fundamentally from most science as we know it. The traditional scientific method is based on sequential phases of inquiry: conceptualizing the problem, collecting data, developing theories, then applying the results. …Sustainability science will have to employ new methods, such as semi-quantitative modeling of qualitative data, or inverse approaches that work backwards from undesirable consequences to identify better ways to progress. Researchers will have to work with land-users to produce new understandings that combine scientific excellence with social relevance.”
So Lowe is suggesting that:
1. Science should not be sequential,
2. There is such a thing as semi-quantitative modeling,
3. We should image the worst, no matter how unlikely.
But science has to be sequential. You advance a hypothesis. For a hypothesis to be proven, it needs to be predictive, so you make predictions based on the hypothesis and devise ways of testing the prediction. There is no way that any of those steps can be taken out of sequence and still be called science. An adjective like ‘sustainability’ can only qualify the noun, it can’t negate it.
The wooliness of Lowe’s thinking is demonstrated by his second proposition. The only thing that “semi-quantitative modeling of qualitative data” can indicate is that he doesn’t want to count the results accurately. Quantitative is a digital concept, it doesn’t come in shades.
The third proposition could be referred to as the “Chicken Little Principle”. “If I say the sky is falling, then there is no time to go through the normal rigour of the scientific method, because by that time the sky will have fallen. So let’s ‘desequentialise’ and ignore the facts, it will make me feel better, and guess what, the sky won’t fall either!” Yes, and the same logic applied to milk souring in the middle ages led to lots of little old ladies being drowned in duck ponds.
I protested when Joh Bjelke-Petersen was awarded an honourary doctorate of laws because of his contempt for the law. In the circumstances I would be inconsistent if I didn’t call on Griffith University to strip Lowe of his professorship in a science faculty. He has abandoned science.
I know a lot of people have a lot of time for Ian Lowe, but on the evidence of this book his time has passed.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Why do people associate such credibility with the words: “I am a scientist.”? It must be an expression of faith, for surely they couldn’t believe in its incorruptibility?
That’s better. Evidence!
Yeah, that does sound very odd. Do you get more clarity on what he means by ‘semi-quantitive’ etc by reading the rest of the book?
Neil: ask Louis. He says “i am a geologist” all the time to bolster his authority.
hmmmm …. now this is all very annoying – going to have the read the book myself and see if Jen is quoting out of context but by then the thread will have passed….. grrrr…
But you wouldn’t be joshing us would you Jen ? so maybe I don’t need to worry….
Poor Ian – he’s a not a bad bloke really. He’d be very hurt by all this nasty talk. Just trying to run a little greenie line and big bad Jen stomps all over his new book. What a shocker.
Phil, Steve,
Lowe introduces the concept of sustainability science in the second last chapter which is titled ‘How might a sustainable society operate?’
He places it in the context of the need for ‘stable consumption’ and then explains that this doesn’t mean we need to eat and dress the same.
He returns to the concept in the last chapter stating: “We need to cap consumption per person so that the total load on natural systems is within the sustainable limits. Determining those limits will require a serious investment in ‘sustainability science’ so that we can understand the critical thresholds beyond which natural systems rapidly deteriorate.”
Neil,
The environmental establishment often prostitute the word ‘science’ to give a perceived ‘authority’ to their beliefs which have no basis in science -no basis in observation or tested theory. Lowe’s book is a case in point.
I think its unfair to limit that comment to the ‘environmental establishment’ jennifer. That argument applies to most skeptics too, who are happy to wave around their qualifications, but rarely publish in peer-reviewed widely known and accepted journals.
Many people use dodgy means to try and afford themselves a perceived authority. Again, Louis is a great example.
I don’t get too caught up in the scientific debate, I’ll just deal with our environmental issues with methods that have been proven in the real world…………and let the scientists catch up later on.
The goal of the *sustainable society* (qualified by yet to be determined criteria) seems to require increased taxpayer input, does that mean it is unsustainable?
rog – our present society is only sustainable with huge inputs of energy. The technolgical explosion that has transformed our lives is totally dependant on cheap and plentiful energy.
While it lasts it is OK. If/when energy becomes either expensive or scarce or both then if follows that the society we have now is unsustainable. There are no substitutes with the energy return of fossil fuels or the substitutes will cause greater environmental harm.
Now you can dismiss these things as greenie nonsense if you like however that will not change the results if the era of cheap energy comes to an end. If we were sensible then we would adapt our technology in anticipation of a lower energy supply BEFORE it becomes too late to do so. I for one do not think that this will happen.
Maybe it will maybe it wont – the market is the only true indicator of resource supply and availability and demand.
If the market is compromised (regulated) we will never know the true picture.
That is what all this watermelon greenie stuff is about – nothing about the bush etc – its about gaining control of the (free) market. Getting their hands on the cash tin.
Just think of all those billions of Chinese who would like to drive Commodores and Hondas too.
And have DVDs and TVs. And the ever helpful kitchen appliances (is it wrong to want to collect all of them ?) And who would like air-conditioners made in the very helpful factory that supplies Harvey Norman and KMart. Betcha they will enjoy them as much as we do powered by our coal and uranium to keep it all going (errr glowing).
And I personally think that the seedless varieties are no where near as tasty the old seeded ones myself. Gee you don’t suppose the seedless ones are GM do you ?
So Jen – where did you get your copy? I find the book not released yet …
rog – that is where economics and the ‘free’ market are just plain wrong. The physical resources of the planet determine supply. Economics externalises the true costs of energy. While demand is much smaller that the ultimate size of the resource then what you say is true. However humans are now exploring the limits of resources where the rules of economics do not apply. It is a bit like our laws of physics working fine until you are trying to describe a singularity (black hole) then all bets are off. Physisists cloak singularities in an event horizon to save our current understanding. Economics is approaching an event horizon of the Earths limited resources.
A free market cannot create energy no matter how hard you wish it to be or how free it is. Greenie stuff is not about a cash tin but trying to convince people whose only thought is money that money cannot buy energy if there is no energy to be bought.
Phil, I was sent a copy by the publishers, Black Inc.
Free markets ! hah … market mechanisms … hah
years of tariff protection by USA, Europeans and Japanese … what’s real – what’s not ?
OPEC fiddle and regulate the oil supplies and price
And if you were fair dink – you would call for an abolishment of all drought support for our farmers … no more capitalising gains and socialising the losses.
And again on “the free market” externalities don’t get internalised. Companies can (CAN) take the profits and leave the downside of environmental damage for society to pick up/enjoy/suffer. e.g. see Exxon Valdez and and the fishermen affected
Free markets still remain the best way to fairly determine the value of a product. They also remain the most fair instrument for wealth distribution.
They do not create energy or any other product they only act to exchange product. It is unfair to make a market responsible to activities that lie outside its function.
Companies can and do retain profits for reinvestment building on their inherent value, this is reflected in their share price.
Greens should confine their energies to more productive pursuits; Peter Garrett has no problem holding shares in coal burning green house gas emitting AGL
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,16605125-5001021,00.html
Ah Rog my man … you’re soooo predictable.
Outside their function – giggle – what an excuse – “gee I’m sorry the steering rod went through your chest in that minor bingle – BUT it was just outside our function. Oh well. Have a nice death”…. come on.
Yep – markets generate wealth and well being but also the best and worst of times too.
See ciggies, silicon implants, Wittenom, Bhopal, Minimata Bay, E Valdez, no improvements in car safety, and about 100,000 others
Let’s face it – unregulated – we would have no national parks the Murray/Darling would be pumped dry, Fraser Isalnd strip mined and terra-formed from tip to tip, Tassie would be clear felled and replanted with pine, and the sediments of the cities would be a sea of heavy metals and dioxin soup.
(And hey Jen – what’s the definition of a national park anyway – mountain, arid zone or other area that cannot be exploited),
OK Rog – yea the market is fair enough – as long as you don’t get too starry eyed and religious about it – and also assuming that all greenies/idealists/altruists are nasty society destroying child-eating commies.
Major corporations can be very altruistic e.g. see Bill Gates significant but little bragged out donations of millions of dollars to third world self-improvment projects. And it still doesn’t mean he is a business wuss. And it also doesn’t mean that Microsoft can’t get up to their share of crud on TechStation suggesting the the competitive ideology – Open Source-Linux is “like the borg” – “you’re all going to die etc”. And so we reserve the right to be critical.
And hey – I’m very pro-agriculture, pro-cotton industry – doesn’t mean they can’t do a lot better. Doesn’t mean we can’t get right up them for bad practice. And it doesn’t mean the smarter ones doen’t listen either.
And I’m very sympathetic to farmers in drought too. Especially the mega-droughts to come (that I perceive/simulate/read about). The personal dimension of drought on families is gut wrenching stuff. Suicides and broken families at end point. But the market is being increasingly hard – you’re gonna have to be smart, get bigger, get allied, get niche defined, get vertically integrated, get diversified in income or get out. You can probably survive on an oily rag in 3rd world status if you’re tough enough too. But why would you want to if you could join Jen in the leafy burbs… defending the ideological line for the I…P….A
Rog – your AGL Garrett story is noxious – his super fund owns them – gee I must check what my fund owns – I look about very day to make sure fund is ideologically pure ….
utterly noxious – just a beat up…
You really have to watch you guys … that’s why it’s a lot of fun that Jen can quote bits out of a book that the rest of us can’t see/buy yet. Yep – I’ll pay for my copy and read it to check !!
And after the slagging of Ian Lowe is past I can only hope all the quotes were 100% accurate and in context. Coz these blog threads will be in the archive.
Ender – we greenies and moderates are all soft touches – we go out of our way to back stuff up with argument and references yet the alternative view can just whip out any quickie quote from left field… (whoops – right field)
Gettin’ grumpy….
Thanks for clarifying that for me Phil, markets should be a-political.
Kim Beazley came out today and defended the right for people to buy shares.
Peter Garrett, as trustee of his self-managed superannuation fund, is quite within his rights to purchase shares.
I wonder if ACF/Lowe discuss the food security aspect of resource managementin any depth eg:
Water management key to survival in face of potential food production crisis
September 18, 2005
From a press release
BEIJING – Water management is fundamental to averting a potential crisis in global food production, according to world experts who met in Beijing for an important international forum concluding Sunday. The meeting of the International Commission on Irrigation & Drainage (ICID) highlighted the urgency of promoting greater attention and discussion of water management impacts on food security and environmental sustainability, during a weeklong session of ICID’s 19th International Congress and 56th International Executive Meeting. In light of the urgency of continuing dialogue on these issues ICID also reinforced its commitment to participating in the 4th World Water Forum (WWF) to be held in Mexico City next year in March.
“Participation in the 4th World Water Forum, is an important step in seeking solutions for development with due care for the environment. These are among the most urgent issues facing the international community today. The world population is still growing rapidly and it is important that we take appropriate measures now to ensure the survival of various communities throughout the world,” M. GopalaKrishnan, Secretary General of the ICID.
“By 2025, 2.7 Billion people, 1/3 of the world’s population will be facing a severe water shortage, with the majority of water scarcity occurring in the southern hemisphere, the upcoming World Water Forum will be an important opportunity to share with a variety of stakeholders the current challenges and the ‘local actions’ that are an important part of exploring innovative solutions to these concerns,” said Dato Ir. Hj. Keizrul bin Abdullah, President of ICID.
Discussions in Beijing focused on topics such as meeting the food needs of over eight hundred million people by 2025 estimated to be underfed. Despite an apparent sufficiency in the world food production, inequity and the problem of malnutrition in Least Developed Countries persists with about 20% of the world’s poor people starving or underfed.
“Global food production will have to be doubled to achieve satisfactory food security for all. We are at a crossroads, food shortages due to the lack of proper management of water resources pose a major challenge, 5 million children die annually from hunger and in economic terms, developing countries lose billions of dollars in lost productivity. At the global level the ability to produce food is not the problem, the challenge is the ability to get the food to those in need,” said Dato Ir. Hj. Keizrul bin Abdullah, President of ICID.
The ICID meeting brought together experts from all over the world to focus on one of the most important uses and applications of water. The large pressures faced due to population growth, limited areas of arable and useable land and the demands of changing lifestyles and strain on resources, makes the applications of land and efficiency of water use crucial concerns for the future.
“Irrigation in the world today accounts for 70% of all fresh water withdrawals, which are used to irrigate 17% of all cropped land yielding 40% of the overall agricultural outputs worldwide. When we look to increase future food production, the answer lies in expansion of irrigated and drained lands where potential exists, and importantly, in existing irrigated and drained areas and an increase in water use efficiency and land productivity,” said Aly Shady, President Honoraire of the International Commission on Drainage and Irrigation and President of the International Water Resources Association (IWRA).
“The 4th World Water Forum is an important event to build a bridge and platform for discussion on many of the issues that affect people and governments all over the world,” said Madame Meng Zhimin, Deputy Director of the Department of International Cooperation Science and Technology, Ministry of Water Resources, PRC.
The overarching theme of the World Water Forum is Local Actions for a Global Challenge. A local action is defined as any activity or group of activities focused on solving a problem related to the management of water resources, the benefits of which are tangible at the local level. These could be structural or non-structural actions that have an impact on local administration of water. The main aim of a local action is to seek options for the sustainable development of a community or a region, without compromising the preservation of the local ecosystem.
“By sharing the experience from these local actions and recognizing the necessity of adapting unique approaches from across the globe to meet local community needs we are able to meet the challenges of water resource management and create projects that take into account multiple stakeholder and environmental concerns, providing a more integrated approach,” said Dr. Luis Rendon, Chairman of the Mexican National Committee for the ICID.
Dr Rendon presented Mexican experiences and knowledge to the ICID conference as part of an international exchange of ideas and understanding.
About the 4th World Water Forum
The World Water Forum is an initiative of the World Water Council aiming at raising awareness on global water issues. The First Forum was held in Morocco (1997), the Second in The Hague (2000) and the Third in Japan (2003), the 4th World Water Forum will be held in Mexico City in March 2006, under the overarching theme of “Local Actions for a Global Challenge” with focus on best practices and knowledge sharing.
The Fora has already been established as an open, multi-stakeholder participatory process, which build on the knowledge, experience and input of the global water community and seeks to enable multi-stakeholder participation and dialogue to influence water policy-making at a global level, thus ensuring better living and respect for the principles of sustainable development to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The World Water Fora are built on the knowledge and experience of different types of organizations active in the global water policy. It is a venture founded on the principles of collaboration, partnerships and innovation.
About ICID
The International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) was established on 24 June 1950 as a Scientific, Technical and Voluntary Not-for-profit Non-Governmental International Organization (NGO) with headquarters in New Delhi, India. The Commission is dedicated to enhancing the worldwide supply of food and fiber for all people by improving water and land management and the productivity of irrigated and drained lands through appropriate management of water, environment and application of irrigation, drainage and flood management techniques.