Understanding how feedback impacts people and institutions (whether in sports, school, militaryoperations, or …) in learning and change (hopefully, improvement) is a complex and fascinatingworld.  Data collection and feedback systems, as a tool for providing building/system operators the ability to make more informed decisions about energy use, are a critical pathway toward more effective (generally, more efficient) energy use.  There is a reason that the U.S. Navy invested significant portions of its energy-related stimulus funding in smart meters and that the Department of Defense’s Operational Energy program has put data collection as a critical front-piece of activities: if you don’t know where you are, how can you make intelligent decisions about how to getto where you want to go?

As readers of this blog should be aware, I have a particular fascination with the impact of real-timefeedback systems on individual behavior.  Considering ‘the Prius effect‘ of people becoming more energy conscious and safer/more efficient drivers with the constant reminder of the energy impact of their (for example) acceleration, there is a good possibility that one of the most cost effective paths to reduce U.S. oil demand would be to put feedback devices on all post 1996 light-duty vehicles. We “know” that people modify their behavior in the face of feedback — but do not necessarily knowhow, how much, and what the “ROI” is for the investment cost to get there.

With a belief that “feedback” offers real potential as part of a portfolio approach toward a cleanerenergy system, I was pleased to learn that the American Council for an Energy-EfficientEconomy had done a meta-study of real-world tests of real-time feedback systems’ impacts on household energy (mainly electricity) use.   The ACEEE has some top-notch talent for whom I have a great deal of respect. The press release created serious concern that my belief that feedback systems were something to include in our future plans / programs might have been mistaken. Consider the title: Large-Scale Studies Find Moderate Savings from Smart GridFeedback Devices. And, the key point re “moderate”: “average savings of 3.8%”.

Okay, a savings is there — across “large-scale studies” but it doesn’t seem to be all that much.  In2010, the average U.S. household used just short of 11.5 megawatt hours / year (11,496kWh/year).  Projecting such a 3.8% savings would result in 437 kilowatt hours of reducedelectricity demand or about $45/year at average electricity costs.  Something but, well, short of $4 /month for the average household isn’t an indication of major impact.

The report concluded that “the cost of providing real-time feedback remains high”. Looking at the table as to the most common cost, per household, to the utility of being around $500, the “moderate savings” started to seem even worse: a 10 year payback for utility costs wouldmean a 10+ year payback of costs, on a straight line basis, without even discussing utility profits nor savings to the household.

As a real ‘feedback enthusiast,’ my first glance at this report created a rather dismal mood.

A second look, however, suggests that perhaps the ‘dismal’ thoughts are misplaced. The devil, ofcourse, is typically found in the detail:

• The 3.8% savings figure excludes an outlier study which showed nearly 20 percent savings. That “large-scale study”, in fact, is an examination of a 20+ year experience in Northern Ireland which not only has more than five times the longevity of the second-longest study in the report but also had about five times as many people as all the rest of the studies combined. In a simplistic, but illuminating way to consider the situation, the ACEEE meta-study excluded from its conclusion a study with more than 25 times the people months of experience of all the other studies combined.  If a more accurate reflection of end results, this would suggest annuals savings more in the $200+/year or about $18/month range, which is far more interesting to most households than $40/year.
• The $500 figure actually misrepresents actual program costs. With the exception of the Northern Ireland experience, all of these were experimental programs. The “costs” are simply dividing the total program costs (equipment, labor, administration, analysis, …) by the number of involved people.  Clearly, ‘experiments’ almost always cost more per involved person than real-world business activities. The Northern Ireland program, which involved over 45,000 people (the second largest involved 5,550), had average costs of $99-$113 rather than $500 because it was an actual deployment of technologies and business processes rather than a research experiment.

Okay, if we take these figures: perhaps $400/year in savings and $100 for program costs, the payback is measured in a few months rather than ten years (and that, of course, isn’t counting the value of reduced peak demand). This gives plenty of space for sharing electricity savings value streams between the provider and consumer in a win-win space which also provides for a more efficient and less polluting household energy use.

To be clear, I have a lot of respect for the ACEEE and their research teams.  The report, Results from Recent Real-Time Feedback Studies, has a lot of interesting and valuable material within it. The issues raised above about potential savings and costs to achieve those savings are illuminated simply by reading through the report. However, it is too easy for someone to walk away from the report thinking that feedback systems have very marginal impact at a high cost due to the exclusion of the Northern Ireland experience from ‘average savings’ and the use of test program costs as a surrogate for actual program costs. Thus, the title of this post: it does seem odd that the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy would skew report results to understate the impacts of technology to foster energy-efficient behavior.

I have to say that I strongly agree with a key ACEEE report conclusion:

More and different kinds of research are required to better understand the actions and investments that households may be making in response to real-time feedback.

More knowledge and information about energy use are not enough to solve our energy challenges but they are key to fostering an Energy Smart society.

NOTE: I will be returning to do more analysis of this and other studies re feedback devices (such as this, this, or this). As an example of another study, this 2011 RAND report (pdf) comments that

studies have shown that providing different types of electricity usage feedback can reduce usage by around 20 percent and can help shift up to 40 percent of peak demand to off-peak hours.

That is quite a different conclusion than what is seen in the ACEEE study (which doesn’t include the RAND work in its bibliography). E.g., I am intrigued by the differences between the studies and plan to learn more — and share that learning here.

Related posts:

• Feedback systems … a key to a better energy future?
• Feedback systems and ECSTASY
• Energy COOL: Ford Putting Feedback Systems into Practice
• Romancing a Kiwi … the start of an affair

This guest post comes from Magnifico.

Shell Oil is on its way right now to a location less than 15 miles from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. “Shell has proposed drilling up to four shallow water exploration wells in Alaska’s Beaufort Sea this summer, beginning on July 1,” Subsea World News reported last month.

“The potential harm from a BP-scale spill is almost beyond comprehension,” David Yarnold, president of the National Audubon Society wrote at the Huffington Post.

If there is a spot on Earth as sacred or as critical to the future of our wild birds as the Gulf of Mexico, it is probably the unspoiled Arctic. Here, hundreds of bird species arrive every spring from all four North American flyways — the superhighways in the sky that birds use to travel up and down the Americas. Here, they mate, lay eggs and raise their young. Here also, many of America’s remaining polar bears make their winter dens along the coasts.

The BP-spill in 2010 has caused unprecedented mutations and deformities in ocean life in Gulf of Mexico. Today, I’ll look at how our government and Big Oil are setting the stage in the Arctic for the sequel to Deepwater Horizon disaster. The script is already written and the leading actors are already on their way to the set.

[Read more →]

There are a number of true wedge issues — items that clearly differentiate between the parties. These include 99%/1% & equity, belief in the value of government, women’s right to make choices about their bodies, … One of the starkest: attitudes toward science and most notably to climate science.

The Obama Administration — including President Obama — has seemed (at best) reluctant to utter the words “climate change” and engage the anti-science mania dominating the Republican “elite” (and base) directly in a way to highlight to ‘independents’ (and others) the stark differences when it comes to science and the implications of those differences. The reality is, whether discussed or not, that 2012 is an election about science.

Rolling Stone just published an extensive interview with President Obama. And, “climate change” as an election-year issue was raised … by the President.

Perhaps the President’s most important words:

those who have looked at the science of climate change are scared

[Read more →]

Putting aside any and all other issues, deregulation can offer several real advantages: disruptive options can enter markets; and, consumers can have choices.  Of course, while anyone comparing U.S. cellphone rates to European prices has legitimate reason to wonder about this uncertain benefit, at times real opportunities for positive change can emerge.

This summer, consumers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey will have the option to power their homes with Ethical Electric-ity: an emergent firm that will provide electrons solely through investments in local wind and solar projects.

we put your power bill to work supporting 100% renewable energy from local clean sources. That means wind farms or solar farms within a few hours drive of your home. When we give you this Guarantee of Origin, you know that when you pay your power bill you’re supporting the new and clean forms of energy that we need to stop global warming, protect public health and create good jobs.

Ethical Electric is created by progressive activist Tom Matzzie (you might remember him from his MoveOn days).  Several years ago, Tom went through the process of improving his home’s energy efficiency and then putting solar on the roof.  He found that experience difficult to the extent that non-fiscal barriers would prevent many from taking the leap.

he found that the process of going solar, “while hugely awesome,” required patience, risk tolerance, and financial flexibility. It was hard—too hard for most people.

“My instincts as an organizer kicked in, and I thought, ‘this won’t scale as fast as we need,’”

Tom looked into buying clean electricity via a provider and found that confusing with uncertain results (just how clean is that electricity, really …?).  Tom wishes to make buying clean electricity

as easy as downloading an app or buying a book on Amazon

Also, the focus is on creating new clean energy sources — not finding new profitability for things built under the Roosevelt Administration:

“If you enroll with one of those other companies, you’ll support a hydroelectric dam built 70 years ago or a wind farm built 15 years ago. That’s not new renewable energy.”

And, you won’t just be buying solar/wind electrons via Ethical Electricity, but also contributing to economic activity in your area, the fostering of clean energy infrastructure (installers, inspectors, etc…), and moving your electricity bill from a traditional firm potentially funding ALEC or the US Chamber of Commerce to a progressive firm that will be donating a portion of its revenues “to the causes you care about” with the donations driven by customer votes.  And, Mattzie targets doing so with prices competitive to those offered by traditional suppliers.

What ultimately distinguishes Matzzie’s company from another clean energy provider is its commitment to progressive values—the ethics of electricity. “Clean is too generic. Green is too generic,” Matzzie says. He wants to show customers that “yes, we’re 100% clean energy, but we represent the total ecosystem of their values and are somebody they can feel comfortable doing business with.”

And that’s where Matzzie’s experience as an online organizer can help: He knows “how to get people to do things online for a good reason,” as he puts it. “Just like we saw people moving their money, we’re going to be asking people to move their power bill to a company that supports 100% clean energy.”

Right now, Ethical Electric is collecting names for interested customers with plans to open up in a few months. While starting with PA and NJ, it will expand into the 14 deregulated electricity markets across the country.  If you’re in one of those, you can count the days until you have the opportunity to light your home with ethical electricity.

Ethical Electric’s key sales line:

It’s time to “Move Your Power” to a progressive energy company.

NOTE: The graphic below, from the UK’s EcoSwitch, provides the sort of clean grading system comparing options that enable the average person to make informed decisions without investing significant resources in a learning process. (The site, of course, allows searching based on local post codes and not solely the national comparison below.)

As for the rates, EcoSwitch’s discussion concluded:

it’s easy to see that often green electricity prices are often as cheap as standard tariffs, and are sometimes lower. To that end, switching to green electricity and gas and 100% renewable green energy tariffs, with its ethical and environmental benefits, becomes an option too good to turn down.

Mitt Romney celebrated “Fock the Earth Day” with a major speech about the importance of regulations on fossil fuel production … that is, the importance of eviscerating them so as to please his fossil foolish contributors.

“Holding off on drilling in the Gulf, holding off on drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, holding off on drilling in Alaska, trying to impose the federal government into ‘fracking’ regulations with regards to natural gas. Then, of course, all the regulations related to coal, making it harder to mine it, making it harder to use it.”

Yes, the evil Obama Administration — in Mitt’s campaign vitriol — actually wanted to create a breathing space in offshore drilling in the face of that pesky minor little Deepwater Horizon leak in the Gulf of Mexico.  And, according to Mitt’s skewed representation, the Obama Administration has some form of skewed thinking that the Federal Government might have the capacity to create more economically and process effective oversight of the complicated natural gas fracking processes than would be the case with having 10s of states with differing rule sets and inspection regimes.  And, well, how dare the Administration consider things like miner safety and pollution of surrounding areas when it comes to mining or have the arrogance to consider American citizens’ health and safety in following Supreme Court guidance for putting in standards for mercury and other emissions from coal facilities.

Mittens — and the rest of the fossil foolish propaganda machine — will not engage with some simple realities:

• Oil and natural gas production has soared during the Obama Administration;
• There are far more drilling rigs in operation today than ever during the Bush (either GHWB or GWB) Administrations;
• U.S. oil imports are down, along with increased U.S. production, under President Obama; and, in fact,
• The Obama Administration has opened up significant tracts of land for oil, natural gas, and coal exploitation.

In fact, when examining the Obama Administration record, with any sort of open-minded perspective, it is far from aggressively implementing environmental regulations that will strengthen the economy while strangling fossil foolish industries. In fact, the Administration’s “All of the Above” energy strategy provides innumerable paths for further enriching fossil foolish production on the backs of American health and with ever-worsening risks for catastrophic climate chaos. The inadequacies in the Obama Administration’s approach to economic, energy, and environmental issues pall in the face of the Republican Party’s unapologetic embrace of a recklessly backward looking embrace of dirty energy and attack on efforts to provide even a patina of protection for Americans via sensible regulatory oversight.

To paraphrase Mitt, Frack You, Mother Earth!

With no public events on 22 April 2012, Earth Day, Romey’s 23 April F— the Earth Day event occurred at the research facilities of one of the nation’s largest coal producers, Consol Energy,

Consol Energy is a billion-dollar natural gas and coal company based in Pennsylvania notorious for polluting American waterways, streams, and drinking water with toxic runoff from its plants. In 2011 alone, the company paid more than $200 million dollars in fines and settlements due to hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act.

Consol’s money doesn’t only go to fines, it also goes to seeking to buy political influence. Consol Energy (via its PAC and its executives’ paychecks) has funneled significant resources into Romney’s campaign and its ‘unassociated’ super PAC. Is it any surprise, then, that

Romney gave a speech praising dirty coal power. At the same time, he attacked the landmark safeguards put into place to protect our air, our water, and the health of our families from the toxic pollution created by Consol’s own plants.

In other words, this week, instead of celebrating the planet, Romney pushed for policies that would poison it.

All in all, Romney’s 23 April 2012 was very much in the spirit of ‘F– the Earth Day’.

One of the critiques of “Earth Day” is that it is absurd to put aside one day for a patina of caring about humanity’s impact on the planetary system’s ability to support human civilization. When it comes to “Fock the Earth Day,” there won’t be anything to worry about if Mitt Romney is elected as the 21st century’s Republican Party’s objective is make every day a “Fock the Earth” event.

[Read more →]

My blog posts are rarely about sartorial splendor but it seems sadly appropriate to share with you what I am wearing today: the t-shirt to the right.  If you have difficulty reading or seeing it:

• the graphic is of a heating planet with melting ice caps, the Keeling Curve behind the globe, a smiley face on the globe, and
• the title: “The White House Effect”.

Almost old enough to merit the term “vintage“, this Union of Concerned Scientists shirt dates from Earth Day, 1990 … and, well, could well too sadly appropriate for Earth Day 2012. The decision on today’s clothing came late Friday while reading President Barack Obama’s Presidential Proclamation — Earth Day 2012 (provided after the fold).  The statement seeks to create a balance between praising efforts to date while calling for actions for tomorrow with a not light dose of praise for the Administration’s efforts. Treading such a delicate line can lead to a fall too far to one side or another.

• Doom and gloom about tomorrow can undermine understanding and appreciation for what has been and can be achieved while weakening support for those (such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)) whose actions protect all of us and undermining energy for action. (’Why bother since the world is heading toward disaster no matter what we do?’)
• Solely looking toward today’s challenges as if nothing has been achieved since the first Earth Day 42 years ago can be disrespectful to those who have fought so hard to achieve real impact and, again, can weaken support for those (such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)) whose actions protect all of us and  undermine energy for action. (’Why bother, since we can’t have an impact in the face of polluter interests and a dysfunctional political systems?’)
• Emphasizing improvements from the past situation while glossing over the seriousness of the situation we face, again, can weaken support for those (such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)) whose actions protect all of us and undermine energy for action. (’Why bother being up in arms since we’re doing so much better and that progress is just going to continue no matter what I do?’)
• Embellishing achievements and suggesting that marginal programs have great positive impact while ignoring other steps that are worsening the situation, again, can weaken support for those (such as the Environment Protection Agency (EPA)) whose actions protect all of us and can undermine energy for action. (’Why bother focusing on these issues, rather than other critical policy actions, because the Administration already has things well in hand?)

In seeking to tread this delicate line, the Administration seems to have almost certainly skewed far too much toward the second two while avoiding the first two to such an extent that an honest reader of the Presidential Proclamation might be hard pressed to realize that we quite likely face an existential threat when it comes to climate change and the myriad of other environmental challenges.

For understanding as to my choice of clothing, today, let us just take two examples and one minor omission from the Proclamation for illuminating the issues.

State of the Environment

Today, our air and water are cleaner, pollution has been greatly reduced, and Americans everywhere are living in a healthier environment.

Let us be clear. It has been awhile since Americans have seen a river burning, Acid Rain is reduced, lead poisoning is down, … We have seen real progress in many arenas.  We have seen real progress even as there are very serious challenges and, in many ways, a worsening of the situation.

When it comes to pollution, for example, anyone want to suggest that CO2 pollution has been reduced from what it was 42 years ago? And, well, there are a myriad of other pollutants whose impact on Americans is far worse than when the first Earth Day occurred 42 years ago or when I first put on the shirt (front to the right about “The Green House Effect”) 22 years (and just about 22 pounds) ago.

Taking from someone else reacting to this Proclamation,

“Philip Shabecoff was the chief environmental correspondent for The New York Times for fourteen of the thirty-two years he worked there as a reporter.  Poisoned for Profit, based on more than five years of investigative research and reporting, reveals the cumulative scientific evidence connecting the massive increase in environmental poisons to the epidemic of disability, disease, and dysfunction among our nation´s children.”

And how’s that Gulf Oil Spill cleanup going two years on?

As we work to leave our children a safe, sustainable future, we must also equip them with the tools they need to take on tomorrow’s environmental challenges.  Supporting environmental literacy and a strong foundation in science, technology, engineering, and math for every student will help ensure our youth have the skills and knowledge to advance our clean energy economy.  Last year, we launched the Department of Education Green Ribbon Schools recognition award to encourage more schools to pursue sustainability, foster health and wellness, and integrate environmental literacy into the curriculum.  In the days ahead, we look forward to awarding the first Green Ribbons and recognizing the accomplishments of green schools across our country.

I would be the first to admit that historically our department has paid too little attention to the green school movement and promoting environmental stewardship.

Looking to the future of our planet, American leadership will continue to be pivotal as we confront the environmental challenges that threaten the health of both our country and the globe.

Today, our world faces the major global environmental challenge of a changing climate.  Our entire planet must address this problem because no nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change.  The United States can be a leader in reducing the dangerous pollution that causes global warming and can propel these advances by investing in the clean energy technologies, markets, and practices that will empower us to win the future.

While our changing climate requires international leadership, global action on clean energy and climate change must be joined with local action.

[Read more →]

This is a full reposting, at request, of a post by insightful science writer Shawn Lawrence Otto.   The problems of questionable publishing on science issues is far (sadly) from limited to the mediocre post re the Denialist 49’s letter to NASA. There was, for example, Harold Ambler’s post re Vice President Gore which led Arianna to do (what a reasonable person would see as) a mea culpa.  Arianna’s statement included the following:

Although HuffPost welcomes a vigorous debate on many subjects, I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues.

It is interesting (and saddening) to read the piece that Shawn Lawrence Otto is discussing in light of Arianna’s statement a few year’s ago.

And, by the way, considering the ‘legs’ of Huffington Post pieces and the reality of the web, that Huffington Post editors seriously believe that adding a note to the end (the END) of a controversial post ameliorates the damage done is another saddening sigh …

An Open Letter to Arianna Huffington

How the Huffington Post is still blowing it on science but has a chance to make a real difference

By Shawn Lawrence Otto | Apr 17, 2012 |

Dear Arianna,

Congratulations on the Huffington Post’s Pulitzer prize. That is an important feather in the paper’s cap.

I want you to know how much I value your publication, and how I think the dust up over the antiscience HuffPost article “NASA Global Warming Stance Blasted By 49 Astronauts, Scientists Who Once Worked At Agency” is an opportunity for a broader discussion, which you could lead. The story has garnered wide attention in both science and journalism circles.  Why is an important discussion.

It is a discussion that I think is critical to our democracy.

I too wrote about the NASA 49’s propaganda stunt in HuffPost, but unlike the staff piece, I used facts and context.  Ironically, I was speaking at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center as the story broke, or I would have sent the piece in sooner.

My story linked the words “gullible antiscience press” to the staff story, which was surprisingly under the byline of science section editor David Freeman.  Freeman has a brilliant history as one of the best, and it was an impolite thing for me to do, but it made an important point, which I’ll discuss in a moment.

Some hours after my story went up, I got an email from one of your editors, saying the Freeman story “has since been updated to clarify the way it was initially perceived.  Would you be amenable to simply removing the hyperlink on these words, since the purpose of that update was to clear the air of these types of characterizations and set the record straight as to our editorial position?”

I said “Ok.”  But I wasn’t happy about it.

I want to let you know why I made the link and why I and many others still don’t think HuffPost’s response was proper or adequate.  I know Mike Mann spoke with Lucia Graves in a followup story, which was quite good, but the problems with the Freeman story are far deeper than the removed reader engagement query your editors portrayed as the problem.  It’s troubling that neither you nor your staff seem to realize that there is more to the issue.

The problem is that the article is an outstanding example of false balance journalism.  False balance arises when an equivalence is made between objective knowledge and a contrary opinion that is not supported by the same level of evidence.  This creates the impression that knowledge is partisan and there is a legitimate controversy, when in fact “both sides” do not have equal claim to the truth.  One is based on knowledge, and the other is merely an opinion.

This is something climate change deniers are particularly adept at using to manipulate the press.  There are no two ways about it: false balance is a false article, and this was a false article.  In other words, your paper disseminated propaganda, not news.

This problem arises from an error in the way many of today’s reporters have been trained, and you can do great good by challenging and changing this.  Most reporters, and many reporter guidelines, have adopted the postmodernist view that there is no such thing as objectivity.  This is false.   Science has proven that there is an objective reality.  Using it we have doubled our lifespans in the past 140 years, and multiplied the productivity of our farms by 35 times.  We have altered the face of the Earth.  Failing to acknowledge the fact of objectivity is failing to report on reality.

I would strongly encourage you and David to reject this erroneous view.  My book Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, goes into much greater detail about this confusion in recent American journalism.  The problem is especially important in the realm of science reporting, where it comes to a head, such as in the article in question.    Like Jay Rosen, I have been writing about its various aspects for some time.

In this case, the headline started the problem.  NASA has not taken any “Global Warming Stance.”  This is a false headline.  They are in fact by law forbidden from taking any “stances” on policy issues.  They simply sponsor and report on science.

That’s not a stance, of equal merit in a political debate with someone’s opinion.  It’s based on peer-reviewed knowledge attained from measurements of nature.

Placing the science denialist meme in the headline itself gave the false impression that this was in fact a matter of opinion and not knowledge, something one could take “stances” on.  I understand the need to drive readership, but it should never come at the cost of journalistic standards of truth.  I’m absolutely certain that wasn’t David’s intent, but am at a loss to explain what happened.

After the false headline, the piece went on to lead with the opinions in the letter as if they were knowledge and left them unchallenged.  This is at its core the root of the problem and the reason the article was and remains antiscience, and why it continues to upset so many people.  An embarrassment to a science section, and, obviously, it became and embarrassment to your entire publication.

The opening sentence, for starters, suggested that NASA might be “playing fast and loose with the truth.” Unless the Huffington Post has some knowledge to support that opening, it’s antagonistically deceptive and propagandistic — especially for a science section — even more so when written by the editor of said science section.  There are plenty of other angles that don’t involve denial of science in a science section.

To suggest that NASA might be playing fast and loose with the truth, while providing no evidence, in the lead of the article, is an insult to NASA scientists and belies a tremendous ignorance of the data-gathering and measurement, the intense pressures and harsh scrutiny of peer review, and the lives and reputations that are placed on the line with scientific publication, and the years-long drive to get every detail right.  I am at a loss to understand how an experienced science editor like David Freeman could not know this. I’m sure he does.  And yet, it seems, he entirely forgot it.

Instead, Huffington Post chose to lead with a letter organized by a retired energy industry executive, and led by two climate-change denying Heartland Institute guys, that contains no science whatsoever, and to give it, not the mainstream, peer-reviewed science of NASA, the benefit of the doubt.  To top it off, in your mea culpa, you say you consider such a propaganda stunt “newsworthy.”

Newsworthy!

Arianna, I very much appreciate your comment in a recent interview about this event.  It tells me you really value getting it right, but I think it also belies some confusion on the subject: “To be able to see clearly where truth lies on one side or the other, as it happened in this particular instance, is not to abandon objectivity — it’s to, in fact, embrace a higher standard of journalism,” you said.

I don’t know why you would even hint that there could possibly be a question that it is abandoning objectivity or entertain that anyone could even utter that as a rational criticism worthy of mention.

In fact, it is doing the opposite — it is embracing objectivity, instead of the scourge of postmodernism that has muddied the thinking of a generation of journalism students, whose last science class was often in high school, and which has made them susceptible to manipulation by reality-denying authoritarians.

Take, for example, these well-intentioned new reporter guidelines, pulled from the otherwise often very good quality Voice of San Diego:

Voice of San Diego: New Reporter Guidelines.

We only do something if we can do it better than anyone or if no one else is doing it.
* We must add value. We must be unique.
Three things to remember for each story:
* Context
* Authority
* Not just what is happening, but what it means
There is no such thing as objectivity.
* There is such thing as fairness.
* But everyone sees everything through their own filter. Acknowledge that, let it liberate you. Let it regulate you.
* We are not guided by political identification, by ideology or dogma. But every decision we make, from what to cover to how to cover it, is made through our own subjective judgments.
* We are guided by an ability to be transparent and independent, to clearly assess what’s going on in our community and have the courage to plainly state the truth.

If you believe that there is no such thing as objectivity, as these guidelines instruct, then you can easily become trapped by propagandists.  Such a reporter will never dig to get at the objective story of the nation and without that, false balance becomes prevalent and democracy ceases to function.

The founding fathers conceived of democracy within the age of reason.  The premise of democracy is the well-informed voter who can discern reality for him or herself and so rejects the authoritarian edicts of a king or pope.  That presumes an objectivity that that voter can be informed about.  Without acknowledging the reality of objectivity and striving to capture it from the mists of confusion, the press leaves readers simply with the dominance of the most loudly voiced and well-financed opinion, which ultimately leads back to the authoritarianism the founders sought to repudiate.

And this is in fact what we are seeing now, as reporters regard their job as simply reporting on the varying views of a matter, without exercising judgment, as if that were admirable, and neocons adopt the postmodernist doctrine that the winners write the history books, so nothing else matters.  That’s a foil to keep the press at bay.

The consequences of this mistake are frightening. Consider the story of David Gregory and the war in Iraq: Gregory was the NBC News Chief White House Correspondent during the run-up to the war.  After it became clear that there were no WMD and that the reasons for invading Iraq were unsupported, he was asked why the press corps didn’t push President Bush about the inconsistencies in his rationale for invasion: “I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you’re a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn’t do our job,” said Gregory. “I respectfully disagree. It’s not our role.”

But if it’s not the press’s role, whose role is it?  And without that accountability and reflection on it by the voter, what cost in life and treasure — and to the people’s retention of power?  Objectivity is the life blood of democracy, and without it, a democracy risks slipping into authoritarianism and plutocracy.

The fact that much of the mainstream press doesn’t view it as their role to record the objective story of the nation puts science in the especially precarious position of being just one of many warring opinions, and it erodes our ability to make sound judgments as a country.

Climate change is the most pronounced example.  But we see it often today in our politics.  Irrational, counterfactual statements that once would have ended a candidacy for president now go almost unchallenged in the media.  And papers like yours, who say they “recognize that climate change is real and agree with the agencies and experts who are concerned about the role of carbon dioxide” nevertheless print propaganda uncritically, making themselves into tools, and argue that it’s “newsworthy.”

Huffington Post is particularly known among science reporters for often creating a false balance between knowledge and mere opinion, as happened in this case. This has happened with the writings of those who claim that cell phones cause brain cancer, or that vaccines cause autism, for example, and such pieces are equally unhelpful to the ability of your readers to discern objective reality and make good decisions.

One of the news outlets that has recognized this problem and is taking important steps to end this type of practice is National Public Radio.  As you know, in February they issued new reporter guidelines that say, in part, “Our goal is not to please those whom we report on or to produce stories that create the appearance of balance, but to seek the truth.”

Arianna, I know you are personally committed to reality-based reporting, and to public service.  I know you value science and understand the politicization of climate change.  So I urge you to take this unfortunate incident as an opportunity to lead.  To remake Huffington Post into a gold standard.

Please loudly publish revised and clear reporter guidelines for your staff pieces.  It will help your credibility as a paper and not just an advocacy outlet.  And please read my book, which deals with this issue in far more detail than can be contained in this letter.  I’d be happy to ask my publisher to send you a copy — please let me know.

Arianna, with the new prominence of Huffington Post you have a special opportunity to help wrest America back from the brink.  Seize it.

Thank you for your consideration,

Shawn Lawrence Otto

Get Shawn Lawrence Otto’s new book: Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America, Starred Kirkus Review; Starred Publishers Weekly review. Winner of the Minnesota Book Award.  “One of the most important books written in America in the last decade.”  Visit him at http://www.shawnotto.com. Like him on Facebook. Join ScienceDebate.org to get the presidential candidates to debate science.

This guest post from James Wells provides thinking about islanding and sustainability sparked by a trip to ‘the’ Islands.

On the way to catch up with my family on the island, I met Kai, who was the last of the siblings gathering for the imminent end of their father’s voyage.  Although for the most difficult of reasons, he was glad to return home for the first time in several years, and hoped to be able to return for good at some time in the future, after completing his degree that was only available on the mainland.  Then, he and his family would be able to afford to be home.

In the seat opposite, a man told me was from the “Island of San Diego”, explaining the boundaries that made it so.

We are taught that islands are bad.  ”Insular” is a word that conveys isolation and backwardness.

[Read more →]

While the Cherry Blossoms peaked in Washington, DC, well before the Cherry Blossom festival peaked (and maple syrup production plummeted) while Texas experienced four-foot high ‘drifts’ of hail, while Alaska had near record snowfall while the lower 48 states broke 15,000 temperature records in March, 2015, with temperatures over 8 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than normal, while Republican presidential candidates ridiculed the concept of climate change (and a marginal group of NASA retirees and employees make noise with a deceitful letter) while the scientific consensus about climate science strengthened with ever-stronger evidentary basis, while … Are you ‘connecting the dots’?

On 5 May, 100,000s of people around the world will gather in events to help us (all of us) connect the dots in the complex interactions between our ways of life (whether direct fossil fuel use, consumption patterns, land-use, and otherwise) and the myriads of threats to the very viability of a civilized society that come from this: mounting climate chaos (that hail in Texas and blistering heat in maple syrup areas …), ocean acidification, rising seas, disrupted habitats and ecosystems, and … Sadly, as almost everyone reading this already knows, that list can go on and on and on and on and …

To be clear, humanity is already facing “catastrophic climate chaos” as per any reasonable definition of the concept in, lets say, 1970 or so. Extinction rates are already more than three orders of magnitude (>1000 times) higher than ‘background’. Agricultural systems are disrupted with heat waves (such as 2010 Russian fires), floods, and ‘wacky weather’. Nations are already moving people due to rising seas. Plants and animals habitats are moving (up mountains and north). Commerce is disrupted. Insurance bills are mounting. People are dying. And, it will get worse …

No matter what we do, the impacts from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW — a term that anti-science syndrome sufferers like to throw around with derisiveness to seek to undermine science) will get worse as the planetary system has a built-in lag time. If humanity were to suddenly disappear overnight, climate chaos would continue to worsen for awhile to come as the planetary system (like a body fighting to recover from 1,000 cuts) recovers from the millions-of-years of accumulated carbon storage that humanity emitted into the atmosphere over a short few hundred years along.

Catastrophic climate chaos will get worse.

Our choice (if we still have one), as a species, is how much worse will it get.

Will we continue to accelerate, globally, our greenhouse gas emissions and continue land-use practices that exacerbate climate change or will we find paths to turn the tide to lessening our damage to the environment and turn to a carbon-negative economy that enables prosperity while beginning to heal the damage we’ve done?

As with any addiction and challenge, recognition and understanding are the first steps toward resolution.

On 5 May, we have an opportunity to help humanity connect the dots.

Across the planet now we see ever more flood, ever more drought, ever more storms. People are dying, communities are being wrecked — the impacts we’re already witnessing from climate change are unlike anything we have seen before.

But because the globe is so big, it’s hard for most people to see that it’s all connected. That’s why, on May 5, we will Connect the Dots.

In places from drought-stricken Mongolia to flood-stricken Thailand, from fire-ravaged Australia to Himalayan communities threatened by glacial melt, we will hold rallies reminding everyone what has happened in our neighborhoods. And at each of those rallies, from Kenya to Canada, from Vietnam to Vermont, someone will be holding a…dot. A huge black dot on a white banner, a “dot” of people holding hands, encircling a field where crops have dried up, a dot made of fabric and the picture taken from above — you get the idea. We’ll share those images the world around, to put a human face on climate change–we’ll hold up a mirror to the planet and force people to come face to face with the ravages of climate change.

Will you “hold up a mirror” and help people Connect the Dots?

Of course, connecting the dots doesn’t stop at some seemingly abstract set of scientific concepts and knowledge about the interrelationship of fossil fuel emissions and ocean acidification/warming global temperatures/melting glaciers/disrupted weather patterns/etc … We need to look at the disrupted political system(s), the $10s trillions of economic issues at play with the stakeholders willing to invest $10s of billions to confuse the political system to support their short-term profits while fostering worsening near- and long-term societal risks, and the inter-linking of those resources with so many other efforts to undermine societal health in the near-, mid-, and long-term.

Truly, AGW as a scientific concern shouldn’t be partisan — of course there are arenas of dispute within science, that is science. Will the Arctic be ice free in summer before the end of the decade, in 30 years, in 8o years? There are legitimate scientific differences about such predictions (including, of course, misunderstandings that could derive from what is ‘ice free’). How fast will sea-level rise occur? Will tornadoes increase in a warming planet? While hurricanes will worsen, individually, on average, will there be more or less or roughly the same number? These are, at the end of the day, questions at the margin of the consensus as to climate science.

After we have connected the dots, to an understanding of climate science, we do actually enter a realm of legitimate political debate. Can our current economic system deal with climate chaos? Can the “market”, with some regulatory tools handle things? Does “Cap and Trade” represent a viable (and effective tool) tool to enable shifting toward more Energy Smart practices or would a Carbon Tax work better? How do handle economic and environmental justice as we seek to drive down humanity’s total carbon footprint? Etc … There are 1000s of legitimate policy debates, many without a true “right” answer, but those discussions can only have meaning if we Connect the Dots about the problems we’re creating, the challenges we face, and the opportunities that we could be seizing.

As President Obama seems determined to avoid utterly the words “climate change”, even as more than 15,000 high temperature records were broken in the United States last month with temperatures more than 8 degrees fahrenheit above average, the traditional media is becoming more willing to discuss (seriously) climate change amid its reporting. From The Weather Channel

After the fold is a recent NOAA press release, in its entirety, to provide perspective on the ‘weather’ situation …

[Read more →]