Questions For Doc Brabs

Dear Doctah,

1). What are the pros and cons of putting scientific research/findings into layman's terms? An obvious push for transparency would help mitigate expert-amateur tensions over the availability of technical knowledge, but at the potential cost of "dumbed down" information that could easily be misinterpreted and blown out of proportion. What is a safe way to ease the gap between those who know, and those how lack the technical training to 'know' in the same way, but are interested none-the-less?

2). As you explained in class, certain scientific data requires a "trick" or tweak before it can be accurately graphed. While you made it quite clear what had happened and been misinterpreted in the Climategate scandal, why did the scientists not explain more thoroughly what happened? From what I read, their comments on the subject maintained a level of generality that, when given their specific predicament concerning comments about a particular data set, was simply not useful for an audience that wanted significant and relevant answers for the 'scandal' at hand. Are there legitimate situations in which a scientist might very much like to withhold information from the public?

3). What on earth is a 'Q'?

4). A plan to build geothermal infrastructure has recently been invested in at Ball State University. While the investment costs are monumental (upwards of $30 million for two separate multi-year steps), 1-2 million dollars are estimated to be saved each year as a result. Does IU have the potential for an green investment of this size? Does it even make sense to? While Ball State is roughly half the size IU (student population), what can IU learn from Ball State's profound move towards a greener campus?

5). You posed this question to us, but I'd like to know your answer as well: To what extent do you believe scientists have the right to suggest policy measures, if any?

6). In regards to combating climate change, what are some of the worst things we could do? The best? As an individual? A country? A globe?

7). How awesome is Bill Nye on a scale of 1-1000? (Please note any "tricks" used if your answer includes a graph)

The Freshest

Recycle greatness. Make more greatness.

The Hood Internet - Billie "Wildcat" Jean (Michael Jackson x Ratatat) by hoodinternet

Obama's Promises, Actions, and Problems of Tomorrow

I remember being skeptical of the skeptics when the Obama fervor was at its fever pitch. Discussions on the infectious Obamaism permeated most of my classes at one point or another, and at times, his long list of promises would be criticized by one or two of the students in class who hadn’t become completely overrun with feelings of “Hope” and “Change.” But they couldn’t be right, I thought. This was my freshman year at college which, already accented with so much other newness, seemed like the perfect environment for this inspirational rhetoric and ideology to really make some ground on big issues like climate change and healthcare. This shit was real. Real like Wheaties or Chuck Norris. Real enough to grab hold of that ever-elusive place called Washington and really shake things up. And while all of these things provided dramatic and effective fodder for speeches and rallies and broad, sweeping, unanimously approved promises on nothing in particular, they did not provide a sincere structure or plan for these dreams to become reality.

Learning about the extreme complexities of politics in the United States has made me much more attuned to the realistic capabilities a candidate might possess. Even more so, it has shown me that, where a candidate or elected official may even have power to change something, there are various other factors that come into play first, before effective policy can even be thought about. That said, I certainly should be more sympathetic with Obama’s steady shifting on issues that, had he remained stagnant and entrenched in a more liberal ideology, could potentially have been detrimental to his political career as president. However, I feel so strongly that radical change is needed as soon as possible that these are no longer valid excuses for any form of a less-than-go-getter attitude.

Having just returned from a lecture presented by Dave Rollo, a member of the City Council and Bloomington Peak Oil Task Force which recently put out a report on the eminence of quickly approaching energy shortages, I feel that the severity and scope with which peak oil will affect our social, economic, and cultural lives deems it a top priority for Obama as well as the entire country, continent, and world. As the report extensively shows, along with various other credible sources such as ASPO, the German military, and U.S. Military, peak oil is a reality that needs to be dealt with now, not a theory to be reflected on tomorrow. I cannot express enough just how far reaching and detrimental this phenomenon can potentially be if we do not start preparing ourselves immediately. Sustainable resource developments, although helpful to a degree, have nowhere near the extreme energy producing power that natural oil does. Even dirty energy producers (while inevitably doomed to the same finite fate) such as coal and natural gas have nowhere near the energy capacity that our current globe demands.

The Importance of Government Regulation, Education, and Mythical Beings' Civil Rights

Does the government have a right to regulate environmental matters? Yes. Here’s why: Let’s suppose I’m a werewolf. But I’m not some newby werewolf who’s still scared of self-mutilation or destroying my home or cat or wife. I’ve gotten used to my hairy sheep-eating ways and have figured out a systematically pleasing way to go about a somewhat normal life with the exception of these predictable lunar-driven tantrums. Let’s assume that I’ve even grown fond of my time alone in this altered state. I find the destruction of windmills and ogre huts to be quite pleasing—cathartic even. So let’s say there’s some guy or wizard or lake monster made from burning coal and toxic waste that, by the virtue of his lifestyle, is constantly producing thick and pungent smog which permeates the neighborhood. Having not cleverly inspected the surrounding residential area before building our homes, it just so happens that we all live in a cramped valley surrounded by towering cliffs and mountains and spikes and eternal flames which not only presents problems for our own transitory desires, but for the smogalicious soot-sauce as well.

I digress. Let’s suppose that this constant production of soot and dirt and socialism eventually, having no real where to go, blocks out the moon. Now I, being the old and cranky werewolf that I am, profoundly set in my ways and walks of werewolf life, feel particularly put off by the absence of this moon seeing as it prevents me from partaking in what has become a fundamental process of my life. Without access to the full moon, I have been stripped of my right as a werewolf to act and behave like the mythological beast that I am every 29.5 days. Government regulatory action is necessary in order to not only clean up the airspace around me (a claim that would currently fall under ‘public nuisance’), but to prevent similar situations from torturing other civilian werewolves around middle earth.

In this instance, preventative regulatory measures are the more important of the two options. While cleanup of a salient problem may provide a promisingly green image for the centerfold policy at hand, it will not necessarily deter others from producing similarly invasive clouds of anti-joy. It is important to note that, while the public nuisance issue may only have become salient after an individual’s experience with one or more effects of environmentally unfriendly energy or potion production, the living pleasure of this single person (or werewolf) is just a scaled down version of what could potentially be a universal problem. In order to combat this government intervention needs to concentrate on two fronts: education and strict regulation.

Of the latter, what is implemented today is usually watered down policy that, after running the lobbyist gamete, does not sincerely or seriously provide real changes within the industries it is attempting to regulate. Stricter measures that are truly enforced need to be legislated by congress. Obviously, there are many who are against this idea. Our current media-fed ideology is that there is no limit to what we can produce, consume, or fix. But, as Scott Sanders points out in A Conservationist Manifesto, that is clearly not the case. Using mere population growth as an example, an infinite trajectory is not a possible reality for humanity on this earth. Neither the resources nor the space are available. With government legislation, an attempt to wane this rampant growth (which is present in unsustainable economic practices as well as population) might seem less objectionable when presented with the eventual fail-safe that the Earth has in place: the end of humanity.

I am not usually one to advocate a doomsday scenario. I would much prefer not to delve in such pessimistic thoughts. However, as the science shows us again and again, unless significant and sustained changes are made in our lifestyles, our predicted future on Earth is a very bleak one indeed. While legislated regulatory actions could help jumpstart a greener environment for all, significant changes in individual choices and mentality are necessary in order for these practices and others like it to be sustained. As much of our deep values and belief systems are somewhat determined by our experiences as children (e.g. parent party affiliation), it would be ignorant of us to ignore such a critical period in which a generation of potential good stewards could be taught the natural beauty and importance of our environment.

Jolly Green Problems

To be honest, I am usually not aware of major political decisions that are 'green' or, for that matter, some other shade. My political affiliations regarding the environment are unclear to me because I don't honestly know what a lot of policy on the subject consists of or who is responsible for its existence. But my stance on political issues that I am aware of (although not pertaining to environmental management) is generally a more liberal and democratic one. For me, this means that I tend to value the rights of the individual more than those of the group (however I am uncertain as to how this mentality will hold up with issues of the environment). For example, my very basic understanding of the Patriot Act left me feeling upset that individual freedoms to privacy were being violated by government officials. Other typically defining issues such as same-sex marriage and the death penalty also demonstrate a more democratically charged ideology--'for' and 'against' respectively. Much of this, as we mentioned in class, is certainly due, in part, to my own parents' ideologies (which mirror my own in these examples).
My economic perspective of things (broad though it is not) tends to also be more liberally inclined. By this I mean that larger economic issues at hand like socialized health-care make me say "Hell yeah!", but only because it seems like a good idea, not because I know the specific economic outcomes of such a financially demanding program. My economic view on health-care is driven by a very un-econmic idea that those in need who cannot help themselves, should be helped, and I suppose I don't think much further than that.

When initially enrolling in this course, I did not foresee a lot of opportunities for an ecocentric view of the environment to conflict with my upbringing. I figured that buying clothes made from grass and soybeans while simultaneously not dumping buckets of box-fans and computer parts into the ocean would not mutually exclude my previous liberal sentiments. However, I am quickly seeing that things are not quite that simple.
From the various environmental philosophies that we have covered in assigned readings and class, I feel a certain want to have an ecocentric or holistic view of the environment. It seems admirable and poetic even to feel this sort of Captain-Planet-connection with the world and its smorgasbord of life as equal beings and parts of a whole unit. But I can't stop myself from thinking that saving a baby instead of a head of lettuce or platypus is a good idea. Every time. All of the time. That said, I suppose that my feelings towards the environment come second to human life. However, I also realize that human survival is dependant on an environment that functions similarly to the way it does today. So even if our investments are based in the human race's existence, our interactions with the environment have implications for future generations of human life. For example, respect for the ozone layer can very easily be manifested in the helpful duties that the ozone layer undertakes in order to keep humans safe, like filtering the sun's rays so that humans aren't all zapped with cancer and super-peely skin (although, to be fair, both of these conditions still exist, albeit at a much slower rate). Not that prolonging the human race is the only reason for not wanting to destroy the ozone. I'm sure that there is some seriously beautiful scientific shit going on with those UV rays that some people understand and love and would hate to see destroyed.

For this reason I am uncertain about a purely anthropocentric philosophy if it is one that only takes humans into account at the present. The Cornucopian theory that banks itself on human intuition and miraculous scientific discovery is not only ludicrous, but also allows for an extremely large burden to be lifted, heaved, and dropped on the shoulders of a nameless future. Believing in equality in the present should not exclude an attempt to provide the same for the future. That said, I do not agree with an over-investment in the human race's power to thrive at the expense of the environment because of the implications these changes may or will have for future generations to come. Although it is easy to be caught up in the 'here' and 'now' of the moment, I am hopeful that careful consideration of our past's involvement in our own existence will drive us to be more thoughtful and compassionate about the sort of world we leave behind for those next in line.