I love Paris.

The previous LOTRW post, Presidential power – not all it’s cracked up to be, argued that the President’s recent decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, while comforting to elements of his base, was really of small consequence. It follows that a concerned world need not overreact; instead energy and minds are better focused on the actual challenges posed in meeting the food, water, and energy needs of seven-going on-nine billion people; building resilience to natural hazards; and protecting the environment and its ecosystem services over time.

One reader (and friend) agreed: …the reaction from both sides was certainly overblown. He then added: here’s another perspectivethat expands more on that point:

The link is to a blog by Keith Hennessey. From the website, Mr. Hennessey provides this thumbnail introduction to himself and the blog: Hi, I’m Keith Hennessey. I work as a Lecturer at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, teaching American economic policy to MBA students. I spent 14 years in Washington, DC advising a President and two Senators on a wide range of economic policy issues. This blog is aimed at students of American economic policy. Thank you for visiting.

In this particular post, Mr. Hennessey introduces us to a new acronym: QTIIPS (not my favorite – overly Qute? – but maybe I’m just jealous). He opens with this.

Both President Obama’s 2016 signing of the Paris Agreement on climate change and President Trump’s withdrawal from that agreement today fit into a category I will label as QTIIPS.

 QTIIPS stands for Quantitatively Trivial Impact + Intense Political Symbolism.

 QTIIPS policy changes provoke fierce political battles over trivially small policy impacts. Passionate advocates on both sides ignore numbers and policy details while fighting endlessly about symbols.

 A policy change is QTIIPS if:

 -its direct measurable effects are quite small relative to the underlying policy problem to be solved;

-it is viewed both by supporters and opponents as a first step toward an end state that all agree would be quite a large change;

-supporters and opponents alike attach great significance to the direction of the change, as a precursor to possible future movement toward that quantitatively significant end goal; and

-a fierce political battle erupts over the symbolism of this directional shift. This political battle is often zero-sum, unresolvable, and endless.

The rest of the post expands upon these ideas. If you have the time to read the full post, it’ll stimulate your thinking.

One point in the middle might catch your eye. It’s repeated here. He says this:

QTIIPS policy changes rest on the assumption that the first step is likely to lead to that theoretical quantitatively significant outcome. Most supporters of the Paris Agreement would privately concede that it is only a modest first step, and would then express hope that it could/will/might/should lead to further progress in the future. Opponents of the agreement would share their fears that this first step could/will/might lead to an eventual outcome they fear.

 But this shared assumption, of a first step or slippery slope, could easily be wrong. If the Paris Agreement were never to have led to a more significant next step, then a key premise of the fight is wrong. The intense political symbolism and the fierce battles waged over both President Obama’s and President Trump’s relatively small policy moves would then be unsupported by strong policy arguments.

 I think that’s the case here. I think Paris was not just the first step, I think it was likely the last step, that those who hoped it would lead to “deepening future commitments” were fooling themselves and others. I think Paris was agreed to only because national leaders realized it was impossible to get a numerically meaningful set of binding national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by specific large amounts. They therefore grabbed the best agreement they could, however weak, kicking the can down the road in the hope that somehow their successors might have more luck. Because I am so skeptical about the first step claim, and because I care far more about the policy impact than about the symbolism, my reaction is mild both to President Obama’s signing in 2016 and to President Trump’s withdrawal announcement today. I think neither agreeing to Paris nor withdrawing from it would have changed future global temperatures by any meaningful amount. Even before today I was skeptical that it would lead to any significant next steps, so I conclude that these symbolic battles about the Paris Agreement are almost meaningless.

Reading this was puzzling initially. It seemed to me that the Agreement didn’t predetermine the importance of the challenge so much as it set into motion a process that would evaporate (as Mr. Hennessey argues) if the threat isn’t real or dissipates, but would grow if the situation grew more serious.

Then it hit me: I’ve always liked the Paris Climate Agreement; now I know why!

It’s because the Paris Climate Agreement mimics the approach of meteorologists, emergency managers, political and business leaders, and various publics to an approaching/developing hurricane.

At a hurricane’s earliest stages, no one knows whether its intensification and landfall will pose a real threat or not – and to whom. At the same time, there’s no wasted energy prematurely debating any of that, or getting emotional or top-down prescriptive about it. Instead, all participants at all levels and all locations individually begin making whatever initial preparations they feel appropriate in light of their own perceived vulnerability and options. At the same time, everyone engages in watch-and-warn. Furthermore, thanks to the World Meteorological Organization and a variety of long-established agreements, they transparently share information from observations and a variety of models, etc. The full public is kept in the loop as well.

And here’s the best part: the response is incremental. If the hurricane intensifies, the response develops commensurately. As the threat to a particular city or coastline rises, so do preparations. But where and if the threat diminishes, those preparing stand down. Rarely (especially as forecasts have improved) is the response inadequate or disproportionate.

Note that the key, the essential part, is also the inexpensive part: the watch and warn. It costs little to field the observations – the satellites and the radars, the surface in situ instruments, etc. to monitor conditions and their changes; to assimilate the data into variety of numerical models, to run these and form ensemble averages; to disseminate the findings. That’s true for both hurricanes and climate change. It’s essential that we not fly blind into this uncertain future.

One important addition has to be made in the climate-change version of this approach. When it comes to hurricanes, the world gets many occasions to practice: dozens each and every year, broadly scattered worldwide. By contrast, with respect to climate change, there hasn’t been the same opportunity for trial-and-error learning. That’s where research – not just on physical workings of the atmosphere and oceans but also on ecological processes and the social science of human response come in. That research is essential to effective risk reduction; it too is inexpensive.

Anticipating climate change? Responding commensurately? Without the drama? What’s not to like?


Love Paris? We all do. So did Cole Porter. Here’s the song, rendered by Ol’ blue eyes. Give it a listen. You know you want to.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Presidential power –not all it’s cracked up to be.

so tiny… both the impact of the first stage of the Paris Climate Agreement — and presidential statements about it…

(Yesterday’s furor over the President’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement may have been overblown. Here’s why.)


Richard Neustadt, the famous presidential historian, tells us what some of Mr. Trumps’ predecessors had to say about the job:[1]

In the early summer of 1952, before the heat of the campaign, President [Harry] Truman used to contemplate the problems of the general-become-President should [Dwight David] Eisenhower win the forthcoming election. “He’ll sit here,” Truman would remark (tapping his desk for emphasis), “and he’ll say, ‘Do this! Do that!’ And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army. He’ll find it very frustrating.”

Eisenhower evidently found it so. “In the face of the continuing dissidence and disunity, the President sometimes simply exploded with exasperation,” wrote Robert Donovan in comment on the early months of Eisenhower’s first term. “What was the use, he demanded to know, of his trying to lead the Republican Party. … And this reaction was not limited to early months alone, or to his party only. “The President still feels,” an Eisenhower aide remarked to me in 1958, “that when he’s decided something, that ought to be the end of it…and when it bounces back undone or done wrong, he tends to react with shocked surprise.”

Truman knew whereof he spoke. With “resignation” in the place of “shocked surprise,” the aide’s description would have fitted Truman. The former senator may have been less shocked than the former general, but he was no less subjected to that painful and repetitive experience: “Do this, do that, and nothing will happen.” Long before he came to talk of Eisenhower he had put his own experience in other words: “I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have sense enough to do without my persuading them…. That’s all the powers of the President amount to.

Presidents come and go, bringing with them all manner of ambitions and policy preferences – on this occasion agreeing, on that, disagreeing with their predecessors, and those who follow.

But they would all agree on this – that being president isn’t nearly so powerful or influential a position as they’d hoped. Surrounded by strong and diverse personalities, they find their wishes made public, misrepresented, and confounded almost the moment their backs are turned. And that’s just in the West Wing. A mile or so down the street, on Capitol Hill, and in the Supreme Court, other strong characters hold full sway. And that’s before the president ventures outside the Beltway, or across the oceans.

Presidents, like the rest of us, are swept along by events and circumstances as much as they shape them. They just have the misfortune to live their lives in a goldfish bowl.

Less than 24 hours after his statement on exiting the Paris climate agreement, President Trump sees this same dreary prospect. His own White House staff and family have been factionalized, riven, by the decision. Thirty state governors have quickly gone on record as affirming their states will continue forward within the spirit of the Agreement. Countless U.S. business leaders have registered their protest. International leaders have (excepting Syria and Nicaragua) have expressed various degrees of displeasure. China, hardly able to believe its good fortune (and a tad prematurely), is gleefully trying on for size the trappings of world leadership.

But in the case of the Paris Climate Agreement, there appear to be additional overlays. These start with the nature of the Agreement itself. Its Kyoto predecessor contained much that people hated – not least the special position of China and India, but also the cookie-cutter-, binding nature of the particulars. By contrast, the Paris accord is relatively free-form – more like a church potluck or charitable fundraiser Countries agree on the common goal – in this case, strengthening the global response to the common threat of climate change. But nations put on the table only what their domestic politics will support. For each country, the precise extent and the mix of reductions in fossil-fuel emissions; climate adaptation measures; financial donations; international offsets; and the associated schedules for all these were unique, idiosyncratic. What is universal was that countries agree to develop and share accurate data on all these aspects of their climate response – to fairly report their progress or lack of same, in some detail. They also recognize that the first round of measures is inadequate to the task (the “tiny progress” mocked by the Agreement’s detractors), so agree that every few years each country will up its game. And absent legally-binding agreements that they will instead use “name and shame” to encourage laggard countries[2]. (The United States has now shoved its way to the status of “first-among-laggards;” the shaming is already underway.)

Given all this, it’s hard to say what “pulling out” of the Agreement even means – or, in some ultimate sense – whether pulling out is even possible. A Rose Garden speech is not doing much more than saying what had been “politically achievable domestically” is no longer so. We’re doing little more than simply redefining the role we’ll play – just stepping back from any moral high ground or leadership we might have held with respect to the climate change issue and announcing that to the world (ironically, in conformity to the Agreement’s terms regarding transparency). We can’t, and won’t, even leave formally for three to four years.

The fact of the matter is that U.S. implementation has been and will remain largely a state- and local-level and private-sector, even individual concern – the steady accumulation of hundreds of economic, not political, decisions to switch from coal to natural gas in electrical power generation, to increase automobile mileage, increase agricultural efficiency, and much more. Our economy is highly globalized and our financial sector relatively transparent. Many states and companies unsurprisingly see it to their advantage – perhaps even important to their survival – to continue to conform to the outline of the Agreement. As EPA administrator Scott Pruitt argued before the press in several settings yesterday, the US had already been living up to the spirit of the Agreement prior to its signing (and by implication will continue to do so going forward). The coal industry and its workers are going to continue to see a slow, painful downward slide. The United States may reduce its financial contributions to other nations, but these were never to be that large, and China stands ready to pick them up, along with the branding and goodwill that will generate.

In closing, let’s consider the second piece: the public outcry/emotion – whether joy for those in President Trump’s base or anger and dismay for those who aren’t. Natural enough in the moment. But surely overdone. Four or five years from now, where we stand with respect to the climate-change challenge, and where Americans and America stand in world opinion, will be shaped not by Thursday’s set-piece speech, but rather by the decisions and actions that all 320 million of us make each and every day between now and then: actions with respect to energy- and resource use, building resilience to hazards, and protecting the environment. Actions to foster innovation and education for the benefit of all. And, most fundamentally, commitment to each other, here at home and internationally, versus selfishly and destructively going it alone.

All that is on us.

You and me.

Every day.

Jesus captured this distinction between what we say and what we do. In a conversation with Pharisees in the Temple, he asked the question[3]:

“What do you think? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ The boy answered, ‘I will not.’ But later he had a change of heart and went. The father went to the other son and said the same thing. This boy answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did his father’s will?” [lived up to the Paris Agreement] They said, “The first.”

Summing up? The Rose Garden event per se looks to be little more than a photo op.

Truman and Eisenhower would have understood.


[1] From Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960); if it looks familiar, perhaps that’s because it’s reprinted in Living on the Real World: How Thinking and Acting Like Meteorologists Will Help Save the Planet, 2014.

[2] Those who are skeptical of the efficacy of this “soft” approach need look no further than the institute of marriage to see its power.

[3] Matthew 21:28-31.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The morning after.

“We learn geology the morning after the earthquake.” – Ralph Waldo Emerson

President Trump’s speech announcing U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate agreement appears to be triggering the predicted response. Both domestically and globally, people everywhere, from diverse publics – whether national, state or local government; private sector; academia; or civil society; from global leaders to those in the most humble circumstances – woke up this morning expressing a blend of dismay, regret, and anger. The chatter has been deafening; it’s also been largely negative, and surprisingly diverse. People found much to dislike –whether with respect to the Earth science, the economics, the politics, or the tone. One of the more balanced responses came from Keith Seitter, Executive Director of the American Meteorological Society [full disclosure: my boss]. Published on the Society’s blog, The Front Page, the post is repeated here in its entirety:

President Trump’s speech announcing the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement emphasizes his assessment of the domestic economic risks of making commitments to climate action. In doing so the President plainly ignores so many other components of the risk calculus that went into the treaty in the first place.

There are, of course, political risks, such as damaging our nation’s diplomatic prestige and relinquishing the benefits of leadership in global economic, environmental, or security matters. But from a scientific viewpoint, it is particularly troubling that the President’s claims cast aside the extensively studied domestic and global economic, health, and ecological risks of inaction on climate change.

President Trump put it quite bluntly: “We will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.”

The science emphatically tells us that it is not fine if we can’t. The American Meteorological Society Statement on Climate Change warns that it is “imperative that society respond to a changing climate.” National policies are not enough — the Statement clearly endorses international action to ensure adaptation to, and mitigation of, the ongoing, predominately human-caused change in climate.

In his speech, the President made a clear promise “… to be the cleanest and most environmentally friendly country on Earth … to have the cleanest air … to have the cleanest water.” AMS members have worked long and hard to enable such conditions both in our country and throughout the world. We are ready to provide the scientific expertise the nation will need to realize these goals. AMS members are equally ready to provide the scientific foundation for this nation to thrive as a leader in renewable energy technology and production, as well as to prepare for, respond to, and recover from nature’s most dangerous storms, floods, droughts, and other hazards.

Environmental aspirations, however, that call on some essential scientific capabilities but ignore others are inevitably misguided. AMS members have been instrumental in producing the sound body of scientific evidence that helps characterize the risks of unchecked climate change. The range of possibilities for future climate—built upon study after study—led the AMS Statement to conclude, “Prudence dictates extreme care in accounting for our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.”

This is the science-based risk calculus upon which our nation’s climate change policy should be based. It is a far more realistic, informative, and actionable perspective than the narrow accounting the President provided in the Rose Garden. It is the science that the President abandoned in his deeply troubling decision.

Interestingly, the furor may be out of all proportion to the actual impact of the president’s statements and actions. More on that in a subsequent LOTRW post.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Climate change? Whatever changes this week, some things will stay the same.

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet – William Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet)

What’s past is prologue – William Shakespeare (The Tempest)

Saturday’s print edition of the Washington Post juxtaposed two front-page headlines, both above the fold. Snippets from the respective articles, followed by brief commentary:

Change of ‘climate’: offices rebrand under Trump.

“Climate change” is out. “Resilience” is in. “Victims of domestic violence” are now “victims of crime.” Foreign aid for refugee rights has become aid to protect “national security.” “Clean energy investment” has been transformed into just plain “energy” investment

…Some of the most striking examples of rebranding come from agencies dealing with energy and the environment, where references to “climate change” and “clean energy” have sometimes disappeared…[The Post article goes on to provide a number of concrete examples.]

Prior experience provides many examples/periods of such rebranding. The transition from the Clinton to the Bush administration saw a switch in emphasis in climate-change framing from warming-as-a-global-average and societal response founded on mitigation alone (hitting the CO2 off-switch) to the impact of climate change on the frequency, intensity, duration, and location of extremes, and more emphasis on adaptation.

NOAA personnel and retirees might remember a similar rebranding earlier on, when the Reagan administration came in at the start of the 1980’s. At that time NOAA’s research was conducted in a Research and Development Line Office (RD). The Reaganites thought that only basic research was the proper role of government. They wanted NOAA to stand down from applied research and all development activities such as AWIPS and other weather technology and Sea Grant (sound familiar?). George Ludwig, then the Environmental Research Laboratories Director, fell on his sword over this directive. He maintained, with some logic, that development was the step needed if the American public were to benefit from the basic research. Joe Fletcher would later take over as the assistant administrator for RD. He made no changes whatsoever, but simply repeated, at every public opportunity, some variation on the theme everything you see going on here is basic research[1]. Threatened budget cuts were averted, and today’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) was born.

At G7, Trump’s views on Paris pact ‘evolving’.

TAORMINA, Italy — Forceful face-to-face talks this week with fellow world leaders left President Donald Trump “more knowledgeable” and with “evolving” views about the global climate accord he’s threatened to abandon, a top White House official said Friday. Trump also was impressed by their arguments about how crucial U.S. leadership is in supporting international efforts.

 The president’s new apparent openness to staying in the landmark Paris climate pact came amid a determined pressure campaign by European leaders. During Friday’s gathering of the Group of 7 wealthy democracies — as well as at earlier stops on Trump’s first international trip — leaders have implored him to stick with the 2015 accord aimed at reducing carbon emissions and slowing potentially disastrous global warming…

This Saturday headline has already been replaced by news media reports that the United States will indeed go ahead and withdraw from the accord. In the fast-paced, mercurial environment that is 2017-Washington, it’s risky to venture a prediction here as to what the administration will decide.

But what matters far more than the thoughts and actions of a small handful of leaders are the opinions, decisions, and actions of 320 million Americans. And if what’s past is indeed prologue, then those might oddly enough, be more predictable.

Fact is, we’ve seen this movie before. Eight years of Democratic executive-branch control from 1992-2000 found Vice-Presidential leadership ahead of the American people on the climate issue. On a 95-0 vote, the Congress in 1997 expressed disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and “would seriously harm the economy of the United States”. The Kyoto protocol was never submitted to Congress for ratification.

But when the presidency fell into Republican hands in early 2001 and the new president asserted he didn’t see climate change as much of a problem, the country did a bit of an about face. People said in effect… Hold on! We’re more concerned than that! President Bush wound up convening an NAS panel to assess the most recent IPCC report at the time and ultimately accepted the conclusions of both.

If President Trump should decide the United States should withdraw from its commitments, don’t be surprised if the next several months show a similar popular reaction this time around.

Such a scenario is made even more likely given the differences between Kyoto and Paris. The Paris accord had much more the flavor of a church potluck. Each country brought to the table a contribution that its circumstances and current domestic politics would support versus conforming to a set model. That’s why the United States, along with 146 other nations, ratified in the first place. And U.S. participation reflects actions already underway by private enterprise, by fifty states, 3000 counties, countless local governments, and tens of millions of individuals. Most of these actions reflect compelling self-interests: the ever-lowering cost of renewable energy; interest in preserving as much coastal real estate and economic activity as possible in the face of sea-level-rise; commitment to transparency in return for transparency from others; and commitment to progress in the face of the shaming that is the alternative. [This latter is not unlike that church potluck; no one wants to show up to such events empty-handed without excuse.]

To sum up. Nature has no name for climate change. By any other name the challenge remains real, and the problems remain the same. And the brilliance of the Paris accord, as opposed to its predecessors, is the way it builds on fundamental, nigh-on-universal, human interests and values, not the short-sighted preferences or interests of a few.

This week the president and his team may decide the U.S. should remain committed to the Paris accord. Reason for cheer. Or they may decide to withdraw. In which case Americans will rediscover their own, preexisting interests and commitments. A (different) reason for cheer. In either instance, the world and its people will be one week closer to coping with the climate change challenge.


[1] Throughout this period, Joe, who was former military, would remind OAR staff in private of the advice of the great Chinese general Sun Tzu, which he would paraphrase this way: “you can retreat all you want, but never lose a battle.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment


Earth as seem from Stephen Hawking’s rear-view mirror.

Stephen Hawking has been asking a proper question: How much time do we (humans) have here on Earth?

His answer is uncertain, and in fact has been a moving target, but can be summed up like this: not much! (and – maybe less and less, the more he thinks about it).

His suggested response option is by contrast definitive – and perhaps not the one you and I might prefer: time to leave!

Surely worth some discussion.

ICYMI, here’s some background, excerpted from a May 5 article by Peter Holley published on the Washington Post website (only one of many carrying the story, off and on over several months; you can find more material elsewhere on line):

In November, Stephen Hawking and his bulging computer brain gave humanity what we thought was an intimidating deadline for finding a new planet to call home: 1,000 years. Ten centuries is a blip in the grand arc of the universe, but in human terms it was the apocalyptic equivalent of getting a few weeks’ notice before our collective landlord (Mother Earth) kicks us to the curb. Even so, we took a collective breath and steeled our nerves. So what if there’s no interplanetary Craigslist for new astronomical sublets, we told ourselves, we’re human — the Bear Grylls of the natural order. We’ve already survived the ice age, the plague, a bunch of scary volcanoes and earthquakes, and the 2016 election cycle. We got this, right?

Not so fast. Now Hawking, the renowned theoretical physicist turned apocalypse warning system, is back with a revised deadline. In “Expedition New Earth” — a documentary that debuts this summer as part of the BBC’s “Tomorrow’s World” science season — Hawking claims that Mother Earth would greatly appreciate it if we could gather our belongings and get out — not in 1,000 years, but in the next century or so… “Professor Stephen Hawking thinks the human species will have to populate a new planet within 100 years if it is to survive,” the BBC said with a notable absence of punctuation marks in a statement posted online. “With climate change, overdue asteroid strikes, epidemics and population growth, our own planet is increasingly precarious…”

…Some of Hawking’s most explicit warnings have revolved around the potential threat posed by artificial intelligence. That means — in Hawking’s analysis — humanity’s daunting challenge is twofold: develop the technology that will enable us to leave the planet and start a colony elsewhere, while avoiding the frightening perils that may be unleashed by said technology. When it comes to discussing that threat, Hawking is unmistakably blunt. “I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race,” Hawking told the BBC in a 2014 interview… Despite its current usefulness, he cautioned, further developing A.I. could prove a fatal mistake. “Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever­ increasing rate,” Hawking warned in recent months. “Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.”

Whew! A heavy lift.

Perhaps not surprising that Mr. Hawking should be the one to raise this question and suggest this path forward. He’s hugely bright – brilliant. And he’s used to thinking big-picture – cosmos, universe, origins, possibilities. He’s also British; they’re the folks who (just barely) brought us Brexit (and inspired all the other “exit” tropes).

For all sorts of reasons, we’re right to fret that our time here on Earth might be limited – that the Anthropocene, like the Holocene and Eocene, and every other “cene” before them, will someday come to an end, making it necessary for us to leave the scene (sorry, couldn’t help myself). And that requires some thought and effort be given to ways and means.

But only some thought. The vast bulk of thought and effort, the priority, should focus on buying time here – to extending the habitability of Earth. Buying that time, and how to go about it, have been central theses of this blog, going back to 2010, and the 2014 book by the same title.

To restate some of the core ideas: First, seven billion of us are not leaving the planet any time soon. That opportunity (and its associated risk) is going to be left to at most a privileged handful. Fact is, the current and future level of effort contemplated by Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Richard Branson might be about right, if we throw in an increment at NASA (the Chinese look to be adding more as well). The rest of us ought to be focused like a laser on the threefold problem of managing the Earth as a resource, threat, and victim.

That translates into “buying time” – a problem with several elements. Let’s look at three.

First, and simplest: estimating how much time we have. As Mr. Hawking’s thought process reminds us, that is not a single problem, but multiple ones: How much time until the first significant asteroid impact? Until some terrorist act or cold-war-type global power struggle triggers a nuclear holocaust? Until we run out of the supplies of yttrium or lanthanum or praseodymium or neodymium or any of the rare earths we need for today’s IT? Until we run out of food or water? Until a virus goes globally out of control? Until the sheer weight of thousands of environmental insults renders the planet uninhabitable? Until some cyber-catastrophe our relations with each other become so toxic that life is no longer worth living? The problems are legion, complex, and interconnected. Which are most urgent, and why?

Second, and more daunting: thinking through the options. How to buy time – an extra day, or year, or century? Investigating: how can economics and substitutability help? New technology? New lifestyle? What are the choices? What is the cost of each? How much time does it buy? What are the implications for the other timelines? Thinking in terms of triage: what must be done now? What can wait? What challenges look hopeless based on what we know now?

Third, and most expensive and demanding in terms of level of effort, taking action. That doesn’t demand reaching consensus on what to do (too difficult in today’s world, and actually dangerous given the risk of making bad choices), but vigorous exploration of diverse approaches, paying attention to early detection of success and failure.

A few closing comments (maybe more than a few).

First, we’ve seen this movie before. The ozone hole. Acid rain… ________(write-in your favorite here). And just as each version of Star Wars or X-Men tops its predecessor in scale and sweep, so it is with Living on the Real World. The climate challenge that has the world in its thrall today is far more imposing than these prior concerns. But this Buying-Time problem is larger still. As Stephen Hawking notes, it’s truly existential.

Second, perhaps the biggest advantage Buying Time holds over E(arth)xit is global involvement. E(arth)xit fully engages the skills of a mere handful. Perhaps the richest 0.1%. (The money has to come from somewhere). “Rocket scientists.” They’re needed to make the venture physically possible. A few biologists. After all, the solar system’s options (the most within-reach) are hardly Goldilocks planets; they’ll require quite a bit of plateary-scale tinkering before they’re well-and-truly habitable). And social scientists, addressing questions of how we choose those who will “boldly go where no one has gone before,” versus the seven-going-on-nine billion of us who will stay. (In the Brexit terminology, “leave” versus “remain.”). All the social science says that social risks of such extended high-stakes space travel outweigh the other threats.

All that may sound like it adds up to a lot of people. But most of the seven-going-on-nine billion of us will be bystanders, spectators. We won’t be participants. And we’ll be unhappy, critical spectators. We’ll see most of the resources – including the world’s intellectual resources – tied up in the support of a few rather than solving real-world problems of hunger, poverty, jobs, health, and more. If most of us are critical, unhappy, some will be dangerously so, sabotaging the effort in ways ranging from hacking to acts of terror.

By contrast, Buying Time calls for full global engagement, action-in-place. There are no spectators. Everyone is a participant.

Years ago, Robert Townsend, the head of AVIS, the rental-car company, wrote a little management book entitled Up the Organization: How to Stop the Corporation from Stifling People and Strangling Profits. The tone was tongue-in-cheek, but contained a few pearls. One was that it was better to make sure all the managers were overworked; then they wouldn’t have time to notice they were being treated unfairly, or to criticize each other, or to complain that they deserved greater responsibility, etc.

There are parallels here to the “climate-change-movie.” Mitigation approaches – hitting the CO2 off-switch – are necessary, but as we’ve seen, leave most people uninvolved, and many, as we’ve discovered to our cost, critical, some harshly so. By contrast, and as a complement, climate adaptation is more necessarily place-based, exploratory – and it draws more people in. Instead of criticizing each other, you and I are free to pursue our own better ideas. A far more productive use of our time.

Third, and finally Buying Time has a track record of success. Century after century, and in arena upon arena – food, energy, water, transportation, waste management, global ingenuity has successfully bought time. We know how to do this.

So E(arth)xit merits some thought, some effort, considerable effort. Stephen Hawking is on to something. A complete strategy requires it. But the world attention should be on remain: sharpening up our estimates of how much time we have and why, identifying our options for buying time, exploring those, quickly detecting and sharing early signs of failure and success – and daily celebrating every bit of progress on the latter.

In this scenario, each of us matters. Each is essential. Time to step up and play our indispensable part.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Spirit of Margaret Davidson.

1When the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, Elijah and Elisha were on their way from Gilgal.2 Elijah said to Elisha, “Stay here; the Lord has sent me to Bethel.”

But Elisha said, “As surely as the Lord lives and as you live, I will not leave you.” So they went down to Bethel…

7Fifty men from the company of the prophets went and stood at a distance, facing the place where Elijah and Elisha had stopped at the Jordan. Elijah took his cloak, rolled it up and struck the water with it. The water divided to the right and to the left, and the two of them crossed over on dry ground.

When they had crossed, Elijah said to Elisha, “Tell me, what can I do for you before I am taken from you?”

“Let me inherit a double portion of your spirit,” Elisha replied.

10 “You have asked a difficult thing,” Elijah said, “yet if you see me when I am taken from you, it will be yours—otherwise, it will not.”

11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.12 Elisha saw this and cried out, “My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!” And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his garment and tore it in two.

13 Elisha then picked up Elijah’s cloak that had fallen from him and went back and stood on the bank of the Jordan. 14 He took the cloak that had fallen from Elijah and struck the water with it. “Where now is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” he asked. When he struck the water, it divided to the right and to the left, and he crossed over.

15 The company of the prophets from Jericho, who were watching, said, “The spirit of Elijah is resting on Elisha.” And they went to meet him and bowed to the ground before him. – 2 Kings Chapter 2 – excerpts (NIV)


(In the argot of her native South) Margaret Davidson passed on this week.

This from Russell Callender, Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, in a letter to NOAA National Ocean Service staff reprinted here in its entirety:

It is with profound sadness that I share with you the news that our beloved colleague, Margaret Davidson, has passed away following a long illness.

Margaret was the greatest visionary I ever had the pleasure to meet—and she was a visionary who took action. When she spoke of “now,” she meant two to three years down the road because she was always thinking that far ahead of the rest of us. She was a mentor, confidant, and a friend to me and to many other in the global coastal community.

Margaret Davidson had been an active participant in coastal resource management issues since 1978, when she earned her juris doctorate from Louisiana State University. She later earned a master’s degree in marine policy and resource economics from the University of Rhode Island.

She also served as special counsel and assistant attorney general for the Louisiana Department of Justice and later as the executive director of the South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium.

Margaret joined NOAA as the founding director of NOAA’s Coastal Services Center (CSC), where she created a customer-driven organization that accelerated the use of technology, tools and skills required to make informed coastal economic development and ecosystem management decisions at all levels of government. She then served as acting director of the Office for Ocean and Coastal Resources Management when that office and CSC merged to form the new Office for Coastal Management. As the reorganization received official approval, Ms. Davidson took on the challenge of establishing a newly created position as the NOAA Senior Leader for Coastal Inundation and Resilience.

Margaret served on numerous local, state, and federal committees and provided leadership for national professional societies. She focused her professional work on environmentally sustainable coastal development practices, the reduction of risk associated with extreme events, and climate adaptation.

During her illustrious career, she was a Fulbright Fellow, American Meteorological Society Fellow, Gilbert White Fellow, and Zurich Fellow for Climate Adaptation. Davidson also served as the acting assistant administrator for NOAA’s National Ocean Service from 2000 to 2002.

Margaret was the consummate networker, with a mind that served as an encyclopedia of existing and potential partnerships. She was gifted in recognizing and capitalizing upon common goals, and she never took her eyes off of the importance of community engagement in protecting coastal resources around the nation. Her life and career will cast a long shadow for those who follow the trail she blazed in coastal zone management.

There will never be another person like Margaret Davidson. We can only honor her memory by carrying on the legacy she established.

Well and truly said! Assistant Administrator Callender got it precisely right. His letter provides a factual account of Margaret’s illustrious career, with full heart, but also a bit of understatement. Might be worth fleshing out some of the best bits:

“Long illness?” True, but Margaret didn’t just quietly suffer. She engaged cancer in a titanic struggle, living not months but years longer than medical experts had predicted. Throughout, she showed levels of energy, poise, even cheer, laced throughout with signature-Margaret-Davidson frankness. She was the winner, not the illness, in ways that will be everlasting encouragement to us all.

“Visionary? Margaret had vision all right, but she also had “execution” in her DNA. That’s a rare combination. Most mere mortals have one but not the other. Whether Margaret came around to our offices, or spoke to us in a crowd of 500,  when she said, “I have a dream…” you and I knew that dream included actual work that we were going to have to do, actual steps we would have to take, actual follow-through that she’d check the next time she would pass by.

“Illustrious career?” Hers was illustrious indeed, but it was nowhere near so widely on display as it might have been. Too often the world lacked the courage to give her some of the roles for which she’d volunteered. She applied for several senior leadership positions across the national landscape but was turned down because she lacked a conventional science credential. What she offered instead was far rarer, and potentially far more valuable – a true customer-orientation. She saw federally-funded research institutions as legitimate to the extent they were meeting national needs and providing tangible, on-the-ground societal benefit. Wherever she found herself, she worked night and day toward this end, and she constantly exhorted those around her to do the same. It’s not hard to imagine that had she been given greater purview, that climate research and services – to name just one example – might today be viewed more favorably by leaders and publics across the political spectrum.  But in the event, most institutions shied away from committing to such a sea change.

With one exception: NOS and NOAA. And as Russ Callender captured so well in his letter, Margaret played a major role in personifying both inwardly to NOAA and to the outside world that all of NOAA was not just science-based but customer/service driven. We all believed it because she modeled it. We all benefited because it was the right thing to do.

“Consummate networker?” Again, the words are right but the reality was far more vigorous. They fail to capture what Margaret accomplished, early on, through peripatetic travel and unstinting face-to-face efforts, and even to the end, when travel was no longer a possibility. One day the history books will recount American- and world triumphs over sea-level rise, coastal degradation, and more. Margaret’s role may only be imperfectly acknowledged, but it will always remain real.


Russ closed this way: There will never be another person like Margaret Davidson. We can only honor her memory by carrying on the legacy she established.

Spot on.

Which brings us to that Old Testament story of transition – from the prophet Elijah to his successor, found in 2 Kings, Chapter 2. In that story Elisha asks for, and receives, a double portion of Elijah’s spirit – the portion due in those times to the eldest heir.

None of us got to see Margaret taken up to heaven in a whirlwind. She leaves no single successor. But she leaves something breathtakingly better, a small army of folks who recognize the truth and appropriateness of Russ’ words. Together we can carry on the legacy she established.

She wouldn’t be satisfied with anything less – and she’ll be checking up on us the next time she passes by.

Margaret, we’ve got this.

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Social (science) notes from all over.

(With apologies to – and continuing admiration for – The New Yorker, which for decades had a column by this name.)

While our backs have been turned, social scientists have been working on cool stuff. A sample, in no particular order, and making no claims for comprehensiveness, or timeliness for that matter – there’s a lot more out there, and most of my reading is remedial.

Starting with economics, and an article from the April 20th print edition of USA Today:

Many cities around the country will celebrate the 47th Earth Day on Saturday by highlighting their recycling programs, but the industry is grappling with a dual threat: The value of recovered waste products has plummeted over the past five years, and the amount of effort required to extract them has risen.

A study by Rob Taylor with the State Recycling Program in the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality estimated that the average market value of a ton of mixed recyclable material arriving at a recovery facility in the state dropped from just over $180 in early 2011 to less than $80 at the end of 2015. That value has since rebounded a bit, Taylor found, to a little over $100, but it still leaves the industry struggling to extract profit from the millions of tons of recyclable material Americans throw away every year.

There are a host of reasons for the decline in the recycling market, ranging from global trade policy to the decline in newspaper readership, said David Biderman, executive director and CEO of the Solid Waste Association of North America. Much of reclaimed American waste is shipped overseas, but China erected new limits on imported waste in 2013. In other nations, “there has been a decrease in demand for that material as growth rate in foreign countries has leveled off,” Biderman said. Low oil prices have made it cheaper to produce new plastic bottles, so manufacturers don’t have as much need for reclaimed plastic. In addition, packaging producers have figured out how to make bottles and cans thinner, so they don’t need as much raw material.

And as the circulation for print newspapers has plummeted, the recycling industry has lost both a massive customer for reclaimed paper fiber and a huge source of incoming recyclable material.

Across the recycling industry, “what was once a valuable commodity five years ago is less valuable now,” Biderman said.

The change is perhaps most dramatic for glass. In most American cities, the glass bottle you toss in the recycling cart is essentially worthless, and if it breaks, the shards may make the paper in a mixed cart worthless as well.

“We work hard to keep glass in the system because it is an iconic recycled item,” said Keefe Harrison, CEO of the Recycling Partnership, a non-profit committed to improving recycling programs nationwide. But “it has very minimal market value because it has to compete with sand,” which is the raw material glass is made from. Some municipalities have simply stopped collecting glass in their curbside recycling programs. Santa Fe overhauled its recycling program this month and said it would no longer collect glass from households. Residents are being asked to take their glass to four drop-off centers around the city.

The Elkridge facility sorts a lot of glass, Mike Taylor said, but it “doesn’t add value” to the waste stream. “You can’t move it long distances without paying hefty freight rates,” Taylor said, so “it’s a negative-value material for us at the processing facility by the time you separate it and then try to truck it three or four or five hundred miles to get it to a market.”

Much reclaimed glass ends ground into a kind of gravel that can be used in road construction or other industrial projects.

When cities launched recycling programs in the 1980s and 1990s, the theory was that the revenue from the recovered materials would offset the costs of collecting and separating the waste, but it hasn’t worked out that way. Kevin Miller, recycling manager for the city of Napa, Calif., said “we get back about 20%” of the costs of collecting, sorting and shipping materials.

Miller and environmental advocates point out that recycling has other economic benefits, such as reducing the use and cost of landfills and reducing the need for harvesting virgin materials.

But the burden of paying for it falls on cities — or residents who pay for the trash service — because the U.S. has not followed the path of many European countries of requiring manufacturers to take responsibility for the disposal or recovery of their products and packaging.

Then there’s this material from the February 25th– March 3rd print edition of The Economist, in a cover story entitled Clean Energy’s Dirty Secret: Turns out that decades of subsidy-driven growth in wind and solar power is resulting in lower costs. Great news! That means that in the long term, virtually all electrical energy can and will be derived by these clean, renewable means. However, at the same time, this success is creating barriers to deployment of capital in the markets that threaten to impede the needed transition. Fossil-fuel, hydroelectric, and nuclear power plants are still needed at the moment, yet every day their expense relative to their utility decreases, reducing return on the investment. What’s more, renewables not only lower prices but reduce commercial demand, as potential customers shift from purchase of electricity to kit on rooftops and in backyards that take them off the grid. The article notes solving this requires “changing the way the world buys, sells, values, and regulates electricity to take account of the new means by which it generates it… how this [process]leads to anys system that all can rely on – and who pays for the parts of it that are public, rather than private, goods – remains obscure. The process will definitely be sensitive to politics… progress may be slow and fitful… it could stall.” The challenges that await promise to be far greater than those we’ve surmounted to date.

Whew! Once again, economics affirms its right to the title of dismal science. And even as economists conceptualize paths forward for recycling and renewables, the task remains for the business community, the financial sector, and the public to bring them to fruition.

Which calls to mind these two book reviews in the April 8th-15th print edition of the The Economist:

Adaptive Markets: Financial Evolution at the Speed of Thought. By Andrew Lo. Princeton:

ECONOMISTS have been accused of “physics envy”, an obsession with constructing precise mathematical models instead of studying the real, messy, world. But a new book suggests that economists have been looking at the wrong science; they should have focused on biology.

The idea stems from the school of “behavioural economics” which observes that humans are not the kind of hyper-rational calculating machines that some models rely on them to be. As a result, markets are not always “efficient”—accurately pricing all the available information.

When Andrew Lo was a young academic, he presented a paper at a conference which showed that one of the key assumptions of the efficient market hypothesis was not borne out by the data. He was instantly told that he must have made a programming error; his results could not possibly be right.

Mr Lo, who is now a professor at MIT, has spent much of his career battling to steer economics away from such narrow-minded thinking. His grand idea is the “adaptive markets hypothesis”. The actions of individuals are driven by intellectual short cuts—rules of thumb that they use to make decisions. If those decisions turn out badly, they adapt their behaviour and come up with a new rule to follow.

The theory is bolstered by experiments that show how humans make decisions. Psychological quirks include an unwillingness to take losses and a tendency to make patterns out of random data. These traits may once have been useful in evolutionary terms (that rustle in the bushes might not be a predator, but better safe than sorry) but are less helpful when making financial decisions.

In a word, economics – a social science – no less than meteorology, or physics, is itself informed by social science, and, like the physical sciences, could perhaps stand a bit more of it.

Then there’s The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone. By Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach. Riverhead.

DO YOU know how a toilet works? What about a bicycle, or a zipper? Most people can provide half answers at best. They struggle to explain basic inventions, let alone more complex and abstract ones. Yet somehow, in spite of people’s ignorance, they created and navigate the modern world. A new book, “The Knowledge Illusion” sets out to tackle this apparent paradox: how can human thinking be so powerful, yet so shallow?

Steven Sloman and Philip Fernbach, two cognitive scientists, draw on evolutionary theory and psychology. They argue that the mind has evolved to do the bare minimum that improves the fitness of its host. Because humans are a social species and evolved in the context of collaboration, wherever possible, abilities have been outsourced. As a result, people are individually rather limited thinkers and store little information in their own heads. Much knowledge is instead spread through the community—whose members do not often realise that this is the case.

The hive mind, with its seamless interdependence and expertise-sharing, once helped humans hunt mammoths and now sends them into space. But in politics it causes problems. Using a toilet without understanding it is harmless, but changing the health-care system without understanding it is not. Yet people often have strong opinions about issues they understand little about. And on social media, surrounded by like-minded friends and followers, opinions are reinforced and become more extreme. It is hard to reason with someone under the illusion that their beliefs are thought through, and simply presenting facts is unlikely to change beliefs when those beliefs are rooted in the values and groupthink of a community.

The authors tentatively suggest that making people confront the illusion of understanding will temper their opinions, but this could have the opposite effect—people respond badly to feeling foolish. Messrs Sloman and Fernbach show how deep the problem runs, but are short on ideas to fix it.

“The Knowledge Illusion” is at once both obvious and profound: the limitations of the mind are no surprise, but the problem is that people so rarely think about them. However, while the illusion certainly exists, its significance is overstated. The authors are Ptolemaic in their efforts to make it central to human psychology, when really the answer to their first question—how can human thought be so powerful, yet so shallow?—is the hive mind. Human ignorance is more fundamental and more consequential than the illusion of understanding. But still, the book profits from its timing. In the context of partisan bubbles and fake news, the authors bring a necessary shot of humility: be sceptical of your own knowledge, and the wisdom of your crowd.

Whew! All this while our backs have been turned. Worldwide, social scientists continue to churn out insights such as these, reminding us constantly that our thinking is powerful, but shallow.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Science and politics? Vive le différence!

politicians and scientists have a shared interest: good data.

The other day an alert LOTRW reader (thank you!) passed along this link to an April 26 post by Brad Plumer on Vox. In this article, entitled A Cold War theory for why scientists and the government have become so estranged, Mr. Plumer starts out this way:

These are dark times for science — or at least that’s what we keep hearing. President Trump is pushing to slash research budgets. Republicans in Congress are harassing climate scientists. Vaccine skeptics are clogging the airwaves.

 Indeed, a big reason why tens of thousands of scientists rallied in cities around the country last weekend was to counter what they see as “anti-science” attitudes taking hold in the United States — particularly in the US government. The March for Science, according to organizer Jonathan Berman, a biology postdoc at the University of Texas Health Science Center, sent “the message that we need to have decisions being made based on a thoughtful evaluation of evidence.”

 But this raises the obvious question: Was the United States ever pro-science? Was there a golden age? And if so, why were things so different then? What’s changed?

 Mr. Plumer then cites a 2008 paper by Henry Lambright, and a conversation with the author, which starts out this way:

One of the more compelling responses I’ve seen to this question can be found in this 2008 paper by W. Henry Lambright, a political scientist at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University. To simplify a bit, he argues that the glory days of US science were an artifact of the Cold War and the arms race against the Soviet Union. That era has long faded, but if scientists want to bring about a new golden age, they should study that history closely. Because it contains some valuable lessons about how politics drives public attitudes toward science — and not, as is often assumed, the other way around.

When I called Lambright to talk about the politics of science in America, he started off with a simple but provocative point: There’s no inherent reason why scientists and politicians should get along. “There’s just not a natural alignment between the two communities,” he said.

 Politicians, after all, have a very different job than scientists. At least ideally, scientists seek only to uncover objective truths about the world. They follow a strict methodology, explicitly meant to filter out values, biases, or preconceptions that might color their research. Politicians, by contrast, must grapple with conflicting values and interests. Adjudicating those disputes is the whole job, and most such disputes can’t be resolved by scientific facts alone. So, not surprisingly, the two communities don’t always see eye to eye.

 During World War II, circumstances conspired to push the two camps into alignment. New science-based weapons — most famously the atomic bomb — aided the US in the war. Afterward, Vannevar Bush, the wartime science leader, convinced Congress that all those technological advances they admired so much were made possible by foundational scientific research conducted long before the war. If policymakers wanted to see more such advances, they should fund more basic research and stay out of scientists’ way.

[The shorthand? A social contract between scientists and society that goes like this: “Give us lots of money and don’t ask too many questions, and one day you’ll be glad you did[1].”]

Mr. Lambright’s argument is that so long as science contributed to a bipartisan need to win the Cold War, it prospered. But as that threat went away, no similarly universally-shared national need came along to replace it. As a result, support for science became politically contentious. Climate change was a particularly virulent example, but even when it came to another universal desire – healthcare – stem cell research proved similarly divisive. Science increasingly comes into conflict with the values of one or the other party.

What about going forward?

[Achieving a needed] public consensus won’t solely be driven by scientists,” Lambright says. “It may have to be driven by external events, or by politicians who are leading on the issue. They’ll have to connect it to issues that people care about, like national security or economic security. And it may take some time.”

Some closing comments:

To begin, the central premise of LOTRW, both the blog and the book, is that the issue that people care about is the universal, moment-by-moment human need for adequate, reliable, inexpensive, sustainable supply of food, water, and energy, while minimizing vulnerability to natural hazards and minimizing degradation of essential ecosystem services. This requires attention to both innovation and infrastructure[2].

This is not a new thought. The framers of the U.S. Global Change Research Program had this in mind in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when they framed the program as global change versus climate change. As individuals and as a community, we scientists made a mistake in straying from that distinction and settling for a focus on climate alone. The particular phrasing is neither artful nor charismatic – that needs some work – but substantively it’s in the right direction.

Second, the challenge posed by differences between the political and the scientific mindset need not be as difficult or prove as elusive as messrs Lambright and Plumer intimate. It’s a challenge that billions of us solve every day without breathing hard – in marriage[3]. Marriage contains a common goal – not national security, but another end we desire equally strongly, namely the desire to be in relationship – that neither partner can achieve alone. As a general rule, both partners want and work toward, generally successfully, despite major dissimilarities in approach and thought. We have an expression for it:

Vive le différence!


[1] An LOTRW-based framing of the late 20th-century social contract between scientists and society; you can find this here and here.

[2] Every word in this passage matters.

[3] Apologies: for brevity, this term is used here as a shorthand to apply to all close, enduring partnerships and relationships.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On-site reflections on the March for Science – and on “community.”

“Scientists are a community of scholars engaged in a common search for knowledge.” – line (as I recall it) from my ninth-grade science textbook[1]

Yesterday had a lot of moving parts around our household, but a time window between noon and four o’clock allowed opportunity to hop on the Metro and for a couple of hours be a small part of the March for Science. To be at such an event is to enjoy a wonderful immediacy, involving all the senses, but at the expense of losing the bigger picture – something like the experience of a cork being flung here and there by big waves on an active ocean. (That bigger picture was captured well and truly by Washington Post reporters.)

Some of what (your cork-on-the-scene) saw and heard:

“Communogenesis:” in an analog to storm formation, this is how communities, tribes (the idea of we-they) get formed, strengthened. Shared experience and identity, bonding – it was all happening there. Even on the Metro ride downtown it was easy to spot the marchers versus the regulars – based on dress, signage, group size, and chatter.

The walk from the Metro station to the venue revealed four other already-formed, well-established communities: (1) Street vendors. Everywhere it would prove as easy to get the coveted tee shirt commemorating Earth Day and the March for Science – or an umbrella or poncho – as it is other places and other days to get Washington Nationals or Capitals shirts and caps. (2) Food trucks. They seemingly occupied every foot of curb near the venue. Queues were long. (I could move past these as my concerned wife had thoughtfully provided me enough food and water to last for two days, not two hours.) (3) Police. They were everywhere, focused on enabling the special events to proceed and co-exist with the ordinary weekend business of downtown DC – those who were downtown for other reasons ranging from work to tourism. It wasn’t always easy or smooth. At 14th and Constitution one pedestrian tried to cross against the police officer’s instructions. The officer didn’t just let it pass, but instead restrained the man, who then struggled, resisted, protested. Immediately a swarm of other police on motorcycles moved in. Interestingly, the few vocal voices at the intersection appeared to side with the police – apparently recognizing the need to deal with both motor and pedestrian traffic in a balanced way. (4) Suppliers of port-a-johns. At some points, seeing the lines of these arrayed over the Mall, it was possible to think they outnumbered the marchers.

Key point? All these communities are (like scientists themselves?) agnostic. They care less about the purpose of any large crowd than the management and service of it.

Our threefold relationship to the Earth: Those food trucks served as a reminder that Earth is a necessary resource – a resource each of us needed moment by moment. The rain drove home the reality that Earth is both a resource (DC is experiencing what residents consider a bit of a drought, though minor by western standards) and a threat. But the Earth was also victim. The very throng attempting to pay it homage was at the same time doing it harm. The Mall was a sea of mud and mangled grass, torn up by the trampling around of the crowd in the rain, disfigured by the fencing and tented checkpoints etc. set up for crowd control and security. This coming after last year’s lengthy and expensive restoration of the Mall to make it worthy of the nation’s capital. (Impossible to tell what damage was due to this March itself or the women’s march of a few months back.)

Messaging/Signage. As journalists have noted in numerous reports over all media, scientists have distinguished themselves with clever signage and tee shirts. You can find a sample –only one of many – here. I’ll just add a couple, starting with my (admittedly parochial) favorite:

photo by Maureen Spagnolo

This is the brainchild of and proffered by Dr. Laurie Geller, who is the senior program officer providing adult supervision for our National Academy of Sciences committee working on (not the exact title) a social and behavioral science research agenda for the Weather Enterprise. Dr. Geller reminds us that both meteorological science AND social science are needed to bring about not just the forecast but also the near-universal awareness.

Runner-up from my own photos of the event might be this one:

which (totally abusing the argot of wine connoisseurs) might be described as “complex, intellectually satisfying, with earth elements that give way to hints of politics.”

Honorable mention among my photos goes to:

Which is self-explanatory, and spot on.

ICYMI: couple of journalistic reflections on the March: a nice Washington Post piece yesterday by Michael Rosenwald wondering how the Founding Fathers might have reacted to a March for Science. Mr. Rosenwald accurately notes that science and politics weren’t at loggerheads back then. And Megan Mullin reflected on risks that the March might further politicize science.

A final thought: Both President Trump and House Science and Technology Committee Chair Lamar Smith issued Earth day/March for Science statements. Both drew flak. But no matter how tempting that response, scientists might better invite political leaders, and the public to join a process whereby we all see ourselves less as contending communities engaged in confrontation, and more as “a (single, unified) community… engaged in a common search for knowledge” – in the spirit of everybody’s ninth-grade science book.


[1] This scientists-as-community ideal would later motivate a graduate-school decision to switch fields, from physics to geophysical science – one of the most felicitous decisions in my life, as I described in Living on the Real World.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Before leaving the topic of “defensiveness” for good…

“And, as you drive, it will also use all the negative energy from your arguments.” Hafeez, New Yorker 2015

… one last, brief set of thoughts for scientists on the eve of tomorrow’s March for Science and Earth Day.

This post is triggered by an article by Tim Requarth in Slate (a tip of the hat to Fred Carr, a former AMS president, who caught the article and forwarded the link along). The article focuses on scientists’ obsessive infatuation with the knowledge-deficit approach to argument – that “if the public knew what we know about ________ (fill in the blank; climate change is a popular choice here), they wouldn’t be thinking what they’re thinking or doing what they’re doing…”

Mr. Requarth’s article merits reading (and re-reading) in its entirety, but a brief excerpt:

“…Many scientists hope that by doing a better job of explaining science, they can move the needle toward scientific consensus on politically charged issues. As recent studies from Michigan State University found, scientists’ top reason for engaging the public is to inform and defend [emphasis added] science from misinformation.

 It’s an admirable goal, but almost certainly destined to fail. This is because the way most scientists think about science communication—that just explaining the real science better will help—is plain wrong. In fact, it’s so wrong that it may have the opposite effect of what they’re trying to achieve…”

Mr. Requarth cites and summarizes Dan Kahan’s[1] research, choosing this bottom line:

The takeaway is clear: Increasing science literacy alone won’t change minds. In fact, well-meaning attempts by scientists to inform the public might even backfire. Presenting facts that conflict with an individual’s worldview, it turns out, can cause people to dig in further. Psychologists, aptly, dubbed this the “backfire effect.”

He then concludes:

There’s a certain irony that scientists, of all people, know so little about, well, the science of science communication…

Randy Olson captures this same set of ideas in his remarkable book, Don’t Be Such a Scientist: Talking Substance in an Age of Style. He speaks in (often earthy) language about the importance of appealing to the gut rather than the head. A considerably longer read, but still worth your time.

Still unconvinced? Coca Cola provides a cautionary tale, from another realm.

You could argue that little in all this is actually new – that the ancient Greek rhetoricians already saw it this way, two thousand years or so ago, offering variants on this message:

First win the audience; then win the argument.

So enjoy Saturday’s March for Science: outdoors in spring weather, with friends, part of a huge crowd, looking and laughing at clever placards and great tee shirts, feeding off the energy of the group, tweeting and messaging – what’s not to like? But try your best throughout the day to keep your talk pro-science and positive, not political and negative. And when the March is over, reflect on the serious business ahead for science. We have to win the hearts and minds of the audience – political leaders and the public – before winning any argument. In a word, we have to (respectfully) court them.

The bad news? After digging ourselves in a hole for the past few decades on contentious issues ranging from vaccination to climate change by acting in full-scold mode, such courtship will take a while.

The good news? “Giving the facts,” as we’ve done for years, but now with an admixture of courtship thrown in? (Using the five languages of love) Acts of service? Gifts? Words of affirmation? Quality time? Physical touch (maybe a bit problematic; let’s replace that with face-to-face)? All that not only promises to be more effective; it looks to be a lot more fun.


[1] Mr. Kahan has so much wisdom to offer, I didn’t want to pick and choose. Follow the link and make your own selection of starting point.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment