How to close out Earth Day, April 22, 2019

The sun is setting on Earth Day 2019. All the commemorations, celebrations, and orations – a world of them! – are winding down, wrapping up, time zone by time zone.  

Perhaps the Day’s festivities and more solemn observances have consumed you, either because you were staging them or you were pouring yourself into some form of active participation. Alternatively, your plans for Earth Day may have gone awry, escaped your grasp, eluded you entirely. For you, today may instead have been ruled by competing claims for your attention, whether the daily cacophony of work or family that dominates our 21st-century first-world routine, or emergencies ranging from the merely urgent to the truly dire.

At either end of this spectrum, that excess of passion or those jangled nerves are begging you for some kind of reset – something focused on the Day and its meaning, but not just piling on more of the same. Something different.

Problem is – it’s the end of the day. You don’t have all the time in the world. So it’s got to be a little something – brief, and yet absorbing.

Here’s a suggestion – music. One special beauty of music is that it can’t be rushed, but only experienced as it was intended – a note and a chord at a time. 

But today it can’t be just any music. After all, it’s Earth Day.

So – try this: a short instrumental piece composed by Patrick Williams, entitled Theme for Earth Day, performed by the Boston Pops Orchestra, under the direction of John Williams (no relation). Dates back to the early 1990’s, but chances are good you haven’t heard it. And even if you have – especially if you have – you’ll want to hear it again. You can listen here.

But don’t multi-task. Stop what you’re doing. If you have access to that Earth Day sunset, watch it. Contemplate it. Stuck in an urban canyon? Then close your eyes as you listen. You have a favorite evening beverage? Okay, that’s permitted – but that’s it. Let the music permeate your soul.

4 minutes and 16 seconds of your time – in exchange for 

  • appropriate closure for Earth Day 2019,
  • and maybe, just maybe, a new lease on life?

A decent trade.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

New Minds for New Science: The Forecast for Work in Weather, Water, and Climate.

The American Meteorological Society’s Policy Program is hosting a workshop here in Washington, DC, on April 29th-30th, examining the future of work in weather, water and climate. You can (and should!) register here.


Andy Miller, an AMS Policy Fellow, has organized the workshop. On the AMS workshop website, he’s articulated the rationale as follows:
As society goes through a period of rapid technological and societal change, only a small fraction of the current workforce is trained to take full advantage of machine learning, quantum computing, next generation satellites, and new sensor technologies. That same workforce, if it is to benefit society, must also master the formidable array of social skills needed to build diversity and inclusion, foster effective teamwork, and collaborate with outside groups. There is tremendous opportunity to advance weather, water, and climate science and apply the resulting information for the benefit of society in the coming decades. To meet these demands, our workforce must evolve.
However, employers face challenges in attracting sufficient talent in these developing fields, in part because students and early career scientists struggle to receive adequate training. At the same time, large numbers of government employees are expected to retire over the next ten years leaving leadership with the task to replace experience with the skill set required for decades to come. As societal demands on our community become enhanced, we must navigate a complex landscape in workforce evolution while increasing participation of women and minorities, striving to improve education at all levels and aligning incentives of career development with workforce need
s.

Andy tells us the 1.5 days will focus on 3 topics:

  1. How will new technologies affect society and the workforce overall?
  2. How will these changes translate to the Weather, Water and Climate community?
  3. How do these changes affect the knowledge, abilities and skills required to succeed in our community?

Our discussions with leaders at federal agencies, corporations, and academic institutions over the past several months show these to be existential concerns. Ask these executives and policy officials to identify the biggest challenge posed by climate change, by natural hazards, and sustainable development? They’re likely to put workforce recruitment, development and retention first – ahead of budget constraints, ahead of convincing skeptical political leaders or oblivious publics to see such needs, ahead of any single gap in scientific understanding or technological capability. The right workforce can address all these. But if the brainpower and the passion and the diversity aren’t there, if the appetite and talent for collaboration and putting science into practice is lacking – then every aspiration of environmental intelligence and its use to benefit society is compromised.

Ask yourself: do you want your views on these issues to be heard? Do you want a chance to shape public-, corporate-, and academic policy governing the working environment you’ll encounter for the rest of your career? Do you want to tailor your workplace for maximum effectiveness and job satisfaction? Or are you content to let others make these decisions for you? If the former, then please register, and we’ll look forward to seeing you, listening to you, and working with you on April 29th-30th.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“A $100 Trillion here, a $100 Trillion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.”

The “wizard of ooze”

I’d apologize to Everett Dirksen, but according to those who’ve actually checked, he never really said, “a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking real money.” Some argue his actual quote was “a million here, a million there,” but that by the time he voiced the idea, it was already necessary to inflate the figure considerably to have any desired impact. So people did; hence “billions.”

Perhaps you’d rather read about something other than the Mueller probe this weekend. But you want subject matter that’s comparably weighty. 

Here’s a candidate: $100 Trillion. 

LOTRW readers might recall that mention of this tidy sum has come up before. Today’s context is a bit different, but related.

Brian Riedl, an economist at the Manhattan Institute, recently tweeted this admittedly back-of-the-envelope figure as his estimate of the cost for the proposed Green New Deal. Unsurprisingly, opponents of the so-called Green New Deal quickly made this notional price tag a rallying cry. For example, the president is quoted as saying “They want to take away your car, reduce the value of your home, and put millions of Americans out of work, spend $100 trillion, which, by the way, there’s no such thing as $100 trillion [sic].”

This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license.

Some commentary:

Some proponents of the Green New Deal are pointing to the lack of any deep underlying analysis behind this conservative pushback. That’s true enough. Green New Deal advocates could also note that most of the total – perhaps 90% – is the “cost” of guaranteed jobs and universal healthcare, that is, the New-Deal part versus the Green part. But Green-New-Deal proponents haven’t carefully done the sums either; order-of-magnitude estimates might therefore be a good place to start.

Perhaps better to note that expenses and incomes roughly balance. Economists have taught us this. For smaller transactions, say $100, payers and beneficiaries might be different. But when scaling up by a factor of a trillion, the money involved cascades through a series of transactions. It can’t be confined to a single segment of the population. No small group pays, nor can benefits be collared by some single small faction. Everyone is paying, but all are also benefiting. We’re essentially compensating ourselves. What’s more, through multiplier effects, the pot is growing; it needn’t be zero-sum.

To continue, there is such a thing as $100T. Global GDP already approaches this figure – and is steadily ratcheting up, year on year, in response to population growth and innovation. Economists figure global GDP will likely top $200T/year by 2050 and $500T/year by 2100. By then, the quadrillion dollar global economy will be in sight. The Green New Deal bill doesn’t come due in any single year; it’s spread over decades. A figure that today looks intimidating will feel like chump change by the end of the century.  

What’s more, the $100T is money we have to spend anyway. Spending $100T necessarily creates jobs; it does the opposite of putting people out of work. Some – the merest handful – may not consider healthcare a universal right, but it’s hard even for them to deny it’s a universal need. And the 10% of the Green New Deal, the green $10T that’s targeted at U.S. critical infrastructure – energy, agriculture, transportation, dams and levees, etc. – is a bill that has long been due. None of us wants to live in a world where the majority of people are out of work, have no access to necessities such as food and healthcare. No national leader can allow his/her country to enter such a swoon – as Venezuela’s Maduro is discovering.

But a very real challenge does remain. Given that we have the money to spend, and given that we have to spend the money (two different realities), the sums are so vast we have to spend wisely. We can’t simply squander these funds, whether through poor governance (e.g., Venezuela) or simple ignorance. We must invest– and realize a high return on that investment. 

Toward this end, environmental intelligence is vital.  We need to identify – in advance, not after the fact – energy-, food-, and water resource development that is sustainable and won’t be compromised by future extremes of flood or drought or by climate variability and change. We need to build resilience to hazards before disaster strikes. We need to preserve ecosystem services, rather than allow them to degrade and only belatedly attempt to restore them. Success here requires both advances in scientific understanding and accelerated application of emerging new knowledge – at the front end of the $100T investment, in time to guide it. 

Though such capabilities are not yet at hand, they are within reach – and the remaining investments in Earth observations, research, and services are relatively inexpensive. They amount to mere billions of dollars, not trillions. 

To paraphrase the Senator – a billion spent on environmental intelligence here, a billion there, pretty soon you’re talking trillions of dollars return on investment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Making science more moral

A bit over a month ago, Raj Pandya , who directs AGU’s Thriving Earth Exchange, shared a blog post with me that he’d published on the website of AGU’s Ethics and Equity Center[1]. What a great set of thoughts! Thanks, Raj, for giving permission to reprint it here. And thanks as well for your decades of leadership by example – doing your bit every day to make science (and its applications) more moral.



Photo courtesy of Nathan Fried-Lipski photography

By Raj Pandya, Director, Thriving Earth Exchange

There is a neighborhood near my grandfather’s house in Mumbai that is one of the largest unplanned urban neighborhoods in the world—what is more commonly, but not nicely, called a slum. It’s a densely packed region of narrow dirt lanes where whole families live in tiny rooms, sometimes in houses constructed out of salvaged materials, without trash collection, running water, or sewers. People who live there live without property rights—without any assurance that everything they have won’t be taken from them when a decision is made to redevelop or ‘beautify’ the area.

Running through that neighborhood is a pipe that delivers clean water to my grandfather’s affluent neighborhood. There are no public taps in the pipe, so people in the slum can’t access the water. The pipe runs alongside a former stream, now a concrete walled-flood channel, that is choked with debris and polluted with human waste.

It might be comforting to think this kind of thing doesn’t happen in the US.

It does.

In communities across the US, the Thriving Earth Exchange has worked with people tired of being on the receiving end of the noise and waste and hazards of the roadway fracturing their neighborhood, the factory spewing noxious fumes, or the rivers that bring contaminants and floods into their homes. Many are communities of color and poor communities, who are disproportionately likely to suffer polluted air, water, and soil. Many of these communities feel like science is being used against them—large corporations, enthusiastic developers, and inattentive local leaders are using science to downplay the impact on neighborhoods—even though people in the neighborhood can smell the fumes, see the emissions, and watch the floods get worse. Often, these neighborhoods have been historically and systematically denied access to the resources they need to protect themselves from natural hazards. Sometimes, they can’t even prove they own the land because there was no sanctioned system to register deeds.

This disproportionate environmental burden imposed on poor communities, seen the world over, raises questions about the morality of science and technology. Why is it okay to run a closed pipe through a poor neighborhood to provide water for rich neighborhoods? Why do we accept the destruction of a natural ecosystem and rely on technological solutions? Why is it okay to magnify the vulnerability of poor neighborhoods by turning a floodplain into a channel or building a factory nearby?

For too long, I think, we scientists have been able to dodge moral responsibility for impacts like this. We dodge by appealing to the intrinsic morality of advancing knowledge, pretending that science is objective, separating what we discover from how it is used, partitioning science from other ways of knowing (and often holding it above other ways of knowing), and gatekeeping who can be part of science and who gets to ask scientific questions [1].  In a book of sermons titled Strength to Love, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote that, as we try to determine and act on what it means to live a moral life, “our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power.” How can we bring the two back into balance?

  • We need to pay attention to the applications and impacts of our work, especially negative ones. Many of the horrifying examples of immoral science are associated with a myopic focus on discovery and a failure to consider impact, especially on the vulnerable. The Willowbrook experiment, in which some institutionalized adults were deliberately infected with hepatitis to study the disease’s transmission, offers one example. Even unintentional impacts of science and technology—the ozone hole, climate change, and antibiotic resistance—represent a failure to fully consider and invite broad deliberation about the uses of new discoveries. Often, this failure falls hardest on the vulnerable and the excluded.
  • We need to accept, perhaps even embrace, the imperfect nature of science. When we work in our labs, write our codes, or study our subjects, the tentative nature of understanding is a foundational principle. We need to apply that same idea to the practice of science. You can’t get better if you think you’re already perfect.
  • We need to welcome diverse people, voices, perspectives, and even epistemologies. We have to reach for perspectives and ideas from beyond science—from ethics, spirituality, humanities, religion, and art. We should invite experience and viewpoints from beyond our scientific ways of thinking. Science, alone, isn’t enough to address the moral challenges it creates. Our science has to be a participant in a larger civic discourse about where we want to go, and that discourse needs to guide what science we do, where we do it, and how we do it.
  • We need to acknowledge our values and act on shared values. Too often, we imagine scientists are purely rational actors who make decisions based on evidence. But evidence isn’t the only guiding force for scientists, nor should it be. Equity, for example, is worth pursuing because it is the right thing to do. We protect vulnerable people because of shared values, not because of a scientific argument. Instead of pursuing an ideal of objectivity, we need to recognize that values will help guide science and think carefully about what we want those values to be.[2]

Community science—when scientists and communities, especially historically marginalized communities, work together to design and do science that advances community priorities—is a way to accomplish these things. In community science, scientists and communities work together to decide what science to do, how to do it, and how that science will be used. Working together creates a space to draw on multiple kinds of experience and knowledge. In designing for real-world impact, community science necessarily grapples with ethical and moral questions about who uses science and to what ends. By respectfully partnering with diverse communities, we access a broader range of values, ask questions that haven’t been asked before, and avoid the inadvertent use of science to enhance inequity. Most importantly, by designing science with communities, community science allows us to grapple with moral issues, consider values, and weigh options in a much larger and more inclusive context.

[1] Peer review has many advantages, but if all the peers are white, middle class, and privileged, it is hard to see how the concerns and issues of minority and disadvantaged populations influence a research agenda. That is gatekeeping.

[2] We also need to respect differing values – some problems with science arise from assumptions scientists make about the superiority of scientific values.


[1]AGU’s new platform to help advance and promote a positive work climate in science, providing tools and resources for researchers at all career stages.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Think like a leader. You can’t start too soon.

“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.”– Peter Drucker

Have the feeling you’ve seen this quote before? Since you’re reading this post, chances are good you have; for example, you’ll find it in the February 14 2019 LOTRW post, and perhaps one or two more; it’s also in LOTRW-the-book.

Why the emphasis? Because even with more than seven billion people, today’s world suffers from a shortage of leaders. In a way that’s to be expected. Most of us report to someone higher-up, and are rewarded for doing things right– that is, as defined by that higher-up. Very few are in positions where they’re rewarded for doing the right things – which can usually be identified only by absorbing a diverse range of outside perspectives, accompanied by a deep process of reflection.

But here’s the stern reality. It’s a mistake to think complacently like a manager on your climb up the employment ladder, with the notion that once you reach the top, you’ll flip a switch and from then on think like a leader. Doesn’t work that way. By the time you get “there,” (and “there” is almost always another step away), thinking like a manager will be ingrained, and you’ll discover you have very little countervailing experience thinking like a leader. It’ll be too late. 

So it’s not too early to start. Most fundamentally, while still in a managerial or subservient role, you have to add an overlay to your thought process: if I owned the company, or ran the agency, or led the university, what would I do?

Easier said than done! So to jump start the process, you should be seizing leadership development opportunities every chance you get.

Here’s good news. There’s one right under your nose, and the timing is perfect. It’s the AMS Early Career Development Academy, just now seeking applicants for its second cohort. (The deadline for applications is March 8.) The website supplies full information; here’s an excerpt:

With support provided by IBM, the American Meteorological Society’s (AMS) Early Career Leadership Academy (ECLA) aims to build and sustain a diverse network of early career leaders in weather, water, and climate science. ECLA will bring together a select group of early career individuals—in particular, women and underrepresented minorities—for an immersion experience in leadership, such as creative problem-solving, conflict resolution, building trust, and enhancing communication skills. We seek early career individuals from a wide range of professions, interests, perspectives, cultures, and experiences.

You know you want to do this. 

Don’t believe that you should start now? Feeling pressed for time and tempted to wait until next year? Perhaps these two examples will change your mind. 

The February 9thprint editionof The Economistcontains an article about an upcoming election in Nigeria. The reporter documents reasons for skepticism about prospects for good governance or improved living conditions under either Mr. Buhari, the incumbent seeking reelection, or his challenger, Mr. Abubakar (both men are in their 70’s). But the reporter closes with this: 

Four times Mr Buhari has blocked reforms that would strengthen Nigeria’s electoral commission. Such intransigence frustrates Samson Itodo, a founder of the “Not too young to run” campaign, which is trying to clean up elections and make political involvement easier for the three-quarters of Nigerians who are under 35. “We are tired of these same old leaders,” he says. “We are laying the foundation for a revolution in 2023.” Until then, Nigeria will be stuck with mediocrity.

Not too young to run? What a great name for a political party. But perhaps Mr. Itodo needn’t have waited so long…

Consider thirteen-year-oldAlexandria Villasenor and this article from Tuesday’s Washington Post, entitled How a 7th-grader’s strike against climate change exploded into a movement. It begins this way:

NEW YORK — On the ninth Friday of her strike, 13-year-old Alexandria Villasenor wakes to a dozen emails, scores of Twitter notifications and good news from the other side of the planet: Students in China want to join her movement.

Every week since December, the seventh-grader has made a pilgrimage to the United Nations’ headquarters demanding action on climate change. She is one of a cadre of young, fierce and mostly female activists behind the School Strike 4 Climate movement. On March 15, with the support of some of the world’s biggest environmental groups, tens of thousands of kids in at least two dozen countries and nearly 30 U.S. states plan to skip school to protest.

Surely that draws you in. Sarah Kaplan’s full article on Alexandria merits your careful reading. Ms. Kaplan ends it this way:

His presentation done, de Menocal hands the clicker over and Alexandria straightens in her chair. “Okay,” she says. “Here’s the update.”

The professor leans forward as the 13-year-old launches into a description of the global strike — all the support it has, all the attention it has received. In 30 years of studying climate, in all his uncountable hours of attempting to convey the scope of the crisis, he has rarely felt so humbled, he says — or so filled with hope.

“Do you have a statement I can read somewhere?” he asks.

“Sure,” Alexandria says. “We have a mission statement and a media advisory on our website.”

De Menocal mouths “wow” and turns around to give the girl’s mother an amazed grin. Afterward, he pulls Alexandria aside.

“Thank you for what you’re doing,” he says, shaking her hand. “Thank you so much. What can I do to help?”

She tells him about the scientists who are writing a letter of support and suggests that he get involved.

“He can organize the adults,” she says later. “We’re ready for them now.”  [Emphasis added.]

Want to come alongside Mr. Itodo and Ms. Villasenor? Apply for the 2019 ECLA. Dial up your leadership mojo.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The AMS: a single “point of light?” Or some (much) larger number?

Just what is the American Meteorological Society? Ask this of most of our 13,000 members, and chances are good that you’ll hear one of two pat answers: “it’s a science society,”or “a professional society.” The former might usually be the reply you’ll get back from researcher-members. The latter comes from those applying the science for societal benefit. This second demographic comprises NWS weather forecasters or private-sector meteorologists providing services to agribusiness, the transportation sector and so on; broadcasters, remote-sensing experts/engineers building satellite systems; and others.

You’re unlikely to hear “the AMS is a point of light.”As in, former President George Bush(41)’s inaugural reference to “a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good.”

That’s perhaps understandable…but at the same time, a bit unfortunate. First and foremost, it means that meteorologists, whether researchers or service providers fall into the same trap that ensnares most of our fellow workers of every stripe. We’re getting lost in the drudgery and wearying effort that comes with every job (as my wife likes to remind me, “that’s why they call it work.”), and losing sight of the daily/hourly ways each of us is making the world a better place. We forget we’re helping put food on the world’s tables, water in the world’s taps, and energy in the world’s outlets; saving lives in the face of harsh weather; and protecting the environment and ecosystems. Perhaps you can take a moment to give yourself a bit of grace – and reflect on your contributions before diving back into the job.

That lack of self-awareness also suggests members may be failing to recognize the ways the AMS helps us accomplish this, and the full extent of the AMS local footprint in every American community: 

  • Hundreds of operational weather service forecasters, stationed at 120 offices nationwide, who help thousands of communities stay weather-ready.  
  • Some 1500 broadcasters who are meteorology’s face on public and social media. 
  • Thousands of teachers directly or indirectly using AMS training and educational resources to present the geosciences to 
  • millions of K-12 schoolkids, who then take home that excitement and practical knowledge to their parents. 
  • Over one hundred local chapters, comprising members of all these groups as well as university students and faculty. 

In these ways and more, AMS members can and are doing good, and doing it tangibly and locally. So, however you choose to do the sums, AMS aggregates to some number between one (counting AMS as a single entity) or 13,000 individual points of light across the United States and the world. 

It doesn’t stop there. On closer examination, our members, even as their work is supported by AMS journals and technical meetings, are also providing the knowledge and understanding underpinning the work of perhaps more familiar points of light: The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club, and many other environmental groups, for example. 

Bottom line? Both AMS members and the larger American society alike are likely inadequately monetizing the true AMS value, which combines elements of scientific and professional society with community-action organization. As individuals and institutions, we can and should do more to make up that difference – through donations over and above the member fees, but also through more active engagement, especially locally. 

By way of encouraging accountability, I’m pledging here and now to do both. Maybe you can do the same. Let’s stay in touch as we go forward. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The George Herbert Walker Bush remembrances – Redux.

“We can find meaning and reward by serving some higher purpose than ourselves, a shining purpose, the illumination of a Thousand Points of Light…We all have something to give.”– President George H. W. Bush

It’s the Presidents Day weekend. Let’s start with a bit of unfinished business – the fourth and last of the series of LOTRW posts to mark the passing of our 41stpresident. The third of these posts, from back in January (! An eternity in blogosphere years), focused on George Bush and the vision thing. It was intended to tee up a post on his “thousand points of light.”

John Plodinec saw it coming. In fact, within hours, he had stolen my speech, writing this in a comment:

And yet, Bush the Elder delivered perhaps the most visionary political speech of my lifetime – the Thousand Points of Life speech. In this speech, he anticipated much of what social scientists are now telling us is important and is needed to break the partisan impasse – collaboration, men [sic] of good will reasoning together humbly recognizing that no one has a monopoly on the truth.

(Well said! All that was needed was to build on John’s insight. But it didn’t happen until now. Sigh. Could give excuses – but let’s just dive in.)

_____________________________________________ 

Some background, excerpted from Wikipedia: 

The term was used by George H.W. Bush in his speech accepting the presidential nomination at the 1988 Republican National Convention in New Orleans, Louisiana. …(The) address likened America’s clubs and volunteer organizations to “a brilliant diversity spread like stars, like a thousand points of light in a broad and peaceful sky.”

Bush reprised the phrase near the end of his speech, affirming that he would “keep America moving forward, always forward—for a better America, for an endless enduring dream and a thousand points of light.”

He repeated the phrase in his inaugural address on January 20, 1989:

I have spoken of a thousand points of light, of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good. We will work hand in hand, encouraging, sometimes leading, sometimes being led, rewarding. We will work on this in the White House, in the Cabinet agencies. I will go to the people and the programs that are the brighter points of light, and I will ask every member of my government to become involved. The old ideas are new again because they are not old, they are timeless: duty, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, considering the cynical times we live in – and the trending escalation in that cynicism – the idea was belittled by some back then, and has even since been mocked by the current president.  But fact is, it’s a success story. President Bush followed through. His vision became The Points of Light Foundation in 1990, and continues to the present as Points of Light:

Points of Light has approximately 90 corporate service council members, and that’s before counting partnerships with thousands of nonprofits and companies, and affiliates in other countries. They mobilize some five million people annually in 20 million hours of service worth nearly half a billion dollars.

Hmm. Not bad for a guy who had trouble with the “vision thing.” We should all be so myopic.

___________________________________ 

Community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the Nation, doing good?” Calls to mind the American Meteorological Society, and especially AMS Chapters. That’s the intended subject of a follow-on post (hopefully less than a month away, this time).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Lucy promises to hold the climate-change football.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, refuses to go away.” – Philip K. Dick

“Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.” – Peter Drucker

The Green New Deal: is it a Big Deal? Or No Deal?

Not unlike Charlie Brown, geo-scientists and environmentalists might be forgiven for harboring a mix of caution and skepticism regarding the Green New Deal generating so much news buzz. To start, the concept by that particular label is not new, but has some history. The idea of blending climate-change measures and economic stimulus has been around for over a decade, dating back to Thomas Friedman in 2007. The intervening years have been hard on climate-change scientists and activists. Repeated warnings, whether global (e.g., the IPCC assessment reports and intervening special reports) or domestic (e.g., the U.S. National Climate Assessments), have triggered momentary media kerfuffles, but these have died down within days or weeks.  Political positions have hardened, even as the science has been weaponized and politicized. Successive U.S. administrations have oscillated, alternately treating the science either as a lodestone for policymaking or as heresy to be suppressed. International and U.S. response has been underwhelming. Perhaps the Markey/Ocasio-Cortez Green New Deal, like so many forebears, will quickly fade to obscurity.

Or maybe, just maybe, this time Lucy will hold the football. Here’s the case for Big Deal:

Responsive to reality. Like other dimensions of Philip Dick’s reality, climate change isn’t going away, despite legislation forbidding its mention, despite heated skeptical rhetoric, despite wishful thinking. Instead, the evidence for the global changes underway is piling up. The reports are proliferating and converging. The implications for the planet, for ecosystem services and society are coming into focus. Opportunities and limitations of proposed technical fixes and policy options are emerging.

And sharpening minds. The 24th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP24) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, held in Katowice, Poland, made clear that the world is not following the U.S. lead in disengaging . Instead, the U.S. is increasingly marginalized, isolated on this issue. Here at home, the latest surveys conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication find that American concerns are rising, even among the most skeptical sectors of society. All this at a moment Congress passed the biggest public lands package in a decade. Awareness is on the upswing.

Focusing on the right things. Peter Drucker would approve. The Green New Deal is a bid to encourage discussion about a significant national and global challenge – one far more consequential and problematic than say, immigration, which has preoccupied American minds in a pernicious way for much of the past two or three years. In fact, that immigration challenge is a symptom of the larger, coupled set of natural resource-, hazard-resilience, environmental- and economic challenges worldwide. Make progress on these root causes, and the immigration symptoms will be greatly mitigated. So will the opioid epidemic and other public-health challenges. So will infrastructure. And so on.

Not command-and-control fixes, but re-starting the conversation. It’s important to understand that the New Green Deal is not legislation so much as a resolution.

 It’s easy to lose sight of this. The Markey-Ocasio-Cortez language itself is quite short, an easy read. (You can find one version here.) To read it is to realize that it’s not prescriptive so much as it’s aspirational. It doesn’t provide detailed specifics and particular actions so much as it identifies aspects of the coupled environmental-economic issues that need to be discussed and addressed by the 320 million people who happen to live in a country that happens to be the leader of the free world. It’s about resolve.

But today, thanks to news- and social media, the New Green Deal is a mere speck floating almost invisibly in the (rapidly rising) ocean of commentary about it. That commentary (alert: including what you’re reading here!), is a Rorschach test, revealing as much about the commentators and their institutions as it does about the target. Depending on where you dip in your toe, it’s easy to decide that the resolution is the tip of a subversive wedge designed to destroy America as we know it, or, conversely, that it’s set to right all of America’s past environmental and economic wrongs.

Precisely because its goals are so humble, the Green New Deal may turn out to have great potential for driving change.

_____________________________

Two closing thoughts:

Both sides seem keen to go on record. Strikingly, climate skeptics in Congress seem eager this time around to put the resolution to a vote (here’s a sample link). The thinking seems to be that the Green New Deal, like most big ideas in their nascent stages, has loose ends and wrinkles that make it less attractive today than it may be in more refined form down the road. There’s also appetite to get members of Congress on record one way or another, with the thought that the Deal’s “extreme” views will come back to haunt today’s proponents in 2020. But if public sentiment is changing, this could pose comparable or even greater risks for today’s skeptics. What’s more, action as opposed to inaction at the Congressional level may have an unintended consequence of giving the issue legs – new staying power.

What does this mean for scientists? What should scientists do? The previous LOTRW post offers several suggestions. But at a high-level , the very proffer of a Green New Deal should reassure scientists that years of findings have been noted and are having impact. Any time scientists spend feeling put-upon or being defensive is time wasted.

By contrast, as world awareness builds and the first signs of action appear, we need to step up the pace of our work. The value of advances in the geosciences and related technologies is greatest when they are in time to inform mitigation and adaptation policies and actions, making them more effective. When our work is late on the scene – in time only to document failure, it’s still of some value (we can always learn from mistakes) but less so.

So, let’s get in touch with our inner Charlie Brown. This time Lucy’s going to hold the football. Let’s charge ahead.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

The State of the Union(‘s) Science.

In 2019, every week brings not just its own politics but also a corresponding civics lesson. For example, in the run-up to last Tuesday’s presidential address to Congress, we weren’t just reminded that Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution provides that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” We were also reacquainted with the subtleties, such as the fact this doesn’t have to be done orally, but can be done in writing; or that when given in the Chambers of Congress, it is at the invitation of the House of Representatives, and so on.  In the 21st century, school is always in session.

Ex uno, plures! Out of one, many! Any hope of the Founders that such addresses would be free of politics has proved to be vain. For the past half century, the annual State of the Union messages have given rise to a custom – not foreseen by the Constitution – of a televised rebuttal by the loyal opposition. Nowadays, thanks to the proliferation of social media, and the fragmentation of our society, we have more than one. This time around, in addition to that provided by Stacey Abrams on behalf of the Democratic Party, we also heard from Bernie Sanders, from Xavier Becerra, and a pre-buttal (!) from Kamala Harris.

The American Geophysical Union also weighed in. Chris McEntee, the AGU executive director and CEO, put up a crisp, articulate two-minute video the next day. After listing the contributions of the geosciences to economic development, national security, etc., she noted that the State of the Union would be stronger if elected officials would commit to federal funding, end political interference, support a diverse and resilient 21st century workforce, and support the free and open exchange of science across borders.

A great list! Members of Congress definitely own some responsibility here.

But what about our own (geo)science community? Suppose we took the same list and asked whether or how we scientists might better hold up our end – do our bit to foster those same purposes. Here’s how that might look:

Recognize the (sacred) responsibility attendant on federal funding for science. Most research dollars don’t come out of the pockets of handful of political leaders, or from a faceless federal government. Instead they’re contributions from millions of Americans, most of whom earn far less than the average scientist (median research scientist salary some $72K year). Some 70 million American households (including many representing combined salaries) – 56% of the total – earn less than this figure. Most of these are under financial stress, facing competing needs to food on the table, maintain health care, and more for their families. They’re the ones bankrolling the science. We should be thanking them, expressing our gratitude audibly, in writing, clearly, and often – every chance we get. We could stand to do a better job of articulating the return – the benefit to them – not just to a small minority of those already better off – on their investment. That won’t happen without our examining with some unflinching rigor the value of our research, and who benefits – the allocation/distributive implications.

We could do more to say thanks – expressing gratitude for what has been remarkably stable funding over the years, despite the usual fluctuations around the edges, the ups and downs of the American economy, and so on. We could show by example and action (not mere lip service) that we see our work as urgent and consequential – end-use driven. In fact, the best way we can say thanks is by making ourselves useful.

We could be a bit less political ourselves. Or perhaps simply more adept, measured – balanced or diverse – in our politics. Truth be told, when science is publicly funded, and when science is applied for societal benefit, scientists immediately find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. We can’t argue that science is apolitical, and yet we’re ensnarled in controversy the moment we enter the arena. A good approach given such a reality? Listen more, speak quietly, and recognize we’re in a dialog, not a battle. Otherwise, as a financially-favored, well-educated segment of society, we risk coming across as elitist or arrogant.

We could ourselves be a much-more welcoming culture for under-represented groups. There’s been a great deal of soul-searching across our community in the past year or so, and it’s unfortunately justified. Science, particularly physical science, has largely been a white-male purview for some time. Reducing harassment, bias, abuse, exploitation and more begins with us, and we have much to do.

But the challenge goes deeper. We can’t force under-represented populations to choose careers in science. It’s a free choice they make. And many individuals from these populations understandably make that choice based in part on opportunities to create a more just and equitable society – to improve conditions in some concrete way for disenfranchised groups/communities with whom they identify. We can’t necessarily expect them to choose science over alternatives such as law, medical practice, education, community action, etc., which historically have offered clearer, more personally satisfying ways to lend a helping hand to groups or individuals in need. Science and its applications do present such potential – but we do a poor job of articulating that. Often the research connection is social benefit is at best long-term, abstract, and tenuous. We also need to do much more across science to reward researchers who make contributions through such work as opposed to peer-reviewed publications.

Free and open exchange of science across borders? Devoutly to be wished. But this turns out to be a bit above the pay grade for both scientists and U.S. federal-level elected officials, doesn’t it? Clearly the United States has done itself harm in recent years cutting off the supply of early-career scientists from foreign countries, many of whom have historically stayed in the United States, making us a more innovative people, and enriching our culture and economic prospects. But at the same time, we’re belatedly seeing efforts by other nations to use what immigration remains as a means of mining U.S. innovation in order to further their global ambitions. The United States enjoys many reasons to approach any such competition for ideas and values with confidence; and yet some caution seems deserved.

Which brings up two issues that weren’t on the AGU list, and yet would seem to merit attention from both federal elected officials and from geoscientists alike. Both are at their heart state-and-local issues as well. They are salient aspects of the state of the Union.

The state of K-12 public-school STEM education. As a nation of fifty states, we’re doing a terrible job of helping school kids see the attraction and power of, and master, the sciences, mathematics, and engineering – especially when it comes to the geosciences and social sciences, both of which are under-represented in the public schools. Were we to do a better job here, we would remain keenly interested in immigration to round out our 21st-century job force – but not in desperate need of it.

Critical infrastructure. Elected federal officials and scientists mention this, but pay it insufficient attention. The United States faces an infrastructure bill of a few trillion dollars. That seems daunting. But behind the challenge lies opportunity. Over the next few decades, the world’s nations will invest the order of $100T in food, water, and energy infrastructure. The key to return on that investment is good environmental intelligence – a fundamental understanding of the geosciences and their implications.

By mastering the geosciences and engineering necessary to meet our domestic infrastructure needs, U.S. government and industry can lay the groundwork needed to capture a significant fraction of this global market. We can maintain standing as a good neighbor and at the same time advance geopolitical stability and security.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The heroism of federal work.

Synonyms:bravery, braveness, courage, courageousness, valor, valiance, intrepidity, intrepidness, boldness, daring, audacity, audaciousness, fearlessness, doughtiness, dauntlessness, pluck, indomitability, stout-heartedness, lionheartedness; backbone, spine, spirit, fortitude, mettle, gallantry, chivalry.

Look up “heroism” online or in a dictionary. Chances are you’ll be surprised. You’ll struggle to find an actual definition. Instead, you’ll find the word used in a short sentence; then an immediate segue to a string of synonyms such as that above. 

The word has that kind of singular majesty. We can’t define heroism so much as we know it when we see it.

Which brings us to the present moment in history, and The. Great. Civics. Lesson. The totally unwarranted federal shutdown, the top-down, enforced furloughs, and the requirement that hundreds of thousands of workers perform their duties without pay – the turmoil on Capitol Hill and at the other end of the Mall – have spawned linear miles of newsprint, jillions of tweets and thousands of posts on social media. Much of the focus has been on social disruption: fundamental federal services barely creaking along instead of running smoothly, or the personal suffering inflicted on federal workers as they comb through food banks and depend upon other forms of handout from friends and neighbors to house and clothe their families, even to use public transportation. Shutdown coverage centered early on federal employees taking on part-time jobs, struggling to access or finding themselves denied unemployment benefits, etc.; plutocratic leaders attempting – unsuccessfully – to identify with the workers’ financial plight.

 Over the past several days news coverage is now shifting. To the underlying forces maintaining such a prolonged Congressional-White House impasse. And parallel talk of brain drain. Federal workers beginning to reassess their careers, reluctantly starting to think the unthinkable – walking away from years of dedicated service and making their skills available to the private-sector, in an effort to care for their families. Federal employees – in TSA, the FBI, NWS, and myriad other agencies – are being forced to make life-changing decisions.

Where’s the good in the ashes and ruins of this tragedy? We have yet to reach the end. In the short term, things will probably (may well?) get worse before they get better. But it’s not too early to see the shape of a turnaround. 

With high probability, the long-term outlook is that:

  • Public appreciation for the importance and value of government services, including regulatory protections, scientific research and innovation, and more will revive.
  • The nation will rethink negative stereotypes about federal workers (in many respects, not that much different from racial or gender bias).
  • The public will register its distaste for leaders who attempt to hold federal workers and our system of government hostage to self-serving personal interests
  • Those disaffected public employees entering the private sector will bring new vigor and integrity to ideas of corporate social responsibility.
  • Early-career professionals – youth entering the job market for the first time, looking for a cause greater than themselves – will see the challenge of civil service in a new light, sharing much in common with the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps, but longer-term. They’ll fill any gap left by retiring federal workers.

Don’t look for any of this in the immediate or even intermediate term, but that’s where the present upheaval is taking us.

Federal workers! Thank you!…for forecasting the weather, shepherding along those tax returns, making national parks available, monitoring food safety, guarding the coasts, preventing crime, and so much more – even when it means extended work without pay or being forcibly furloughed. Thank you for the great civics lesson now underway, at such considerable personal sacrifice to yourselves. You embody all those great adjectives that started off this discussion. Take a moment to reflect on them today. Embrace them. Own them.

You’re heroes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment