Fragilecologies

Author: R. Ross

  • “How about starting an Afghan Peace Process Today?” Mickey Glantz. 14 September 2010

    “How about starting an Afghan Peace Process Today?” Mickey Glantz. 14 September 2010

    Mickey Glantz
    14 September 2010

    “The Middle East Peace Process is alive, if not well”

    In the introduction of his book Peace Process, William B. Quandt wrote, “Sometime in the mid-1970s the term peace process began to be widely used to describe the American-led efforts to bring about a negotiated peace between Israel and its neighbors. The phrase stuck, and ever since it has been synonymous with the gradual, step-by-step approach to resolving one of the world’s most difficult conflicts. In the years since 1967 the emphasis in Washington has shifted from the spelling out of the ingredients of ‘peace’ to the ‘process’ of getting there.” [from Wikipedia: Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution and University of California Press].

    Once again since the mid-1960s, newspapers and TV channels are filled with facts and subjective commentaries about the Middle East Peace Process and the prospects for peace. We’ve heard about this process for decades with some successes but a lot more of “marking time or major setbacks.” Many blame a failure of the parties to communicate. The “failure to communicate,” though, is not the problem.

    The various factions involved in or concerned about bringing peace to the region know well what the other protagonists want. The problem is that no one really wants to give in to what the others want, because it would impinge on what they strategically want to achieve from the peace negotiation process. This process has been going on for decades and now there are institutions and their leaders who actually benefit not from peace success but from stalemating the peace process. Nevertheless, each US President tries to broker a peace agreement in the volatile Middle East and each time the process ends with assassinations, conflict and stalemate.

    In the meantime, a few thousand miles away, the US military is engaged one way or another in wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan. US combat operations have allegedly come to a recent halt (though about 50,000 troops remain in the country and we do have an unusually huge embassy complex there). As for the war in Afghanistan, it is heating up and US troops are increasingly in harms way, as the weekly fatality count shows.

    This map speaks for itself

    So, my question is this: if successive US political administrations, both Democrat and Republican (liberal and conservative), agree on fostering peace negotiations in the Middle East and view negotiation among enemies as a good thing, why is a peace process not viewed as a useful path toward bringing peace to southwest Asia and especially to Afghanistan?

    If we feel so committed and confident that we can bring about peace is such a troubled region as the Middle East, why not show that very same level of commitment to our own peace process to get US troops out of Afghanistan? As the adage goes, “what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander,” no?

  • “Bureaucracies Run on Fear.” Mickey Glantz. September 9, 2010

    “Bureaucracies Run on Fear.” Mickey Glantz. September 9, 2010

    “Bureaucracies Run on Fear”

    My desk is bigger than yours: Size matters

    Mickey Glantz
    September 9, 2010

    Degrees of freedom for an individual to make decisions in an organization seem to increase as s/he moves upwards in a bureaucratic structure. s/he is boxed in by higher levels of authority as well as by the jurisdictional units at the same level in the organization. There is almost no degree of freedom at the lowest levels, while there is an increasing freedom of movement in terms of decision-making as one moves higher up the organization chart. The only one that has the most flexibility in making decisions, with less outspoken opposition are the leaders of the organization; though even they may not be totally free to act with abandon, as they in theory are often overseen by the equivalent of a board of directors.

    Those at a level below another level in the organization act in fear of stepping out of bounds, that is, violating the jurisdictional boundaries of neighboring units above or at the same level in the line and staff organizational chart. Boundaries are not just structural. The constraints are also functional which includes not just official work responsibilities but also the views (including idiosyncratic whims) of the leaders above him or her.

    see any similarities with bureaucracies today?

    The following is an illustrative list of some of the bureaucratic fears a worker may face:

    • Fear of angering an immediate boss
    • Fear of violating another bureaucratic unit’s boundaries
    • Fear of a displeasing a higher level of authority
    • Fear of not being favorably reviewed
    • Fear of losing one’s job
    • Fear of making wrong or unpopular decisions
    • Pressure to be BC, that is, “bureaucratically correct”
    • Reluctance to “speak truth to power”
    • Fear of exposing one’s own limitations
    •Reluctance to make waves because, as is well known, to challenge the status quo is to threaten authority

    The fear factor keeps the bureaucratic machine running but stifles creativity, out-of-the-box thinking and risk-taking. In the old days (a few decades ago), people who challenged the way things were done in their organizations were considered malcontents and were seen as disruptive to the organization. They were harassed or fired. But, later, it was realized by several but not even most organizations that those so-called malcontents, who challenged the status quo and the organization’s modus operandi, should be listened to with regard to their complaints.

    kaseyandcompany.com

    They were the ones whose comments, when correct, kept the organization operating more effectively. They were then neither rewarded nor fired but actually listened to and their comments and concerns evaluated.

    Sadly this is not the case in most bureaucracies in government and in society at large. The crowd mentality rules, and that mentality has been constrained by fear, the fear of losing one’s job. In a bureaucracy the adage is: To get along you have to go along, even if going along meant not pointing at problems in need or attention. Could it be that the “fear factor” in the workplace is responsible for survey results that show most Americans are unhappy in their jobs? Or, as noted in a USA Today report on a survey in the workplace that showed that 89% of one’s co-workers would not speak up on her or his behalf to support a co-worker in a dispute with management. Dare to speak truth to power in the workplace and you are most likely going to be on your own

    This is a sad state of affairs that must be corrected. The progress made a few decades ago about those with strong personalities critiquing and chiding management to improve efficiency in the workspace has been lost in current difficult financial times.

    What organizations need now is not fewer workers with backbone who speak their mind but more “directors” who have thicker skin.

    Post Script: for a glimpse of lessons learned working in a science bureaucracy as well as in universities and in industry, please visit PowerPoint presentation “A Perfect Job in an Imperfect Place.”

  • “You Don’t Have to be an Engineer to Understand Wind Power!” Mary Jones, Guest Editorial

    Mary Jones, Guest Editorial

    Wind is a result of the uneven heating of the Earth by the sun and the fact that temperatures will always seek to reach an equilibrium (heat moves to a cooler area). With the rising price of energy and the destruction of the environment from non-renewable fuels, it is increasingly important to harvest this renewable resource.

    The benefits of wind energy are that it’s virtually free (once you buy the equipment) and there is no pollution. The disadvantages include the fact it’s not a continuous source of energy (that is, wind velocity varies and many times it is insufficient to produce electricity) and that it typically requires about an acre of land.

    How Wind Energy Works

    The quantity of power that is available varies by wind speed. The total amount available is known as its power density (measured in watts per square meter). The U.S. DOE (Department of Energy) has divided wind energy into classes from 1 to 7. The typical wind speed for class 1 is 9.8 mph or less, while the average for a class 7 is 21.1 mph or more. For effective power production, class 2 winds are often required (11.5 mph average speed).

    Generally, wind speeds increase as you get higher above the Earth’s surface. Because of this, the normal wind generator is a component of a tower no less than 30 feet above obstructions. There are 2 basic kinds of towers employed for residential wind power systems, free standing and guyed. Free standing towers are self supporting and are usually heavier, meaning that they require special equipment (e.g., cranes) to erect them. Guyed towers are supported on a concrete base and anchored by wires for support. Typically, they are not as heavy and most manufacturers produce tilt-down models which can easily be raised and lowered for maintenance.

    The kinetic (moving) energy from the winds is harnessed by a device known as a turbine. The turbine includes airfoils (blades) that capture the power of the wind and use it to turn the shaft of an alternator (like the alternator on a car, only bigger). There are 2 basic kinds of blades, drag style and lifting style. We all have seen pictures of traditional windmills with the large flat blades which are a good example of the drag style of airfoil. Lifting style blades are twisted rather than flat and resemble the propellor of a small airplane.

    A turbine is classified as to whether it is made to be installed with the rotor in a vertical or horizontal position and whether the wind strikes the blades or the tower first. A vertical turbine typically requires less land for its installation and is an improved option for the relatively more urban areas. An upwind turbine is made for the wind to impact the airfoils before it impacts the tower.

    www.residentialwindturbines.org/residential-wind-turbine.jpg

    These units ordinarily have a tail on the turbine which must maintain the unit pointing into the wind. A downwind turbine does not need a tail, as the wind acting on the blades tends to keep it oriented properly. These turbine systems would be damaged if they were to be permitted to turn at excessive speeds. Therefore, units should have automatic over-speed governing systems. Some systems use electrical braking systems while some use mechanical-type brakes.

    The output electricity from the alternator is sent to a controller which conditions it for use in the home. Using residential wind power systems requires the home either to remain linked with the utility grid or to store electricity in a battery for use when the wind doesn’t blow at sufficient speeds. When the home is linked with the grid, the surplus electricity that is made by the residential wind power system can be sold to a utility company to reduce or even eliminate your utility bill. During periods with not enough wind, the home is supplied power from the utility company.

    www.residentialwindturbines.org/wind-scheme-grid-tied.gif

    The Price of Wind Energy

    Small residential wind power turbines can be an attractive alternative — or an addition — to those people in need of more than 100-200 watts of power for their home, business, or remote facility. Unlike PVs (photo voltaics), which remain at basically a similar cost per watt independent of array size, the affordability of wind generators increases with increasing system size. At the 50-watt size level, for instance, a small residential power wind generator would cost about $8.00/watt when compared with approximately $6.00/watt for a photo voltaic module.

    For this reason, everything being equal, photo voltaics are more affordable for very small loads. As the system size gets larger, however, this “rule-of-thumb” reverses itself. At 300 watts the wind generator costs are down to $2.50/watt, while the PV costs are still at $6.00/watt. For a 1500 watt wind system the cost is down to $2.00/watt and at 10,000 watts the price of a wind generator (excluding electronics) is down to $1.50/watt.

    About Mary Jones:
    Mary writes for the residential wind power systems weblog. Her blog centers on ideas to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to lower energy costs by using alternative power sources.

  • “I’m not 24 anymore: Up Close and Personal” Mickey Glantz August 27, 2010

    Perhaps this is just a 70 year-old’s lament: alas, he’s not 24 anymore. For those of us at this end of the age spectrum, even for those who are still pretty energetic, there is an on-going conflict between mind and body. As always, the body sets the physical limits on what we can do on a sustainable basis, one-off activities notwithstanding.

    mind over matter?

    The conflict I am talking about is taking place constantly these days between a 24 year-old mindset and this 70 year old’s bodily constraints. As much as I might hate to admit it, this body is slowly but increasingly imposing new constraints on what I can physically do in a sustained way. Herein lay the source of my particular conflict: I still want to engage in strenuous physical activities, like a typical 24 year old.

    I see guys play soccer, shoot basketballs and engage in Frisbee games, and I have the urge to ask if I can join them. Recently, I played in a tennis tournament but refused to be assigned to my age bracket, 70 and over. Instead, I chose to play in the 4.5 level in which a player of any age could compete. I lost, as most people, including myself, expected. But I lost to a 40 year old in a 2-hour, 3-set match that ended in a tie-breaker. Though I thought I would likely lose playing a 40-something, I did not expect the match to take so long or to be so close.

    The real reason I decided to play in a tournament, after having been absent from them for two decades or more, was a desire to relive the feeling of one-on-one competition that I used to have in tournaments. Would I feel pressure to win my matches or feel anxiety with each point, game or set? Would I become hungry for victory? The fact is that I just wanted to feel once more the ambiance of tennis competition. I wanted to see if it would be like it had been several decades earlier, when I started to compete as a teenager. Little did I think that I would walk away with a psychological victory. Indeed, I lost but I won. I took a much younger guy to 3 sets and a tie-breaker.

    Near the end of the match I started to think “What if I were to win?” I would have had to play another prolonged match in the hot midday sun. It was not an appealing scenario, especially when I had already gotten what I had hoped for by participating in the tournament; I felt like I was 24 again. Subconsciously, I got to thinking that stamina-wise and ego-wise I had already won, so now it was OK to lose. In this instance at the age of 70 I got to relive my tennis youth for a couple of hours.

    It’s worth a try!

    But my mind continues to act like that of a 24 year old, posing other physical tests for my body to endure. For example, during a recent trip to Brazil, I spent considerable time and energy, mine and that of others, trying to find a school for Brazilian jiu jitsu, capoeira, in order to take a few basic lessons. I have been fascinated by its need for balance and flexibility, which is something we seem to have diminishing quantities of at my end of the age spectrum. I can get them at home but wanted to get them in the country of origin of capoeira. Between conference lectures, I tried to find a capoeira master to teach me basic stuff but to no avail. My Portuguese level of fluency was not high enough to make clear that I just wanted to “feel” what capoeira movement would be like (the mind) and to “see” what the body could endure.

    The awareness of my subliminal mind-body conflict came to me during a trip to Shanghai earlier this year. Early in the morning on a main pedestrian street I watched people of all ages exercising in unison to chants or to music. I was attracted and amazed watching the most elderly of these groups by their balance and apparent minds over—or at least harmony with—their bodies. As old as they were, they were amazingly agile, and I thought of my early morning ritual of putting on socks while standing, of how lose my balance and fall over most of the time.

    typical scene early in a Shanghai morning

    I got to thinking that I could learn from them and others on how to maintain physical balance by focusing my thoughts on the need for balance. It seems to me that those elderly Chinese people exercising, like those who engage in capoeira as well as in other sports activities that typically favor young people (volleyball, Frisbee games, soccer, etc.), had been able to find a compromise between mind (what one thinks they can do) and body (what they are physically capable of doing).

    Aging is, well, just that, aging. But I’ve come to believe that the conflict between mind and body is a healthy one, until one reaches its limit. Personally, I hope to continue to think like a 24 year old as long as I can and in doing so continue to think about and try to engage in activities that allow me to taste, even briefly, the ambiance of physical competition I enjoyed when I was a lot younger. I am sure that my body will let my mind know when its time to compromise and accept the limits imposed by my age. Only then will I have to settle for watching rather than doing.

    Here is a mind-over-body experiment

    EPILOGUE

    While writing this, an incident came to mind. I was at work one day walking at a fast pace down the hall (my normal pace) when a 20-something researcher came out of his cubicle on purpose to ask me a question as I passed his door: “Why do you always walk so fast in the corridors,” he asked. A weird question, so I had no stock answer. I thought for a second (not breaking my stride) and said over my shoulder as I passed him, “because I have something to do.”

  • GUEST EDITORIAL: “Spain’s Climate Challenge: A brief reality check.” Lino Naranjo, Meteo Galicia. August 9, 2010

    For many people in the World, Spain brings to mind a sunny warm country with beaches along the Mediterranean Coast, with excellent food, friendly people and “Fiestas” with brave bulls. They might also think of Pamplona and the “running of the bulls” on narrow streets filled with young people. It is like talking about a piece of the tropics in the heart of Old Europe. However, the real Spain is much more than that. In fact it is vastly different from and broader than this touristic view.

    If we travel across the country from, South to North and from West to East, we come to realize that Spain is like a kaleidoscope with different cultures, peoples, languages, and especially different landscapes and very different climates. From the Mediterranean, passing across the arid, hot land of its South, to the cold and rainy regions of its North, Spain could be considered a paradigm of diversity, far from stereotypes built up over the decades. However, there is one thing where no difference exists among regions; that is, a varying but high vulnerability to the consequences of long-term climate change (a.k.a. global warming).

    One of the main pillars of the Spanish economy is its climate; in fact, climate-dependent activities like tourism, the wine industry, commercial livestock, are worldwide signatures of Spain. Climate in the Iberian Peninsula is becoming warmer and drier. Change rates are different among regions but warming trends are roughly the same. Regarding temperatures, The National Agency for Meteorology (AEMET) and others regional meteorological institutions such as Meteo Galicia in the Northwest have been identifying warming trends of between 0.4 to 0.8 ºC since the 1970s. That is about four times the long-term trend for the last 150 years. Precipitation seems to be a trend toward drier conditions in the past decades, mainly in the South and East, although in the North no significant change has been detected. Climatic projections from a standard GEI emission scenario indicate that these trends should continue in the next several decades.

    In addition, there is an increasing worry that weather extremes appear to becoming more frequent; severe drought in the South, heavy winds and storms in the North, heat waves in the summer and snowstorms in the winter are becoming usual headlines in the newspapers.

    All these changes, regardless of whether they are part of a long-term climate change or simply a multi-decade fluctuation of climate’s natural variability, present a strong challenge now and in the future of governance to the various levels of government in Spain, and more broadly on the Iberian Peninsula.

    Aside from the impacts of climate variability, extremes and change, Spain is also undergoing a long- lasting economic crisis along with stormy societal conflicts that compromise its own surveillance as a Nation. Therefore, consequences of the additional stress generated from a changing climate could be devastating, regardless of the regions, landscapes, cultural differences or languages, or people into this kaleidoscope called Spain.

  • A few centuries of US-Mexico interactions: Going Full Circle? Mickey Glantz. 3 August 2010

    Some months ago I came across a high school world history book (Human Achievement, 1967 by M.B. Petrovich and P.D. Curtin). It was a typical history book in that it began with discussions of the Egyptian, Roman and the Greek civilizations and ending up with the state of the globe in the post World War II era. It was filled pictures, drawings and with maps showing the changes in national political power throughout millennia. While each map merits a book to describe the times it represented, one map captured my attention when I first saw it; and it still does. I think about what it might mean or how it might be viewed not in an historical context of a century and a half ago but in the context of today’s domestic politics of the US and of Mexico.

    The map shows that much of the culture if not the territory west of the Louisiana Purchase (that is, west of the Mississippi River) was dominated by Mexico (though, in fact, the territory was inhabited by a wide range of Native American civilizations).

    Though all of that land was in some way influenced by Mexican culture or politics, bit by bit it was taken over by war or diplomacy by the United States pursuing as early as the late 1830s its policy of “Manifest Destiny.” All the above is my recollection of American history, inaccuracies notwithstanding.

    Today, there is a lot of controversy over the issue of illegal immigrants focused mainly on those immigrants coming from Mexico. The US Government has a Border Patrol spread thin along the 1956-mile (~3200 km) border. Groups of vigilantes have emerged to protect the border against illegal alien crossings. The federal government has built fences/walls to keep people from illegally crossing into the US. The State of Arizona has perhaps taken the biggest step so far, when its legislature passed a state law that seeks to weed out illegal aliens based on how a person looks, dresses, walks, talks or even who that person hangs out with and where.

    Police are given extraordinary subjective powers to determine “the illegal aliens among us.” Much of the racial profiling aspects of the law was recently struck down as being unconstitutional, but the federal judges ruling will likely be challenged by the Governor of Arizona. There is a lot of angst as well as racial or ethno-language bias in America these days. During hard economic times, there is a backlash by the dominant culture against minority cultures.

    The North America map of 1821 keeps reappearing in my mind. It causes me to wonder if the parts of North America that was lost by Mexico during the 1800s due to war and diplomacy are being regained by Mexico in other ways. In the absence of conquests related to Americans’ Manifest Destiny” policy, might not today’s map of North America been still represented by the map of 1821?

    Most Americans likely have not seen that 1821 political map, except for a brief moment in middle or high school. Out of sight; out of mind. In the mid-1990s American Political Scientist Samuel P. Huntington wrote about “the clash of civilizations” in reference to his belief that “that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world” [from wikipedia]. Today, we are witnessing what I believe is really a clash of cultures, and even civilizations, being played out on the North American continent and no one knows how best to address it.

  • “It’s the 100th day since the start of the BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico … But, it’s the 13,000th day(!) since the discovery of the Gulf ‘s Dead Zone.” Michael Glantz. 29 July 2010.

    “It’s the 100th day since the start of the BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico … But, it’s the 13,000th day(!) since the discovery of the Gulf ‘s Dead Zone.” Michael Glantz. 29 July 2010.

    “It’s the 100th day since the start of the BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico …
    But, it’s the 13,000th day(!) since the discovery of the Gulf ‘s Dead Zone”

    Michael Glantz. 29 July 2010.

    Well, the leaking oil well on the Gulf of Mexico seabed has finally been capped. Soon it will be recorded permanently in historical records as the worst environmental disaster in the US history to date, beating out the Exxon Valdez oil spill (where was that spill? Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Most people don’t remember that). Soon, I believe most Americans (except those along the Gulf Coast) will put the BP leak — despite its widespread environmental damage and huge ecological, economic and social costs — in the back of their minds (who remembers the Torrey Canyon spill or the Amoco Cadiz spill?). I call that “discounting the past,” that is, societies think that history is of decreasing value as one looks back in time. It’s the opposite of what economists refer to as “discounting the future” of, say, the dollar.

    Back in 1974, Dr. R. Eugene Turner, Director of Coastal Ecology Institute at Louisiana State University, discovered a “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. The dead zone is the result of runoff from cities, farmlands, feedlots and factories into the mighty Mississippi River. This River basin drains about 40% of the continental United States. Herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers among other chemicals are released on a routine basis throughout the basin. In the springtime they accumulate of the Gulf Coast forming an 8000+ square mile region, which adversely affects all living marine resources.

    Each year the dead zone increases in size and has an increasingly negative impact on the fish population and in turn on the commercial fisheries. As I wondered in an earlier podcast titled “Pick Your Poison!”, why has there been no constant, even deafening, uproar about either the causes or the consequences of the ever-increasing dead zone? Although it is not the only dead zone in the world (there are an estimated 300 of them of varying sizes worldwide), it is OUR dead zone.

    While in the midst of having a coffee at a local Starbucks, I began to jot down a few ideas about a comparison between the BP spill and the dead zone. The ideas herein do not represent the results of a systematic review but are only first-order thoughts. Such a comparison would make for an interesting class project or paper. Feel free to send me your thoughts, comments, corrections and additional comparisons related to the chart below.

  • “Clean Coal: ‘clean’ as an adjective or as a verb?” Mickey Glantz, 20 July 2010

    The three forms of fossil fuels are coal, oil and natural gas. Coal is the dirtiest and natural gas is relatively clean. When burned, the different types of coal range from dirty to dirtiest with respect to the amount of carbon dioxide released to the air. Carbon dioxide is the leading greenhouse gas of concern.

    Clean coal. What a great concept, and timely too, if it works. There is so much coal in the ground just waiting to be burned. Many industrialized and developing economies are heavily dependent on burning coal in their drive toward fulfilling their energy demands as well as needs for economic growth and development.

    According to the International Energy Outlook 2009 reference case,

    World coal consumption increases by 49 percent over the projection period … from 2006 to 2030. The growth rate for coal consumption is fairly even over the period, averaging 1.9 percent per year from 2006 to 2015 and 1.6 percent per year from 2015 to 2030—generally reflecting the growth trends for both world GDP and world primary energy consumption. Regionally, increased use of coal in non-OECD countries accounts for 94 percent of the total growth in world coal consumption over the entire period.

    Obviously, countries will continue to burn coal to fuel their economies. What is worrisome is that some of those countries have large reserves and intend to use them such as China, India, Russia and the United States. Economically, it is the energy of choice because it is relatively cheap and accessible. The use of coal can be slowed down but not curtailed, at last not in the foreseeable future. How then to get on top of the coal burning/global warming dilemma?

    I suggest that environmental groups do an about-face and embrace “Clean Coal” as our mantra. It would make the coal industry happy as pigs in mud.

    OMG, what’s going on here: Mickey Glantz, an alleged tree-hugger calling for fellow citizens to support a “Clean Coal” movement. Here’s the catch; we have to be careful to use the word ‘clean’ as a verb, and not as an adjective.

    Think about it. Ending up (at least hypothetically) with zero emissions to the atmosphere in the process of the burning of coal uses the word clean as an adjective. In this instance “clean coal” sounds like an achievement of the coal industry, a done deal,. But, when used as an adjective it is just a “greenwashing” slogan. Using the word clean as a verb, however, comes across as an imperative or command: (you) clean (the) coal! If Clean Coal can be defined like that, then I can easily support the concept.

    The coal industry is close to being on the right path, if it would only emphasize its use of ‘clean’ as a verb. The next step for potential leaders then would be to issue marching orders to engineers around the globe to identify ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere to zero. This would be in line with the recent arguments made Duke University professor Henry Petroski in his new book “The Essential Engineer: Why science alone will not solve our global problems” (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2010). As Petroski suggested, “While the scientist may identify problems, it falls to the engineer to solve them.”

    I believe that competitive substantial incentives to the engineering community would yield new insights into managing more effectively carbon dioxide emissions from coal burning.

  • Another point of light has gone out today: Steve Schneider passed away today

    I just got word that Stephen Schneider of Stanford University and former colleague at NCAR and forever a friend passed away returning from Sweden. Steve has been a relentless crusader and messenger to the world about the importance of climate-society interactions. Some years ago I wrote an editorial about the passing of another point of light, Roger Revelle. Sadly, and before his time, I find my self needing to write a similar comment about Steve at this moment. It’s a sad day for family, friends and science.

  • “An IPCC dilemma: Who to trust talking to the media, its critics or its colleagues? ” Mickey Glantz (July 12, 2010)

    “An IPCC dilemma: Who to trust talking to the media, its critics or its colleagues? ” Mickey Glantz (July 12, 2010)

    The title of this editorial is a play on words with a bottom-line message: whom should you keep your eyes on — your enemies (critics) and or your colleagues, when it involves talking with the media about IPCC’s 5th Assessment findings.

    A colleague of mine, Ed Carr at the University of South Carolina, received a letter from the Head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) cautioning those selected to prepare the next (5th) Climate Change Assessment Report not to talk to the media, leaving that task to the IPCC Secretariat.

    Ed Carr wrote (his blog in just below this one):

    So I [Carr] was dismayed this morning to receive a letter, quite formally titled “Letter No.7004-10/IPCC/AR5 from Dr Pachauri, Chaiman of the IPCC”, that might set such transparency back. While the majority of the letter is a very nice congratulations on being selected as part of the IPCC, the third paragraph is completely misguided:

    “I would also like to emphasize that enhanced media interest in the work of the IPCC would probably subject you to queries about your work and the IPCC. My sincere advice would be that you keep a distance from the media and should any questions be asked about the Working Group with which you are associated, please direct such media questions to the Co-chairs of your Working Group and for any questions regarding the IPCC to the secretariat of the IPCC.”

    It is clear that the IPCC still has a problem. It claims the problem is with the media, or at the very least it strongly hint at that. However, in this day and age, if one type of news medium does not catch IPCC scientists off guard another type will. That is what the media is paid to do. I would argue that secrets are hard to keep from the media and are hard to be kept by the media.

    A political ‘rule of thumb’ is that ships of state (eg, governments) tend  by metaphor to leak from the top; that is, leak confidential information to reporters either to reinforce a political position or to undermine it. I would argue that the same rule applies to the IPCC as a scientific climate-change- related ship of state. Leaks about scientific deliberations came from within the IPCC science community. Partly it is due to the persistence of reporters and science writers and partly it is because of the egos of some scientists who thrive on media attention. [NB: climategate was the result of hacked emails and NOT the result of loose lips (off-hand comments) by IPCC scientists (as far as we know).]

    So, it seems that the email directive and the defense of issuing it by the Head of the IPCC makes little sense. instead of embracing openness with the general public, the IPCC leadership has chosen to cast another shadow about the objectivity of the forthcoming 5th scientific climate change assessment. Is there something to hide? I don’t think so. Will the public be led to believe that there is something to hide? I think so.

    Instead of emerging from the climategate situation feeling exonerated and with heads held high, the IPCC leaders seem to haves come out of it paranoid and less secure about how its work presented by the media to the public.


    Transparency is the best cure for the IPCC’s image. Even with critics at the door and media as well, the best strategy to pursue is to pursue openness. Good objective science will win out. Policing the comments of your colleagues (eg, friends) will likely generate frustration and resentment thereby converting friends into “frenemies” (friendly enemies who support IPCC science but not the IPCC process).