Fragilecologies Blog

See also http://www.fragilecologies.com

“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.

Jul 29

Posted by mglantz in Climate Affairs, Disasters, Environment and Society, Fragilecologies

“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.

1 Comment

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

Jul 21

Posted by mglantz in Fragilecologies

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.

I’m not sure exactly when the coal industry introduced its concept of “clean coal,” but it advertises the idea a lot on TV in the United States. The industry wants to create an image to the public that coal emissions could be cleaned when burned. Many challenge its claim that coal can be sufficiently cleaned to keep the planet cool, or at least to keep the atmosphere from heating up further.

In fact clean coal is a good “what ought to be” goal, that is, no resulting carbon dioxide emissions from coal on combustion). However, the reality about carbon dioxide emissions from burning coal is that it is no longer acceptable to many governments. Keep in mind that burning coal leads not only to global warming but also leads to air pollution and acid rain with known adverse implications for the health of humans and ecosystems, respectively. I imagine that, if the atmosphere had a chance to vote in the US Congress, it would vote against the use of coal, given the way that coal is burned today.

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.

Tags: , ,

2 Comments

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

Jul 19

Posted by mglantz in Fragilecologies

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.

Tags: , , ,

2 Comments

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

Jul 12

Posted by mglantz in Climate Affairs, Climate Change, Fragilecologies, International, News You Can Use, Politics

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).

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Comments

GUEST Editorial by Edward Carr. July 9, 2010. “Apparently, we have learned nothing . . .”

Jul 9

Posted by mglantz in Fragilecologies

GUEST Editorial by Edward Carr (University of South Carolina) July 9, 2010

“Apparently, we have learned nothing . . .”

www.edwardrcarr.com/opentheechochamber/

I am part of Working Group II of the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As some of you might know, Working Group II of the previous Assessment Report (AR4) was the one that caught a lot of flak for problematic conclusions and references regarding Himalayan Glacier melt and whatnot. On one hand, these were stupid errors that should have been corrected in the review process (which will be part of my job in AR5).  On the other, they really did not affect the overall conclusions or quality of the report – they just gave those who continue to have an issue with the idea of climate change an opening to attack the report.

Part of the problem for the IPCC is a perceived lack of openness – that something is going on behind closed doors that cannot be trusted.  This, in the end, was at the heart of the “climategate” circus – a recent report has exonerated all of the scientists implicated, but some people still believe that there is something sinister going on.

There is an easy solution to this – complete openness.  I’ve worked on global assessments before, and the science is sound.  I’ve been quite critical of the way in which one of the reports was framed (download “Applying DPSIR to Sustainable Development” here), but the science is solid and the conclusions are more refined than ever.  Showing people how this process works, and what we do exactly, would go a long way toward getting everyone on the same page with regard to global environmental change, and how we might best address it.

So I 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.”

This “bunker mentality” will do nothing for the public image of the IPCC.  The members of my working group are among the finest minds in the world.  We are capable of speaking to the press about what we do without the help of minders or gatekeepers. I hope my colleagues feel the same way, and the IPCC sees the light . . .

Tags: , , , , , , ,

4 Comments

“Global Warming ate my homework: In Defense of Legitimate Skepticism About Climate Change.” Mickey Glantz. June 30, 2010

Jun 30

Posted by mglantz in Fragilecologies

Poor “global warming.” It seems it is getting blamed for everything under the sun! It is blamed for droughts, floods, forest and bush fires, heat waves, disease outbreaks and the spreading of desert-like conditions. It is blamed for the illegal migration of people from one country to another, and so forth.

When I was in middle school, teachers would give out homework assignments with instructions to turn in the homework the next day. One time I didn’t do it. When asked by the teacher why I didn’t give her my homework, I lied. I said, as did many other kids my age across America that “my dog Fido ate my homework.”dog_ate_my_homework

Like Fido, the unruly dog, global warming gets blamed these days for everything unpleasant that happens. That is a disservice to Fido and it is clearly a disservice to the global warming issue. Some people argued that Hurricane Katrina, for example, was strengthen by global warming when in fact it was just a strong hurricane not an extraordinary one.

Opinions about the possible impacts of global warming are rampant in the printed and electronic media and, in many instances, are not based on facts but on subjective opinions. Was this or that specific drought or flood or fire the result of natural variability in the climate system or was it the result of human induced warming of the global atmosphere? When will we be able to identify the actual impacts attributable to global warming: some say we can already see them while others say we’ll never be able to sort it out between what is the result of natural variability versus an actual warming of the global atmosphere.

The media does not help. They tend to seek balance of opinions, even when balance is not really warranted. So, those who believe in global warming’s influence on intensifying hurricanes and in increasing their frequency will tend to state that perspective to the press. Even if a large majority believes it is so, the media still call for an opposing statement that rejects that perspective, seeking to ‘level the playing field’ when it does not need to be leveled. Fact and fiction are presented as are subjectively based wishful thinking and guesstimates.

So, it is no wonder that the public remains confused about the science of global warming, about its real possible consequences. Global warming has become a business of sorts, an industry much like the drought industry (industria da seca) that exists to assess drought-plagued Northeast Brazil. The drought industry is made up of people who come from all social and economic sectors of society as well as from just about every academic discipline at a university. There is money to be made off of hazards. There’s money to be made: by researchers, by engineers, by technologists, by the news media, and especially by those who are savvy enough to capture the media’s attention to expose their views, opinions, whatever on climate change.

We have to become more responsible about how we talk about the global warming issue. We have to reduce the hype, encourage solutions and educate individuals and policymakers about the issue and its relative priority to other pressing issues. We should openly and aggressively challenge knowingly false claims using sound reasoning.

We quote polls and surveys which to me are interesting but relatively useless for action. I say this because accepting a poll’s findings requires trust and I for one have lost that trust for polls and interviews regarding beliefs about global warming. Though I might know better whom to believe or whose views to challenge, many people around the globe do not know how to calibrate the views of commentators about global warmingpollnumbers1250985368

In the USA for example, a sizable portion of a survey’s respondents blamed the destruction of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina on God’s wrath because of the corrupt lifestyle of the city’s inhabitants! As another example, the UN Secretary General stated his belief that the violence in Darfur, western Sudan was the first global warming war! Comments like these must be challenged.

Scientists, media, policy makers must be more responsible about attributing various climate-related impacts to global warming (or to denying such attributions). In truth anything that society does is happening under a changing climate; the climate is always changing. The contemporary concern is about the level to which it changes and the rate of that change.

The UN has two definitions of how to look at adaptation as a response to climate change: (1) adaptation of society only to changes attributable directly to global warming and (2) any changes related to climate. The latter makes it easier to respond to climate impacts on the part of society. The former sets up an untenable situation in which human influence on climate must be unquestionably identified before action is to be taken, whereas the latter makes it easier for the researcher.

My teacher knew right away that the homework had not been done and probably knew that I did not even have a dog. She was skeptical from the outset. I think that the attributions that are made by scientists, among others, require closer scrutiny than we have tended to do to date. Global warming like Fido should not be taking the blame for all our inconveniences. As research has shown time and again, the behavior of societies has a lot to do with the impacts of even normal weather. It may take decades before some of the occurrences in Nature can accurately be blamed on global warming.

Tags: , , , ,

2 Comments

“’Robocopping’ the Planet: Geo-engineering the Planet’s Climate system,” Mickey Glantz 1 June 2010

Jun 1

Posted by mglantz in Fragilecologies

Mickey Glantz,

1 June 2010

Almost twenty-five years ago, the Hollywood movie Robocop appeared on the silver screen. The plot summary was quite simple, according to IMDB: “In a dystopic** and crime ridden Detroit, a terminally wounded cop returns to the police force as a powerful cyborg,” part human and part machine. robocop-bigposter-orig

It seems that the scientific community and governments around the world are following the Robocop plot, applying it, by analogy, to plant and animal species around the entire planet. For example, we continue to drive animals in the wild towards extinction but try to save a few for our zoos. Other species, known to be endangered, have continually increased in value to those who seek their products – the rhino for its horn (an alleged aphrodisiac in Asia) and the lowland gorilla for its paws (used as ash trays!) are two prominent examples. Less well known are the wetlands that are everywhere being drained and the rainforests that are worldwide being cut down for political and economic reasons. Indeed, we persistently destroy good, productive farmland and then attempt to grow the same amounts of food in less suitable soils and climates.

These are but a few apt examples around the planet of the Robocop analogy: we destroy different parts of the earth’s surface then we resort more and more to technologies to create artificial environments to replace those environments we have destroyed. This growing trend has led to a nasty cycle wherein artificially created ‘technovironments’ are becoming more valuable to people, both economically and perceptually, than those natural environments that are being replaced. In recent years, this situation has emerged in consideration of the global climate system.

A couple of thousand scientists from around the globe have published their consensus view that many human activities are now producing greenhouse gases that are intensifying the naturally occurring greenhouse effect. As a result, the atmosphere of planet earth is heating up. The concern is that this heating will increase temperatures by at least 2 to 3 degrees Celsius or more by the end of the century if not sooner. The question, of course, is whether or not societies and the ecosystems on which they depend can adapt to the changes that accompany climate change, especially at the rapid rates at which those changes could realistically occur. The consensus of those couple of thousand scientists who participated in the 4th assessment report of the Nobel Prize winning IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) appears to be that societies will be unable to keep up with those changes; even so, there is as yet apparently not enough political will to stop the industrial and land-use practices that continue to produce such greenhouse gas emissions.

Enter Robocop . . . by analogy. The response of some key members of the scientific communities in both the USA and Europe has been to propose various ways (theoretical conjectures, really) to control the planet’s climate, either by ratcheting down the temperature or at least controlling it so that it does not turn into a runaway greenhouse effect. They have proposed mimicking volcanic eruptions by spewing aerosols into the stratosphere, evaporating sea water to brighten lower level clouds that prevent the sun’s rays from reaching the earth’s surface, putting millions of mirrors in space, creating artificial trees to suck carbon dioxide out of the air, and so on.

The reality is that a field of artificial carbon-sucking tree-like technological devices is not a forest. Nor will it ever be. Pumping ever-increasing amounts of societally emitted greenhouse gases into the air is converting our atmosphere into an artificial (non-natural) environment. The question is when is a cyborg no longer a cyborg? At what point does replacing yet another living part of the planet with yet another technological device, further converting the cyborg – which is, at this point, partially natural life and partially designed machine – turn the entire planet into little more than a crudely assembled technological device? When does the earth as ‘technovironment’ become a much less-than-perfect “Robocopy” of the original living system so well described by James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis?James Lovelock

Geoengineering schemes are being proposed because governments seem to have put on the back-burner efforts to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels. They are likely to muddle along until a full-blown climate crisis occurs. They will continue to build coal-fired power plants, while trying to figure out how to suck that excess carbon dioxide out of the air. They will continue to cut down forests and try to manufacture artificial trees. They will do anything they can to continue “business as usual” and therefore they will not reduce the carbon emissions on which they now depend for economic development. In other words, their true interest lies in “Robocopping the planet’s climate.” If adaptations through such science fictions are allowed to continue, humanity is lost.

The reality is that modern humans have not been around very long. Policymakers should be reminded each day of this truism: while we need much of the natural environment kept intact, it does not need us at all.
————————————————-

** Dystopia: An imagined universe (usually the future of our own world) in which a worst-case scenario is explored; the opposite of utopia. Dystopic stories have been especially influential on postmodernism, as writers and filmmakers imagine the effects of various aspects of our current postmodern condition, for example, the world’s take-over by machines (The Matrix); the social effects of the hyper-real (Neuromancer); a society completely run by media commercialism (The Running Man); the triumph of late capitalism (Blade Runner); bureaucratic control run amok (Brazil, 1984); and so on.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

4 Comments

“On Retiring the Concept of Retirement.” Mickey Glantz. written in Tokyo, in Starbucks while on travel (May 18, 2010)

May 28

Posted by mglantz in Fragilecologies, human condition

The term retirement, despite its definition is apparently reserved for the aged not the young because the young are, expected to go on to another job. But then what is the definition of work or a job? Is tennis a job? Is writing a job? Is travel? Is writing a memoir for example, a job? Is reading all these books you bought but never had a chance to read a job? I think so.retirement_gifts-image-joy-of-not-working

I’m 70 now and I am thinking a lot about what it means to retire. In the old days — the 1960s when I first entered the workforce — retirement was a goal: get to 65 and stop working at whatever you had been doing for the past several decades. The idea then was to retire, sleep late, and sit on a porch somewhere watching sunrise and sunset, day after day after day. Wait a minute: Already, this is starting to sound boring.

Turning 65 meant that you had to close down your social network at the place of employment. Yet, to many, co-workers had become a surrogate family, and the workplace had become a place to go, to hang out, to share stories, to chat. Your workspace was much more than a few square yards of floor space, a desk, a phone, a fax, a bubbler; the workplace was a social happening, for good or bad. Most likely many workers are in the presence of co-workers over time spans longer than with their spouse and kids.

Societies and governments compartmentalize our lives. The education system is the best example: pre-school, kindergarten, elementary, middle, high school, college and then maybe graduate school and finally the workplace (it is age-based). Society, however, has a new concept that parallels, while at the same time challenges the traditional age-based, cohort-based, boxed-in educational framework: K to grey (Kindergarten to the elderly). Education is now recognized worldwide as a life long experience for those who wish to see it that way. However, society has not yet come up with an equivalent parallel, time-independent concept for one’s worklife.

Whatever their specific reason, people today continue to be active well after the previously established expected retirement age of 65. The word “retirement” has become at best a poor descriptor of what now happens.

First of all most people have more than one job in their lifetime and many have more than one job at the same time (not necessarily by choice!). But we don’t say s/he “retired” at 30 (to start another career). We say, instead, they took another job, quit, dropped out, moved on, etc. “Retirement”, the concept seems to be reserved for one’s post-worklife life. But in today’s financial or social environment the end of work life has become synonymous with the end of life.

Retirement as a concept has lost its original meaning. People are busy all their lives, working at something, even if that “work” is in the form of play.
retirement_is_a_fulltime_job

It is quite clear to me that the concept of “retirement” needs to be retired, much as sports organizations retire the numbers that star players have worn on their shirts for baseball or football. We do not retire any more. We just change from one activity to another, just like the young people as they do when they go from one job to the next.

Like I said at the outset, I’m 70 now and just beginning.

Tags: , , , , , ,

3 Comments

“Who’s in control of our attention span”? Mickey Glantz. May 28, 2010

May 28

Posted by mglantz in Fragilecologies

Who’s in control of our attention span?
Mickey Glantz
May 28, 2010
Back in the early 1960s my Political Theory professor mentioned that a study then showed that the attention span to any particular issue of a typical American was on the order of 2.3 years. In the mid-1970s Anthony Downs wrote about the American Public’s “issue-attention cycle.” These two pieces of information made sense to me; one providing a time dimension and the other providing the process.

But that was then and this in now. My observation today is in conflict with those earlier pieces of information I had learned about. The fault was mine though, as well as of the professors. Those pieces of information (unchanging facts, I thought) were era-dependent pieces of information that no longer apply to reality today.

The issue-attention cycle seems to still work. Anthony Downs (Public Interest, 28 [1972:Summer]), wrote an article entitled “Up and down with ecology: the issue-attention cycle”, and described the cycle in the following way: (1) a pre-problem phase; (2) an alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm phase; (3) realizing the cost of significant progress phase; a gradual decline of intense public interest phase; (5) the post-problem stage.

According to Downs, “A study of the way this cycle operates provides insights into how long the public attention is likely to remain sufficiently focused upon any given issue to generate enough political pressure to cause effective change.”

Today, it is not the attention span of the public that matters but the attention span of the media in heavy competition for increasing their share of the public’s attention. It’s a money thing: more viewers, readers, and listeners means more advertisers and more advertising revenue. The media are not there to educate the public. They are businesses. Bad news takes precedent over good news, because they provide for attention-grabbing headlines.

I am not sure what started the downward spiral of reduced attention span of the public but I have a sneaky suspicion it was the media. Take TV, as an example: at night turn off all lights. Turn on the TV. Put your back to the TV and watch how quickly the scenes or news items change — every few seconds. Get the USA Today and count the number of short news items, not full stories. Check news on your iPod or iPad or iPhone or antroid: they come in brief news clips. Our (the public’s) attention span has eroded tremendously in the past 40 years. It now seems that the media determines what we focus on and how long we will focus on it. rhodesignattnspan2

Some examples?
The health care issue: how many are still in the dark about what to expect from the health care package that was covered by the media 24 hours a day and 7 days a week over one year? I am. Then attention was diverted to our financial crisis. Some months ago media coverage of the near collapse of Wall Street brokerages and the American banking system was relentless, 24-7 coverage: we’re all going to be broke left to work till we die …most likely in poverty. The problems remain; the media coverage of them does not. Media attention shifted to the Toyota cover-up of mechanical problems with its flagship auto models: hearing in Washington, DC including testimony by Mr. Toyoda himself. The problem remains. The coverage is gone. Now there is the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of a collapsed off-shore rig and media are focused there, again, 24-7.

The wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the continued financial fragility of the American economy persists teetering in unstable equilibrium at the moment, and Toyota along with other auto companies are engaged in massive recalls of their products and, oh yeah, Al-Queda continues its attempts to terrorize Americans on their own soil continue, but the media has chosen to focus on the oil spill in the Gulf 24-7. And soon the hurricane season will begin and the media will focus on that or some other quick onset event. The point is that the media are controlling the public’s attention span. We (the public) are led like cows with rings in our nose to wherever the media wants to take us. animal-with-nose-ring

As a result, no issue gets the attention it deserves, no, demands, in order to resolve it. The wars go on. The financial crisis continues. Wall Street brokers and our bankers likely resort to “business as usual” sleazy financial practices.

The public must first be made aware of what has happened: the media is used to telling us what to think, how to think it and why but as importantly when to think it. It is time for us to take back control of the issue-attention cycle, returning to a longer cycle so we can actually work through issues to reasonable conclusions. We likely cannot change the progression of the cycle but we can stay on topic until we understand it enough to resolve it in an intelligent way.

Tags: , , , , , ,

No Comments

“Is ‘the enemy of my enemy Really my friend?’ Diplomats, corporate leaders, among others, don’t believe everything you think.”

Apr 8

Posted by mglantz in Fragilecologies

Mickey Glantz. April 8, 2010. Written in Mexico City.

The phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” has always captured my attention for some unknown psychological reason. It has been used in military strategy, business affairs, in personal decisions and in many, many types of human interactions. It is one of those social adages that we can find in all societies like “Look before you leap,” “He who hesitates is lost,” and “Time and tide wait for no man”. Every society has such adages, stated in more form or another. To many they serve as “rule of thumb” principles that in a general way are meant to guide one’s behavior.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” is just another one sounds good at first blush. It probably lends itself to being formulated mathematically as a human interactions game in game theory. Maybe that is why it captures my curiosity. I am sure I have used it as a guide in some situations at work and at play. However, I believe it is a flawed consideration or perhaps more correctly an incomplete, “un-thought-out “one.

Historical evidence does suggest that this is as useful a guide to action as it is to inaction. As a result, one must see it in a more critical light. For example, the enemy of your enemy might not really be a friend in a different situation. Governments make deals with other governments or corporations under this guiding notion, even though they find them or their policies reprehensible. So, they end up having made, as they say, “a pact with the devil.” This is similar to what was said about the British Empire: it had no permanent friends. No permanent enemies; only permanent interests.”

British trade deals during World War I

British trade deals during World War I

Today, the oppressive government of Kyrgyzstan fell to an uprising in the streets. A deal made with the unpopular president to allow for a US base of operation to support the war in Afghanistan is now at risk as a new president appears. The unpopular decision will likely be revoked and the US become less popular at a time it needs all the friends it can get. A similar situation occurred some years ago with our base in Uzbekistan.

Make any deal with anyone to get what you want, But think about the likely longer term consequences more seriously. What may be true in the short run may turn out to have been a terrible decision in the longer run. Britain’s Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler in the late 1930s obviously failed. US support of bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Soviet invaders in the late 1970s and 1980s is another example. Pakistan’s catering to the Taliban, allowing them to operate from their territory also backfired, as we now see. The Taliban, like the British Empire, has no permanent friends or allies only permanent interests.

Governments must think about this adage when they seek to make agreements with leaders of failed states, rogue nations, and other moves that they consider strategic but really turn out to be only tactical decisions with no longer term sticking power. The adage must be amended to read as follows: THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND…BUT ONLY FOR A WHILE. Diplomats, among others, beware of what you are getting into, when you make that pact with the enemy of your enemy. Your reputation as well as the stigma as a result of ‘guilt by association’ will have sticking power and you must live with the adverse consequences that often follow later on.

I am not the only one I guess who feels this way!

I am not the only one I guess who feels this way!

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments