A short reaction from a scientific perspective to the speech of the environmental activist might be useful for the Romanian citizens interested in efficient and effective spending of public money for environmental problems.
From the very beginning I want to underline that climate changes are real and caused by at least the following coupled processes: solar processes, volcanic events, and human activities. It is an objective, scientific fact that human activities contribute to the changes observed at the time scale of the last century. On the other hand, it is also a scientific fact that there is not certain at all that by reducing the emissions of selected gases the overall trend will be reversed, for two reasons:
- the processes occurring at Earth scale are not linear and have a historical character (as in the case of humans, for instance, giving up smoking will not guarantee us that some associate illness will never occur)
- other processes involved in climate changes may interfere with our effort in a desired or not desired direction.
Based on such knowledge about the natural processes an honest scientist might communicate the reality, and suggest various action scenarios with their associated probabilities of realization, if available. If the probabilities of realization are not available this should be explicitly stated. The public and the policy makers can then evaluate the available resources to be spent, the objectives desired by the societies at different scales, the order of priorities, and the resources allocated to each objective.
Greta Thunberg’s Speech (transcript available here) is written according to the standards of shaping the governments by public communication (chapter 32 here) and has proved to be efficient in terms of the impact. However, in my opinion some aspects in its content make it ineffective for solving environmental problems.
A key statement is that “For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear.” Anyone used with science is aware that science is based on a process of continuous evolution of knowledge. Moreover, in life and earth sciences the complexity of the phenomena is so large that we never have a single clear representation of what is happening. We always need complementary theories reducing in different ways the dimensionality of the objects and processes. The belief in the crystal clearness of environmental sciences might be the result of an education system lacking critical thinking, pluralistic presentation of theories and elements of history and philosophy of science.
It is true that “Entire ecosystems are collapsing.”, although it is misleading to state that this situation is always due to human impact. It is for sure not scientifically guaranteed that “We are at the beginning of a mass extinction”.
When the problem to be solved is formulated superficially it is natural that “the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.” It is false that only some decision makers have not understood the nature of the problems, as Ms. Thunberg seems to assume: “Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.” Many environmentalists also make use of too simplistic representations of the natural and human processes in their public action, and seem to rely only on the goodwill and their morality. Goodwill and morality are of crystal clear help in formulating strategic goals and using the resources in the right way at operational level, but are of no use for imagining realistic tactical and operational goals serving the strategy.
In the end Ms. Thunberg touches on some technical issues, for instance: “Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice.” I would not bring into discussion such a very specific aspect because this is beyond my competence, and I’m not aware of any scientific agreement around such specific and precise numbers. However, as a negotiating tactic for pushing the people in the right direction, specifying clear numbers is the right way, I myself use the method asking, for instance, co-workers to produce large number of articles in highly reputed academic journals.
I am sympathetic also with the final rhetoric figure, namely telling major politicians of the planet that they are not mature: “There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.” Although this is probably not true it opens an interesting discussion about maturity, education, and public actions, highly relevant for the functionality of liberal democracies.
To conclude, Greta Thunberg’s speech at the U.N. Climate action summit is representative for the state of environmentalism in the Western civilization. It is definitely good that people are given a voice to express their concerns and provide a bottom-up feedback to those in power, and that they have the resources to do this (which is not the case in Romania where most of the civil society is manipulated by those in power). There are also fundamental problems in how the environmentalists create their argumentation, and perhaps the major ones are the lack of critical thinking and the false representation about scientific knowledge, in particular about the environment.
There is an obvious temptation to overuse scientific knowledge (descriptive statements in cultural evolution by scientific method with interferences from external factors) in order to provide moral statements, which since David Hume on seems problematic. Well educated persons should not fall into this trap.
Acknowledgements
An earlier version of this text was significantly improved by the feedback from a reader of Contributors.ro platform.
Look at her face. Greta Thurnberg looks like Dracula-s sister. No kindness in her phisionomy, but why such a hate?!
Citeva typos ori neclaritati:
caused by at least for coupled processes
proved to efficient in terms of the impact
Anyone used with science … Any scientist suna mai bine
make use of too simple, simplistic representations (repetition)
In the end Ms Thunberg touches some technical issue … touches on …
samd …
Era bine sa il dati la citit si altcuiva inainte sa il publicati … Cu ginduri bune …
Dați-mi un mail vă rog la [email protected] , dacă doriți, pe care să vi-l trimit la corectat și să îl retrimit apoi corectat editorului să înlocuiască textul inițial. Mulțumesc.
Nu am timpul fizic să fac munca de editare, și cred că și platforma e sub presiunea timpului, totul fiind gratuit aici din partea tuturor.
gânduri bune,
@ corector
Curățică variantă (îmi pare rău că n-o mai am pe prima, de curiozitate, să văd unde ați schimbat și cum). Doar în paragraful al doilea ceva (mic) e incorect. Spune:
„On the other hand, it is also a scientific fact that there is not certain at all that by reducing…”
Ori „it is not certain”, ori „there is no certainty”.
The Greta Thunberg operation is a propaganda crap and It’s not even worth discussing.
apreciez stilul la obiect / to the point. un text binevenit.
Axarea pe CO2 si schimbarea climatica cred ca e o greseala. Problema mult mai grava e cea a poluarii, din care decurge desigur si o consecinta in climatologie. Dar poluarea are consecinte si mai grave in calitatea vietii, in otravirea planetei cu reziduurile produse de oameni. Nu stiu in ce procent influentam noi clima, dar sigur exista un procent si din activitatea noastra, in schimb cu poluarea suntem responsabili 90% probabil. Aici e problema mare si nu am idee cum o vom putea rezolva. Superficialitatea, iresponsabilitatea si lacomia liderilor politici si a magnatilor industriali e tot mai mare. Viteza schimbarilor creste si ea in aceeasi proportie. Suntem pe ultima suta de metri si nu vad luminita de la capatul tunelului. Aici Greta cred ca are dreptate, din pacate …
Sunt foarte multe tipuri de deteriorare, e adevărat că în imaginarul public poluarea are un rol aparte, fiind adesea mai vizibilă și mai inestetică.. Uneori e cea mai importantă poluarea, alteori sunt alte forme de deteriorare mai importante (de exemplu fragmentarea prin infrastructură), iar cel mai adesea efectele sunt sinergice, deși mai mereu un anumit tip e dominant.
Lucrurile sunt foarte complicate și tocmai de aceea despărțirea pe cât posibil a analizei ecologice la rece, științifică, de partea ecologită, militantă, mai emoțională, e de dorit, cele două având roluri sociale complementare. E ceva greu de făcut, pentru că ecologii nu sunt roboți, dar cel puțin încercăm.
gânduri bune,
Stimate domnule profesor, as fi curioasa sa stiu care e scopul concret al analizei dvs din acest articol. Doriti sa ne feriti de a cadea in ce? ( „Well educated persons should not fall into this trap.”)
Chiar credeti ca politicienii sau oamenii de stiinta isi vor face agenda viitoare pornind de la punctele acestui discurs? Credeti ca Greta Thunberg si-a propus sa dea teme de casa liderilor politici ai acestei lumi?
Cu tot respectul, desi va inteleg obiectiile si rezervele din articol,cred ca cereti unui discurs de tip activist o acuratete si motivatii specifice unui comunicat stiintific. Acest discurs se adreseaza in mare parte publicului larg, reprezinta o expresie a ingrijorarilor/preocuparii unei bune parti a cetatenilor acestei lumi si poarta amprenta perceptiei publice asupra incalzirii globale, a cauzelor determinante si a modului in care politicienii au gestionat pana in prezent problema.
Daca lumea stiintifica are o abordare sau mai multe diferite, daca lumea stiintifica considera ca ordinea prioritatilor si solutiilor e alta, momentul este prielnic pentru a se face auziti. GretaThunberg a pus problema pe tapet in mod irevocabil.
Va doresc spor la lucru!
PS. Considerati ca „educated people” precum Sir David Attenborough, Jane Goodall sau Michael Moore, care au salutat apelul Gretei si mai mult decat atat, si-au propus sa realizeze proiecte comune impreuna cu ea, au cazut in capcana de care vorbeati dvs?
Bună ziua,
Scopul este să fie de folos cetățenilor care doresc ca banii publici să fie cheltuiți în mod eficient (raport între rezultate intermediare și sume cheltuite cât mai mare) și eficace (cu atingerea scopului final, la capătul lanțului de rezultate intermediare). Am precizat acest scop în prima frază.
Există multe proiecte, dar foarte puține sunt și eficace. Putem lua de exemplu toate proiectele finanțate din programul Life și să urmărim rezultatele și vom vedea care sunt eficace și care nu.
Am să dau și un exemplu concret: lângă Brăila există o insula pentru care au existat două proiecte de restaurare, insula continuă să se colmateze, banii Life și din fonduri norvegiene nu și-au atins scopul final, deși au fost cheltuiți foarte mulți.
În legătură cu PS-ul mi se pare cel mai potrivit să întrebați pe Sir David Attenborough și pe celalte persoane. O altă variantă ar fi poate să distribuției acest text pe un forum internațional să vedem reacțiile, dacă aveți vreo relație. V-aș fi recunoscător.
Toate cele bune,
Virgil Iordache