Science and Social Policy

[Cartman]

I am no environmentalist as I have only read a few books on the topic. But, I do know a little about how scientific knowledge is generated, how data is accumulated and about scientists themselves. I can see why they are so frustrated and why many have given up.

We keep going around and around on similar environmental topics over and over. A scientist or a group of scientists report(s) a serious problem only to be discredited and often threatened because they cannot "prove" their assertions and industry aided by lethargic government does not want to institute change especially when it is costly. So, the problem is noted but quickly forgotten. Years later when the problem becomes impossible to avoid because people die (smoking, tainted water, infected food etc, etc), scientists have to shake their heads and think "I told you so, it was obvious".

I know some of these scientists personally. They are not nutbars or radical activists looking for ways to destroy industry and make life harder for the average person. They have dedicated their lives to saving other people's lives. Unfortunately, they are too often depicted as eccentric freaks living out their lives in labs, posing weak ideas and too willing to eradicate jobs or entire industries. We better wake up, smell the toast burning and be willing to accept change because it is coming whether we like it or not. Don't be so easily swayed by the depiction of "activist scientists" and forget about doing so-called "research" on the internet because all of the real science is found in peer reviewed journals.

[maplesyrup]

Unless we find some way to break the lock the multinationals have on our planet, nothing much will change. Now that they have been allowed to infest our educational institutions by weak-kneed administrators, they are starting to control everything in our lives from the cradle to the grave. You should see Wal-Mart's plans for our future. There will not be another store left standing if we allow this to continue.

Has anyone seen "The Take" by Naomi Klein & Avi Lewis?

[Cartman]

So uhmm yeah, we should listen to scientists because they are far less influenced by the all mighty dollar and we should stop listening to private corporations and governments that act on their behalf because they are more interested in profit.

[Hugo]

Better yet, Cartman, let's listen to and put all our faith in governments. They're always perfectly altruistic. It's silly to imagine that a politician might be something less than saint-like in his selflessness and devotion to the welfare of others.

[August1991]

Years later when the problem becomes impossible to avoid because people die (smoking, tainted water, infected food etc, etc), scientists have to shake their heads and think "I told you so, it was obvious".

I'll take your smoking example, because it's a good one. Clear scientific evidence that smoking tobacco was correlated with cancer and heart disease became evident in the 1950s. That's when consumption of tobacco (at least in western countries) made a noticeable decline. IOW, people understood the message of scientists and reacted. Some chose to stop smoking and others decided to continue.

The recent declines in smoking (at present, about 20% of adult Canadians are smokers) are the result of harsh non-smoking regulations, advertising interdictions and in particular, extremely high taxes.

My point, Cartman, is that people (at least in the west) do pay attention to scientific evidence and base their choices on this evidence. Cigarette smoking is an excellent example of this.

----

The problem with the environment has absolutely nothing to do with scientific evidence, the credibility of scientists, the dishonesty of politicians or the rapacious greed of faceless corporations. Or, as MS put it more eloquently if mistakenly:

Unless we find some way to break the lock the multinationals have on our planet, nothing much will change.

Our environment is in danger because nobody owns it. The best example of this fact is that the ordinary person wants to do something for the environment but doesn't know how or what to do.

All the left wing tripe about sharing our planet, moving away from a greed-driven, profit-oriented new human society will achieve nothing. The past few centuries are littered with attempts to reform human nature.

[maplesyrup]

Solar power, which could really have a positive effect on our global warming issues, has never been exploited because the multi-nationals have never figured out a way to own the sun.

As most intelligent people in the world (such as David Suzuki, etc.) have been saying for quite some time now, we will NOT be able to substain life on our planet at our current rates.

Take a look at this to see what I mean.

Who really are our hereos, and who should we be listening to, the transnational pigs or polluters, it really doesn't matter what you call them, or the scientists who are attempting to prevent a catastrophe?

[Cartman]

August, I have been thinking about your idea of ownership of the environment since you mentioned this a while back. Actually, I think it is an interesting idea. But, how are we to allot ownership of individual species that transcend national boundaries without resorting to international political agreements (like Kyoto)? I mean, corporations have almost decimated the east coast fish supply when it was clearly not in their interests to do so. They did not own the fish, but their profits depended upon their survival. Even if corporations own the land in which they operate, they will not care about the species that make use of this land because the corporations, not animals that inhabit the area, are considered to own the land. Is this not really the problem?

Hugo, I was saying that governments are inclined to follow corporations into hell because they act at their behest. Corporations and the markets they generate are the problem. If they would listen to unionized scientists, there would be fewer problems.

[Guest eureka]

One problem is that scientists are not involved. It is rare for them to speak out and, when they do so, it is quietly. It may be, in part, due to the nature of their funding - mostly from grants by governments or business. Grants can quickly disappear if results are not what the granter wanted to hear. It may be as much in the nature of the scientific mind.

As in the matter of global warming, the deniers are better funded and louder though there numbers are relatively few.

[Cartman]

As in the matter of global warming, the deniers are better funded and louder though there numbers are relatively few.

You are right Eureka. I guess I should have been more specific though because I was thinking more along the lines of professors at universities who are a little more independent than gov't scientists (if they have tenure of course). This is why tenure is so important.

[August1991]

I mean, corporations have almost decimated the east coast fish supply when it was clearly not in their interests to do so.

Sorry, Iceland and New Zealand both have a good fishery, and an attentive owner.

Newfoundland's fishery has no good owner since Ottawa, several thousand miles ways, got involved. Newfoundland's fishery has no attentive owner. Instead, its owner is DFO-Canada. (MS, Caesar, get it?) Imagine if Alberta's oil were managed from Ottawa.

[Cartman]

Sorry, Iceland and New Zealand both have a good fishery, and an attentive owner.

The governments of these nations? My understanding is that Iceland is the last area where the fishing is good and even they have suffered great losses. The trend is to go deeper and deeper.

[maplesyrup]

Actually if Canadian governments had listened to their scientists in DFO, the fisheries off Canada's coasts would be in a lot better condition today.

Unfortunately the commercial fishing transnational lobbyists, the people who have funded the Cons & Libs, prevented that.

[August1991]

My understanding is that Iceland is the last area where the fishing is good and even they have suffered great losses.

On the contrary, the following web site compares the cod fishery in Canada and Iceland. About Iceland, it notes:

The Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries manages the fishery in accordance with the Fisheries Management Act of 1990. This law created Iceland’s system of individual transferable quotas (ITQs), which allocates shares in the total allowable catch to fishing vessels.

Iceland has determined ownership of the resource and this drives management. We have nothing of the sort in Canada.