In the scientific world, people are judged by the content of their ideas. Advances are made with new insights, but the final arbitrators of any point of view are experiments that seek the unbiased truth, not information cherry picked to support a particular point of view.
Steven Chu, the former U.S. Secretary of Energy, offered those comments in his official letter of resignation in 2013.
Who doesn’t like a simple, trouble-free story? In these times, saddled as we are by a host of economic, cultural, and political woes, who wants to add energy-supply problems to the mix? I know I don’t, and I imagine most people don’t, either.
But when organizations and spokespersons are deliberately withholding important information which would help citizens prepare and plan for challenges ahead, or when they cherry-pick only those few factors to fit their self-serving narratives, we have some issues....
A new energy dialogue is needed in the U.S. with an understanding of the true potential, limitations, and costs—both financial and environmental—of the various fossil fuel energy panaceas being touted by industry and government proponents. The U.S. cannot drill and frack its way to ‘energy independence.’ At best, shale gas, tight oil, tar sands, and other unconventional resources provide a temporary reprieve from having to deal with the real problems: fossil fuels are finite, and production of new fossil fuel resources tends to be increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging. Fossil fuels are the foundation of our modern global economy, but continued reliance on them creates increasing risks for society that transcend our economic, environmental, and geopolitical challenges. The best responses to this conundrum will entail a rethink of our current energy trajectory - David Hughes
The problem with the tactic of massaging a few facts to tell a partial tale only is that the challenges we’ll face in the not-too-distant future will become more burdensome absent some integrity and honesty from sources who do in fact know more and know better.
No credible spokesperson with working knowledge of the fossil fuel industry will doubt that fracking has boosted oil production in recent years. But when all that’s offered are simple pronouncements to a public lacking context or a fuller appreciation for the Big Picture—thus denying citizens all of the equally relevant information about costs; decline rates; environmental and community consequences; quality; depletion of conventional supplies; energy investments, and financial commitments which all factor in to an honest and full assessment of energy supply and production—the obstacles and challenges become that much more difficult to address and overcome.
Yes, oil production has been increasing recently, and yes, the marvels of technology and mankind’s abilities to craft new approaches deserve high praise. But when those in positions of influence decide that the message is that and only that, everyone loses in the long run.
Why is this principle so disdained by too many in both the media and the fossil fuel industry (forget about those on the far Right)? Is what’s good for me/my company today the operative and wisest strategy?
Certainly some small groups profit from the careful selection of choice information and no more, but you can be damn sure that is a small group—and we’re not in it.
The other side of that coin is that the rest of us will find ourselves burdened with far more challenges, far fewer resources available to address them, and far fewer options on a much shorter timeline because too much truth was obscured or simply lied about in order to protect the few in the short-term.
What happens then?
Perhaps the question needs to be asked now, instead.
[NOTE: I’m traveling from February 13 to February 25, so just one or two diaries during that period, and any comments/replies from me may be delayed a bit. Thanks for your interest & comments!]
(Adapted from two recent blog posts of mine. 1. 2.)
Top Comments Submission Made Easy
|