Oral exam completed

The oral exam for my MPhil was successfully completed. I presented for less than 10 minutes and answered the questions from the examiners for the rest of the time. The whole process took one hour. My supervisor was there as an observer - not allowed to ask questions.

The examiners were nice, and they all gave me very positive comments. No really tough questions, more like casual talk than examination. Minor changes to my thesis are required, I think I can fix it an hour.

I was told that the department will nominate my work to the Li Ka Shing Prize - to the best MPhil thesis from all non lab-based faculties, since both of the two examiners have checked the 'Excellent' box in my assessment form. I think the selection process would be very competitive as I will have to compete with not just graduates of this year but also the previous one - it is awarded for every two years.

『海角七號』

『海角七號』叫好又叫坐絕不是偶然，值得花點時間來為它寫點東西。(故事內容請看
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%B5%B7%E8%A7%92%E4%B8%83%E8%99%9F
或
http://cape7.pixnet.net/blog/post/18649838


『海角七號』看似一般音樂+愛情小品電影，片中的搖滾樂明顯為了吸引年青觀眾注意，先保票房，然而影片也同時突出了恆春的自然風貌和當地人的鄉土文化保育意識，又以發生在日治時期的一段愛情故事來陪襯男女主角的感情戲，將整齣電影添上歷史感。這樣的新舊交錯處理手法，使電影老是說舊文化、歷史之餘又不落俗套，上一代的各種情意結每每在主角身邊的小人物不經意地浮現出來，彷彿每個配角都有自己與某個空間或時間連繫著的故事 – 或遺憾，例如茂伯堅時自己是國寶要上台表現，明珠(林曉培飾)與祖母之間的關係，勞馬對拋棄他的妻子的思念，這些都著墨不多但卻有蜻蜓點水之效，每個大小配角都可以令人印像深刻。(台灣網民影評請看這: http://blog.roodo.com/chita/archives/7154805.html
http://www.ccha.org.tw/blog/index.php?load=read&id=144
http://blog.yam.com/munch/article/17227564


我最想說的是，為什麼香港拍不出這樣的電影? 台灣的文化氣息比香港濃厚得多，對本土文化的掌握比較好，人們也對這些議題更有共鳴，電影人有心機也有能力將日台殖民歷史和鄉土保育加入一齣商業電影之中，更重要的是，這些東西都有市場，能賣座，老中青都能接受，也能拿下好幾個電影獎項。

香港的情況呢? 賣座電影多半是特技片，『無間道』賣座得很，卻沒有什麼深度，『色戒』算是有歷史感但卻不是港產。在香港，殖民歷史不是在教科書出現，就是在路牌上，殖民風格的建築物不少，但當作電影的穿插場景卻少之又少，『玻璃之城』只會談情說愛，另外我想到的只有『伊莎貝拉』- 但那是以澳門作背影。至於本土文化嘛，香港倒多的是，按道理，一個地方的文化厚度應該跟人口成正比，不同階層和不同社區群應該會令本土文化多樣化，信手拈來有公屋歷史、灣仔春園、喜帖街一帶、油麻地廟街等等，文字記錄不少，電影不多但偶有佳作，例如『麥兜』，近期的有『每當變幻時』和『文雀』(後者可惜叫好不叫坐，而且有點眼高手低)，民間活動也愈來愈多，可惜，這統統都沒有市場，別說年青的沒興趣，中年的老年的也光說(罵)不做，保育團體吃力不討好。至於鄉土文化，元朗多的是，但見到的是發展商與鄉紳的『交易文化』，偉大的自由市場。

不得不羨慕台灣，誠品書店就是活生生的文化市場，偌大的店子坐著看書的比站著多，一看個多小時，香港三聯、商務沒有幾張坐椅，就當空間不足好了，但看看最受歡迎的書種，不是財經就是流行文化類，歷史文化書籍束之高閣，在高雄誠品，我一進場就在當眼處就找到了Amartya Sen (政治經濟學家) 的『The Argumentative Indian』中譯本，在香港，恐怕是放在店子某個冷清角落吧，再想想書展，更哀，分明是精品展。不久前的高雄自由行，令我印象深刻的是那個前清大英領事館，有點像港大Main building的一楝紅磗維多利亞式建築，小小的本來沒什麼了不起，但加上了市政府的刻意經營和宣傳，和以彷英式下午茶作賣點的cafe，使得這個非英國殖民城市擁有如此一個旅遊景點，而真正的前殖民城市香港，古老建築被套上『活化』手段後不知會變成什麼四不像，聽說中區警署交由私人發展商『活化』後會在上面加幾層不知什麼東西，大埔舊北區理民府沒幾個人知道是什麼，大家熟識的皇后碼頭和天星鐘樓事件，民意反應其實好壞參半，團體和政府都理據不足，而我也始終不認為香港人對這些東西有多關心，本土文化保育仍是只有一小撮人熱衷。

退而求其次，保育文化最原始方法是用文字，香港人的文字功力有限得很，台灣人的中文讉詞用字功夫實在叫我們汗顏，感情表達到位也不失中文含蓄傳統，有意思有意境，很慶幸港大有心邀請到龍應台作長期註校作家，拜託同學們別把大學當作職業訓練所，好歹叨點文化氣息。不過，很多坊間的上樓書店特別是中大的『二樓書店』的這幾年間都黯然結業，實在叫人對以文字傳承文化不敢存厚望。

香港的『中環價值』根深柢固，網上的升學Q&A十居其九有關財金會計科，身邊很多人沒頭沒腦的向四仔主義埋堆，然後到了而立之年才問為什麼，『我點解揀BBA? 易搵工囉』 『隻股票又跌咗喇』 『去外國流浪? 痴咗線咩』 『環保留返比政府同環保團體啦』 『哲學? 係咪李天問果D呀? 定係咩孔孟儒家』 『民主咪一人一票囉，仲有咩呀?』 『鄉土文化咁老土!』 blablabla……『麥兜』電影最經典的一幕係麥兜同阿媽去茶餐廳食飯，問伙計有乜食，個伙計話有午餐快餐晚餐樣樣都有，到落單時係話午餐同快餐一樣，快餐又同晚餐一樣，再唔係就話呢樣無果樣無，我的解讀是，香港標榜多元化城市，但其實文化上單調得很，色彩繽紛的只有霓虹燈和廣告，文化厚度薄如紙 – 寫上『多元化』的一張單色紙。

所以，環保/保育團體喊個聲嘶力竭也是徒勞，有時發展與保育不一定相容，一個金融海嘯肯定使不少人的國際公民意識少了半截 (如有的話)。無數研究證明，單向市民灌輸環保意識或資訊是沒有多大實際作用，但環保團體以至大學教授仍是樂此不疲 – 或許是別無化法。概括來說，決定人類環境行為的是社會資本 social capital, social trust和價值觀，危機資訊根本不是主要推動力，有時甚至使人懷疑其真確性。想想如果要保育恆春半島(海角拍攝場地)，拍一部『海角七號』還是類似『Inconvenient Truth』的紀錄電影有效?

香港人拍得出『海角七號』，可能，但票房可不敢保證，可能甚至沒有人敢投資，能夠揉合音樂、人倫、民俗歷史、鄉土文化、自然風貌，再以浪漫愛情喜劇包裝的電影不只是導演和演員的功力，也考驗電影對象的包容力和視野。香港人看畢此片後，是不是該想想自己與本土社區以至國際社會的聯繫是什麼模樣 – 如果還找到的話?

港校內地博士為生計轉

Another article about phds' future. My prospect...?

港校內地博士為生計轉系[2008-11-10]
http://paper.wenweipo.com/2008/11/10/ED0811100001.htm

香港院校每年錄取大量內地尖子生入讀研究院課程，開展各類科學研究。但香港「重商輕理」的社會現實，造成創新科技產業的就業需求冷淡，令這些高學歷人才深感畢業後無著落，為求生計甚至要選擇轉系或讀學歷較低的課程。有學者批評指，許多學生畢業後找不到出路只能離港，變相使港校浪費培養人才的資源。　■本報記者 覃卓嘉、吳玫　科技大學內地生張恆(化名)家在內地北方農村，他去年獲科大錄取入讀博士課程，且每月可得到1.2萬元的獎學金。拿到錄取信時他十分興奮，認為來港深造令他離科學夢更近一步，「我最希望尋找到一種有效方法，解救癌症病人！」商業氣氛濃 尖子迷失方向　可是來港僅半年，張恆的研究夢想卻破滅了。他眼見不少師兄師姐都很難在本地找到工作，有同學告訴他，「香港是個商業社會，博士畢業後的就業市場小得可憐，找不到工作就只能變成一個擁有高學歷的乞丐！」前輩的就業困境讓張恆如熱鍋上的螞蟻，即使每日仍需埋頭於實驗室的工作，但他已經開始擔心畢業後的出路。希望留在香港工作的張恆，為了日後生計開始考慮轉讀其他課程，「可能是香港商業氣氛太濃厚，我現在對科研已經沒有了衝勁，更沒有了憧憬！」　恰巧此時，科大發生博士生葛煒煒自殺事件，有指他是因為學業和就業壓力而選擇輕生。這件事令張恆下定決心，申請從博士課程轉至同系的哲學碩士課程(Mphil)，「希望快點畢業，更易找到工作！」張恆坦承，因為擔心家人不理解自己的選擇，至今不敢讓父母知道。原本計劃畢業後投身金融業的張恆，近期目睹金融海嘯下的蕭條，不禁苦笑稱需要再尋找就業目標，「我長期呆在實驗室，與外面的世界脫節太久，現在只能想隨便找份臨時工作，再慢慢發覺其他機會。」人才流失 學者責浪費資源　今年初畢業於科大計算機系、獲博士學位的Henry，目前在理工大學從事博士後研究。他坦言喜歡香港溫暖的氣候和公平公正的社會環境，但亦很難找到適合的工作，令他可以紮根香港，「香港院校從內地招收了許多尖子生，卻沒有相應的機構為他們提供畢業後的發展機會！」Henry希望特區政府可支持創辦一些高新技術研究所，既為院校理工科高學歷人才提供就業機會，亦能為本港及內地的企業提供產業更新技術，「即使紐約這種同樣以金融為主的城市，也有很多研發機構。」　科大化學系教授李曉原透露，的確有學生迫於就業壓力，要求由從事基礎研究的博士項目轉至碩士課程。他提到，不少優秀學生難在香港找到出路，最後回內地任職或赴海外繼續進修，「這樣變相形成港校花人力物力培養出來的人才，輕易流失到其他地方，讓人痛心！」　中原人力資源顧問有限公司董事總經理周綺萍表示，理工科研究生在港就業範圍極小，例如生化及醫藥業界提供的就業機會每年僅兩、三個，而內地生因語言、文化背景的差異，在與本地生競爭入職時往往處於劣勢。她指，博士畢業生除非選擇留校，否則僱主會擔心博士要求較其他求職者多而有所顧慮，「高學歷將成為他們的另一座絆腳石！」

讀PhD會致命? (轉載)

研究生涯﹕讀PhD會致命？(明報)11月9日 星期日 05:05

【明報專訊】有日看見老鬼在職員餐廳一角與一「白頭佬」竊竊私語。良久過後，白頭佬一臉迷茫地離去。原來此白頭佬是老鬼行家，任教於另一所大學。白頭佬屬於未有博士銜的老一輩，入職時大學仍然是「學院」，博士學歷並非必須，但升格大學後，開始要這批無證教師在數年內「追加」博士學位，否則不獲續約。老鬼其實自己也是非博士的高危一族，我其實不明白為何那麼多朋友向他求教。「你咁醒教人，為何自己不讀一個？」我問。「我愛惜生命！你看這白頭佬，幾年前還精神飽滿，頭髮頂多算半白，現在差不多全白了，終日憂心忡忡，慘不忍睹，我最近才幫他的論文寫了兩章……」「嘩！你當『槍手』！？」我嘩然道。「沒辦法，30多年的朋友，也不想見他精神崩潰。」「讀博士的壓力真的很大嗎？」「讀博士的人通常都覺得自己好掂，開始時遇到困難都會逞强，不願找人幫忙，但愈讀發覺問題愈多……幾年前有一個同事念博士已有七年，我看過他的論文，禮貌勸說不如以較低的碩士銜頭畢業算罷。他頹喪搖頭，原來他已經有四個碩士。後來他還是過不了關，黯然離開香港學術界。」「好慘烈！」「這已不算最差勁。曾經有個大學講師，念了十幾年博士不果，信心崩潰，系主任仁厚，見他既無學位又無著作，勸他參加研討會，發表些文章湊數，於是他去了在北京參加學術會議，期間他突然失踪，香港傳媒還一度以為北京借機逮捕民運人士，後來才知道他因為涉嫌嫖妓給公安扣留問話，這宗『疑似叫雞事件』雖然是當事人的責任，但間接亦跟念博士有關。」「因為壓力太大了？」我實在難以置信。「這算小兒科。幾年前SARS，我認識兩個30來歲的年輕人，一個博士畢業後找不到工作，另一個正在讀博士的則受經濟和婚姻困擾，就一個月內，兩人都跳樓自殺了。自此以後，我就跟自己說，讀PhD讀到沒命，犯不着呢。」老鬼真的多鬼故。言救生
http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/081108/4/952d.html

My second publication

My second publication now available!
Achieving Environmental Goals in a Competitive Electricity Market?: Post-Colonial Hong Kong, Public Choice and the Role of Government
Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 7, December 2008 , pp. 959-978(20)

However, I cannot download one from the website because it is a Grade C journal that few libraries have subscribed to.

As I think this article is not well written (so it is submitted to a Grade C journal), I am not interested to read it again. But you know in this academic world, you need to show people your 'productivity' which is measured mainly by number of publications you have (quality is also important, yet). Sigh.

Active academic life

在香港唸PHD同在澳洲或者其他西方國家讀有什麼分別? 經過這一個月體驗之後我覺得最大分別是，跟supervisor和fellow students or colleagues之間的互動。在香港，在我跟prof Jim唸Mphil嘅日子，我差不多每日都在自己做自己的東西，有事就找老闆，無事就一個人找資料，雖然固定地跟老闆見面，但過程都是一對一，不會有其他students or colleagues一齊分享，更加不會有一些半formal的sharing OR meeting。但在這裡，我跟Clive, Anthony還有Ella每隔個禮拜都會有meeting，談談過去果兩個禮拜做了些什麼，有什麼得著有什麼問題，大家可以知道對方在想在做什麼之外，亦都可以給自己一個機會去present自己的ideas，好像今日我們就在OFFICE外小草地旁邊的cafe聊了一個小時，雖然我講的不多，但我也enjoy 而且appreciate有這樣機會，跟一些思想差不多的人交流。而我們大概每個月左右就會有一次比較causal 嘅socializing event – 去bar 食晚飯聊天，什麼都聊也會說一些學術的東西，目的是讓大家更close而且relax一下。香港就比較少這樣的機會了，別說跟老闆，就算同學間都不會很close (那些大陸學生就更不sociable)，師生之間的討論闊度有限，交流亦流於表面，比較被動，這對學生來說，無論是個人成長或者學術發展都有一定阻礙

Environmental behaviour

Read an insightful article wriiten by Paul Stern, a renowned environmental psychologist. It is about the what factors determine intended environmental behaviours. Here I summarize the key points.

First, there are four (or three) main types of environmental behaviours:
1. Environmental activism, e.g. active involvement in environmental organizations and demonstrations;

2. Public-sphere non-activism -
(a), Environmental citizenship, e.g. petitioning on environmental issues, joining environmental organizations;
(b), Policy support or acceptance, stated approval of environmental regulations, willingness to pay higher taxes for environmental protection

3. Private-sphere environmentalism, e.g. purchase of environmentally friendly products, green comsumerism.

Four types of causal variables influencing these behaviours are proposed:
1. Attitudinal, e.g. general and specific environmental beliefs, personal norms, perceived costs and benefits of the action

2. Personal capabilities, e.g. social status, income, specific skills

3. Contextual factors, e.g. laws and regulations, social norms and expectations, supporting policies

4. Habit and routine


The author notes that different causal variables appear to work different ways in influencing behaviours. For costly, complex and difficult environmental decisions (e.g. reducing automobile use in suburb), personal capabilities and contextual factors are more important. For those 'easy' behaviours (e.g. reducing the use of papers), attitudinal factors play major role.


Two points to note.
Firstly, the bases of private- and public-sphere environmental behaviours are different. To me, it means that my WTP (willingness-to-pay) for organic foods runs in a different mental track from paying an ecotax to support organic farming - one is about personal consumption while the other a social committment. (so, some people may say they support a government environmental policy but in fact do not personally behave green. This reflects there are different combinations of causal factors in action).
Secondly, contextual factors have to be considered (many previous studies have ignored). These involve broader social, economic and political contexts surrounding specific environmental issues. As far as climate change is concerned, personal attitudinal factors are but one of the determinants of people's intended contributions, which may also be affected by existing policy constraints and attitude, perceived reliability of scientific reports, and social trust.

Extended reading: Paul C. Stern (2000), Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior, Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), pp. 407-424

Free market and Nobel Prize

It's time to change.


「金融海嘯勢顛覆諾獎評選」 經濟災難元兇 矛頭直指佛利民
(明報)10月6日 星期一 05:05

【明報專訊】一年一度的諾貝爾獎 將於今天開始公布。當前金融海嘯了令全球經濟陷危，也令諾貝爾經濟學獎過去長期褒揚自由主義經濟學派的角色受質疑。不少評論都將金融海嘯歸咎於佛利民和「芝加哥學派」等鼓吹的美式自由主義經濟模式，2001年諾貝爾經濟學獎得主施蒂格利茨近日接受法新社訪問，便指出諾獎評審過去厚愛芝加哥學派，但今次金融海嘯將令諾貝爾經濟學獎的取向徹底改變。

在2001年贏得諾貝爾經濟學獎的哥倫比亞大學教授施蒂格利茨（Joseph Stiglitz）向法新社說﹕「我想當前的危機，正為經濟學帶來一場根本性的哲學理念轉變。我們看到不受管束的市場可以是一場災難。」

自1969年創立以來，諾貝爾經濟學獎曾頒給各個不同範疇從事研究的經濟學家，除宏觀及微觀經濟學外，還有部分得獎研究是涉及政治學以至心理學，但經濟學獎評審委員會一直都被批評太厚愛「新古典經濟學」。「新古典經濟學」鼓吹自由主義市場、主張放寬管制（deregulation），向獲華府建制推崇，成為當今主宰世界經濟的思想主流。

奪獎常客「芝加哥學派」恐失勢

但愈來愈多人指出，促成今時今日經濟災難的，正正是佛利民（Milton Friedman）這些鼓吹自由主義市場的經濟學獎得主的理論。佛利民於1976年獲得諾獎，他跟「芝加哥學派」（Chicago School）的經濟理念，掀起了一場右派經濟政策革命，不僅催生了列根和戴卓爾的經濟革命，連拉丁美洲、東歐和亞洲，都在不同階段或自願或被迫地了採納其主張。

批評者指出，這些自由派經濟學家堅信私人企業的決策最有效率、市場永遠是理性、政府不應插手干預及規管，這樣經濟就能以最佳狀態運作，但這些經濟學理論顯然要為今天的金融災難所負責。曾狠批世銀政策、導致2000年離任的世銀前首席經濟師施蒂格利茨說﹕「最近發生的連串事件，無疑提供了關鍵的實證，印證讓市場自行運作，情况並非那麼好。」

近半經濟學獎得主與芝大有關

在58位贏得諾貝爾獎的經濟學家中，有40位（即69%）是美國 人，當中來自芝加哥大學的「芝加哥學派」，得獎者特別多，至少有25位經濟學獎得主都跟芝大有關係。施氏說﹕「曾幾何時大家都流傳着這個笑話，就是說芝加哥和斯德哥爾摩之間有一列快車直達。」諾貝爾經濟學獎，是在瑞典 首都斯德哥爾摩頒發的。

隨着各國都為對抗金融海嘯而手忙腳亂，施氏和一些經濟學家都相信，未來經濟獎評審將不會再繼續將焦點放在放任自由主義上。經濟學家舍霍盧姆說﹕「這次的金融危機可令市場全面倒退……我不能相信這不會影響諾貝爾獎。」

學者料轉投混沌理論宏觀經濟學

瑞典SEB銀行首席分析師弗里森亦說﹕「現時仍有一些這範疇（新古典自由主義經濟學）的有趣研究，但無可避免地（人們會對這套學說）出現反彈……我認為這會令一些新研究範疇也有機會問鼎。」

弗里森指出，人們將對宏觀經濟學上穩定市場的部分重燃興趣，並更專注於混沌理論，以及像有關「信貸市場和社會經濟的互動關係」等的研究。施蒂格利茨亦說，他預期諾獎會走出以往的舊路，轉向生態經濟學等新領域。

法新社

Preliminary ideas about my PhD project

Some ideas about my PhD project, very preliminary.

'Trust, responsbility, and value: deliberation on global warming'

The sense of trust refers to trust in institutions, experts and the rest of the public, while responsbility is about how the costs and precautionary works are attributed, i.e. to the state, to private companies, or to NGOs?

Do these influence individiuals' environmental behaviours? especially in articulating a value for nature?

These all involve justice, both distributional and procedural justice.
Are these valid dimensions of environmental value?

And we can make use of focus group to further investigate how they interact and transform in a deliberation process.

So the ultimate questions are: does justice count? does 'economic' value exist?

Research design may include a paper survey and a focus group. If my supervisor can give me extra funding (it will take quite a lot time and $$), we can do a cultural comparative study, in China and Australia. If China is not feasible, Taiwan is a second choice.

My fifth day in Australia

This is my fifth day in Australia. The place and people here are very different from Hong Kong. There are something I see or feel during these days.

- Australia is really a beautiful place. I ride or walk to CSIRO office for several times. The environment around makes me comfortable and relaxed.

- the people are nice. Like, many people would say 'thank you' when getting off the bus, which is uncommon in Hong Kong. Yet some Aussie can be regarded as lazy by Hong Kong standard, and the customer service here is just ok.

- Canberra is quiet place, or boring place if you like. Not much entertainment here, shops close at night. You can't find the equivalent of Mong Kok here. It is kind of cultural shock for Hong Kong people like me.

- bike is so common here. They have specific lane for bikes on highways. Riding is good for health and for environment. I think there will be more cyclists as the oil price keeps rising.

21 September 2008

Tonight I will move to Australia for PhD study.
What's next?

Economic rationality?

To those who believed in economic assumptions and Form 5/7 economics textbook theories. Let's listen to psychologists.


「市場理性」經濟假設遭質疑
(明報)9月20日 星期六 05:10
【明報專訊】經濟學理論的基本假設之一是，投資者基於理性而作出投資行為。但華爾街金融海嘯引發的全球股災，卻令「市場理性」的假設受到挑戰和質疑。有學者便認為，資產泡沫的形成和爆破，一大驅動力就是投資者的非理性，諸如羊群心理甚至狂躁荷爾蒙等因素。

狂躁荷爾蒙「放大」市場波幅

「經濟學理論常認為，市場價格的形成，取決於人們的理性及信息完全。」英國 心理學家塔克特說，「這是完全錯誤的，操作市場的是人，而基於人意識的決定通常是膚淺的。」行為學專家安德烈森直指，部分非理性投資行為是羊群心態所致：一開始，人們不敢輕易入市，但看到鄰居或同事買股票賺到錢，他們也開始小心入市，並從不斷上漲的股價而獲得信心。伴隨收益增多，他們愈加得意忘形；當市場泡沫開始破裂時，投資者仍覺得無所謂，直到股價大瀉，沽盤增多，他們就開始恐慌性拋售。安德烈森說：「受他人影響，許多人開始短期投機，只看股票表面價格，忽視內在價值。」

劍橋 大學行為學專家科茨更認為，市場波動幅度被狂躁荷爾蒙放大。科茨曾在高盛和德銀工作，2000年科網股熱潮時，他驚見男交易員表現出「典型症狀的躁狂症」，即認為自己無所不能、想法狂熱和減少睡眠。科茨於是展開研究，從倫敦 證交所隨機選了17名男交易員，每天兩次提取他們的唾液樣本，分析兩種荷爾蒙的變化。一種是與男性侵略行為和性行為有關的睾丸素，另一種是皮質醇，即會指示身體如何應付危急環境（選擇戰鬥下去或走為上着）的反應，結果發現當交易員賺錢時，睾丸素就會上升，但損手或市場波動時，皮質醇會急劇增加。不少針對動物的研究已顯示，長遠來說，荷爾蒙偏高會損害判斷力，並激發冒險行為。

就連熟諳金融市場規則的投行高層也未必理性。去年，塔克特曾訪查全球數十位投行基金經理，發現他們在面對必須交出成績的巨大壓力下，常傾向無視風險因素，並不斷說服自己正掌握着別人並不知曉的關鍵。塔克特說：「儘管很多人說知道牛市不可能永遠持續下去，他們還是繼續冒險。」

法新社

一個台灣人移居澳洲後的感想

Is Australia as good as I expect? maybe I can tell one year later. Remind me to give a reply to this post.



轉貼一個台灣人移居澳洲後的感想
http://www.helloanz.org/index.php?showtopic=16233

來到澳洲生活也有近五年，如果從實際開始生根算起，也將近三年的時間，這期間碰到許許多多台灣人或者台灣學生問著同樣的問題：台灣與澳洲哪個地方比較好？其實這問題並沒有答案，因為各個地方都有他的優缺點，絕對沒有一個地方是完美的，也絕對沒有一個地方是毫無優點，唯一可以提供的答案，只有是不是適合自己而已。


一般人來到澳洲往往是以觀光客的角色駐足欣賞澳洲，自然在旅行的角度下，美好的一面自然佔去大部分時間，也因此很容易讓來澳洲旅遊的觀光客有著完美澳洲的錯誤認知。就算今天有人以不同身分例如：打工度假、國際學生的簽證來澳洲居住，縱使有長達一年的時間，也將因為身分的不同，接觸環境的不同，對澳洲產生不同的偏頗概念。在這各式各樣情況背景下所產生的結論，自然也就缺乏其全面性的公正，澳洲真的是美好的嗎？

在台灣，中文是我們的母語，環境是我們從小到大接觸的，思考邏輯是從小學校建立的，自然而然我們可以看到台灣最細微的角落、翻查城市邊緣的黑暗，所以我們的眼中，台灣絕對有著他的黑暗面，在澳洲，英文是我們的第二語言，週遭環境把我們當成是陌生過客，對城市我們能看到的多是表面絢爛的外衣，在文化、思考邏輯上有著截然不同的路線，也因此接受到的訊息往往是重要以及明顯的，細微的角落通常只能選擇任其散落，這樣的情況下，澳洲自然會給人美好的感覺，畢竟澳洲有著寬廣的土地，豐富的資源，健全的社會制度，悠閒自由的生活態度，而這些，剛好都是忙碌的台灣人，在被工作壓榨之餘心中夢想的天堂。

澳洲的這些生活模式看似美好，問題是當一個台灣人或者是外來移入者，是否就真的可以享受這樣的生活？澳洲的薪資水準雖然高，但是物價也相對的高，澳洲人也如同台灣人一樣必須背負二三十年的貸款來購買他自己的第一棟房子，澳洲的大學畢業生也如同台灣一樣，必須接受一個可能還無法支應生活的年薪，多少的澳洲人無法擁有一個全職的工作，必須兼職二到三個工作才能維持生活，而澳洲健全的社會福利背後，卻是建立在一個高所得稅的基礎上，而這些情況對一個外來移入者，更是嚴酷以及艱辛。首先必須要改變自己的邏輯思考，藉此才能接觸澳洲當地的文化，進而讓食衣住行進入軌道，再來是重新建立人際關係網路，否則只是孤獨，我想這生活也難以長久，而最後也是最難的就是找到方式讓自己能夠生存下去，然後才有資格討論別人眼中美好的生活。

對一個台灣長大的人來說，澳洲生活可以說是一個截然不同的經驗，雖然不用把工作或者公司當作家而無止盡的加班，但是相對也等於晚上五點之後很多城市當中的生活機能也隨停頓。當享受著優閒的生活態度，也代表著許多事情在申請以及處理的過程上也是同樣的慵懶。數著比台灣高上許多的薪水時，也同樣表示自己在生活上的支出，無形中也支付著別人高人一等的年薪，在享受著澳洲政府提供的完善公共設施已及社會福利時，這也只是反映著可以高達47.5% 的所得稅支付，當這些組合起來，澳洲真的仍然美好？當有得必有失的前提下，適合反而成為重要的條件，不同的生活模式自然需要不同的心態去面對，而自己的心是不是符合這樣的環境，這才是澳洲與台灣最主要的差異。

從小到大認識的朋友、同學、親戚，是不是願意割捨，然後重新耗費五年到十年的時間重新建立，原本夜夜笙歌的KTV 生活是不是能夠轉變成清晨起床的運動，每天習慣上館子的三餐是不是準備通通改在自家廚房中由自己親手動手，本來習慣到公園賞花漫步，是不是準備由自己親自栽種、除草、割草維持，原本習慣每天掛在嘴邊的台灣國語，是不是能轉換成澳洲口音的ABCD，原本街頭巷尾就有的早餐店變成要到華人聚集的區域才能看到，以上這些都只是來到澳洲後必須改變的非常一小部份，其實只要想想平日生活流程中的點點滴滴，通通都要重新建立以及適應，而自己是不是有辦法適應這樣的轉變以及過程，我想能不能融入澳洲生活，澳洲會不會是自己的天堂，答案也就明顯可見了。

知道許多人因為不適應而在辛苦多年後回台灣去，也知道許多人嚮往著這新生活而極力追求著，其實人在哪個國度都是相同的，想要好生活，就先要能生存下來，而這生存的過程，辛苦程度我想沒有任何一個地方是輕鬆的吧。

蔡子強﹕香港中產只講「着數」﹖

值得轉載的一篇文章，從文章看出作者是一個有良心、理智的香港人 (相比起那個所謂的香港良心Mrs. Anson Chan有過之而無不及)。
(註: 作者跟我一樣都係undergrad係中大讀BBA, 後來先轉做政策研究及評論)


蔡子強﹕香港中產只講「着數」﹖
(明報)7月24日 星期四 05:10
【明報專訊】最近，聽到剛赴美國 進修的一位朋友，所親身經歷的一個小故事。他說有天到理髮店理髮，剛巧理髮師也是移民到來的港人，便閒聊起上來，講到香港的種種熱鬧精彩時，朋友便好奇問對方，為何不回流香港，怎料對方卻說：「算了，我恐怕自己再也不能適應香港。」

理髮師舉例說，在美國，如果覺得顧客不太適合電髮，他會坦白告知，沒有人會埋怨你為舖頭「倒米」；相反，在香港，卻多半會被人罵作「有病」、故作清高。再舉個例，他也是讀書人，在美國，帶本書回理髮店看，是一件自然不過的事，沒有人會報以怪異目光；相反，在香港，卻多半會被看作「珍禽異獸」，被人視作「扮嘢」。

簡單來說，在香港，有原則、有價值、有堅持，會被人視作異類；相反，在彼岸，那才是一個較尊重「values」，較有「heart」的地方。所以，這位理髮師說，他都是選擇不回香港，他覺得自己在彼岸會生活得心安理得一點。

上周三，政府頒布了一系列在高通脹下，政府的紓解民困措施，不料，旋即被部分人士批評為偏重、討好基層，但卻忽略中產，開學津貼、綜援 、生果金、公屋租金等，統統無份，只有電費及外傭稅的寬減項目，才稍為惠及，中產再一次被犧牲。另有外傭僱主及中產人士，擬組織遊行，抗議政府漠視中產階級需要云云。

通脹哪個階層影響最大﹖

「中產階級稅就交得最多，但福利就攞得最少」，這是近年輿論中建構出來其中一個最有深遠影響的論述。其中一個最為推波助瀾的，就是愈來愈變得像campaign media的本地傳媒，每次政府「派糖」政策出台，傳媒都最愛攫取一些最具煽風點火效果的公眾sound bites，又或者起一些煽情的報章標題，例如中產「被開刀」，甚至「任人劏」這類語不驚人死不休的字眼。反而對於政策的來龍去脈，政策的合理性，卻着墨和探討甚少。今次一個典型例子便是外傭稅。

隨着政府寬免外傭稅兩年，向中產示好，除了因政策考慮不周而惹來不滿之外，也帶來應否還原回幾年前的情况，取消外傭稅的爭論，而且聲浪愈來愈兇，有報章甚至以頭版加以炒作。但大家卻忘記了，當年在徵收400元外傭稅時，也同時降低了外傭的最低工資400元，所以對於很多住戶來說，外傭稅變相是由外傭支付的。所以今次提出要還原、撤銷外傭稅時，又有幾多人為外傭說句公道話，建議同時還原、提高回外傭的最低工資呢﹖大家恍如失憶，不記得事件中外傭同時是stakeholders（持份者）。

於是，大家只會為自己那一份吵吵鬧鬧，卻不會把眼界擴展至其他人，看看整體上的合理性，看看什麼為之「公道」。

平心而論，在新一輪通脹威脅下，對草根的影響要算最大，因為現時通脹勢頭最猛的，要算是油價和糧食價格。油價太貴，中產可減少使用私家車，多用公共交通公具；但食物如罐頭、麵包、肉價、米價等飈升，可壓縮的空間則不大。大家都明白，菜籃子是草根生活開支的主要部分，對中產則不然。我們這類中產，每次去街市或超市買菜，最多感到有些「肉赤」，但仍未至於消費不起，但設身處地去想，即食麵一包由兩元升至四元；豆腐一磚由一元多升至三元多；罐頭由每罐幾元升至十多元；米價勁升了一倍 …… 一個月入幾千元的草根家庭，這就是「生活中難以承受之重」。再加上，經濟雖然復蘇，雖然中產很多都有人工加，但在全球化衝擊下，很多基層勞工面臨deskilling、工種外移、職位流失等的衝擊，薪水根本升不上去，令其情况更加雪上加霜。

在考慮稅收、公共資源的投放及配置時，如果每個人只考慮自己有無「着數」，自己那一份「夠唔夠大」，這樣只會把香港變成一個全無價值、全無人情味的民粹主義社會，這樣的一個社會將會十分脆弱和容易瓦解。

因此，我們考慮的，應該是更高的一些原則，例如社會價值，以及政策的理性（rationality）等。例如九七金融風暴時，因為利益飈升但樓價卻狂跌，政府推出紓解民困措施，選擇向中產傾斜，例如退稅、增設供樓免稅額等，便十分合理；相反，若要紓解通脹壓力，明白到通脹的勢頭在菜籃子最猛，草根在經濟復蘇中受惠最少，多照顧基層，這也是應有之義。

我相信這個世界是要講道理的，不能只講對自己有無「着數」，自己那一份「夠唔夠大」。在考慮公共政策，如紓解民困措施時，亦當如此。

對香港心存感恩

我自己出身低下階層家庭，父親是個船塢工人，一家三兄弟，如果沒有政府和社會的資助，根本無可能負擔得起讀大學，亦因而無可能通過教育改變命運，實現階級流動。我想這也是香港三四十歲中生代的普遍共同經驗。所以我一直對香港這塊土地，心存感恩。

如果當年的納稅人，也斤斤計較，是否「稅就有份交，福利就無份」，稅款是否流向與己不相干的低下階層之口袋，那麼我相信香港整整一個世代的人，將無法出現階級攀升和集體生活改善，經濟奇蹟和起飛可能也無從談起。

如果有多到世界各地遊歷、見識的朋友，相信不難感覺到，香港的治安、公共秩序、城市管理等，都是世界首屈一指的，身邊不少朋友也認定，香港是全球華人社會中，一個算是可以讓我們安身立命的好地方。只要你看看其他亞洲國家如印尼 及菲律賓 ，便知道幸福並不是必然。如果大家都不認為自己的社會是公義和合理，反而充斥着不忿、嫉妒，甚至是仇恨，一個社會是不可能安定與和諧的。建立一個公義的社會，便是稅款、公共資源投放及配置的其中一個主題，最終每個階層都能受惠，包括中產。

或許這番說話很刺耳，但我知道，自己不會出來參選，也沒有興趣做官，有些說話如果連我都不說，可能就更加沒有幾個人會說。所以還是冒着得罪很多人的危險，坦然道出——為了我所鍾愛和感恩的香港。

作者是中文大學政治與行政學系高級導師

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/article/080723/4/7bsb.html

Monthly quote

quoted from Mark Sagoff's book (The Economy of the Earth, 2nd ed., 2008)

"as societies rise above the poverty level, goods are valued more for their social or cultural meaning than for their use; this meaning, moreover, is largely determined by their distribution" (p.76)

Distribution here means inter- and intra-generational equity. It also refers to the changees in status or identity after a redistribution of the good, like ownership of a rare product e.g. 'I'm not a plastic bag!'. So, one is altruistic and the other is self-interest, but both of them may be different from the 'utility' as economists defined. It is more likely related to the act itself, rather than the utility gains from the act. That's means that when societies pass through a certain threshold, the meanings of value change, and the old ways of interpretation fail.

Maths-based environmental economics

This is a reply to someone in discussion forum who insisted that mathematics is very important if not central to economics and social science in general. I don't agree especially on the latter. Their academic mindsets are just too closed to be realistic. They forget the nature and purpose of economics as a social science, and just do maths for maths.

Link: http://www11.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=7587344&extra=page%3D1&page=4

Env econ has a purpose of informing policy. Researchers commonly make use of many maths modelling and technical appraoches, like a 'must' in every publication. However, some people, including trained economists, considered this as source of problems rather than an advantage now (it's 'common' but flawed). They criticized the highly focused appraoch with maths has 'reduces the env problems to narrow technical issues and deliberately excludes a range of potential options and an interdisciplinary approch'.
For example, maths-based econ can hardly measure cultural-ethical value as it is non-marketed, slippery & not quite consistent to utilitartian theory. When assessing the value of fengshui forest 風水林, resource economists tend to look at productivity only, like the market value of timber and land which are measurable and more reliable (so, 'economically justifiable') and can be well fitted into maths-based techniques like CBA (cost-benefit analysis). However, this simply bypass those values (sort of cultural, 'religious' dimensions, like so called 龍脈, 風水山墳) that the local villages do care. Applying this econ etimate to project evaluation without taking such considerations may simply create conflict and may therefore be rejected by locals, green groups, and sometimes the government themselves. The equation looks good, but the number or symbol is narrowly defined given the nature of the issue.

Likewise, someone in World bank said it is economically justified to transfer all electronic waste to Africa. I suppose he can a make maths equation to show that this is efficient from econ perspective. However, you can imagine the justice and politics issue here. It is difficult to incorporate those value dimensions and issues that cannot be easily be precisely transferred as numbers in maths model, as I hv mentioned in my first post. If we strictly follow maths rules and stick to maths model as a policy basis, the result will be excluding some real-world issues that are really important to policy makers. This is the problem with hedonic pricing method, contingent valuation method (for valuing non-marketed goods) commonly used in env econ. The same problem applies to the Arctic energy resource, justice, politics,...and the list goes on. It is difficult to put these into equations - will u ask someone how much is your ethical belief?. Excluding these dimensions is a tradition of econ, but is a problem as well when the social aspirations change thru these years. That's why a renowned env economist said that env econ did not pay a key policy role - the maths-based, technical approaches are just too unrealistic to apply in real policy implementation. This view is supported by quite a number of economists in the field.

The flaw of the math-based env econ is then clear. By sticking to the orthrodox model they ignore those outside their discipline. They use maths, they make policy advice, but they ignore the linkage with other perspectives which are imcompatible to their mindsets. But env issues are complex and trans-disciplinary, exclusion of non-economic perspectives is just a ignorance of realities. Finally, policy may be misguided. And this partly contributes to the development of ecological economics, which takes philosophy, politics, economics, sociology...etc into account. If the mainstream economics is perfect, we don't need this.

In fact, in social science, there is a trend (actually a tradition) to move across disciplinary boundary. Sociology involves politics, econ is related to psycho, journalism to sociology and politics; geography almost covers all. And finally, all these are built upon philosophy. So, social scientists have no excuse to escape from other disciplines' inputs.

Politics of climate change: who jump first?

Now US and probably some other developed economies have an excuse to keep away from bounding to economic-destructive emission targets. The politics of climate change is inseperable from distributional justice. It sounds reasonable for those developed economies to do more because they benefited more and also directly contributed to the problem in the past. However, does it mean that their less developed counterparts should do less? Comparably tough emission targets seem unfair to them, but getting it looser for these rapidly growing economies means bigger burden for the next generations. It's intra- vs. inter-generational justice underlying the whole discourse. And it is unresolvable by presenting scientific evidence about the likelihood of global warming which can only provide some informational assistance. Now people are looking for a new set of philosophy that can match people's wishes better than the old ones - I mean economic objectives, or those in the second level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

Yet, there is still such a difficult question: Who jump first?

*****************************************
富國與開發中國家將減碳寄望哥本哈根會議
(法新社) 07月 09日 星期三 06:20PM

（法新社北海道 洞爺湖九日電） 八大富有國家領袖在提出二零五零年前讓全球碳排放量至少減半的呼籲後，今天與中國和印度 等八個主要開發中國家領袖集會，希望說服他們參與這項減碳計劃，但是 雙方未能就如何落實減碳目標達成協議，只好將希望寄託在明年底於哥本哈根舉行的氣候變遷會議。
與會領袖在一項聲明中說：「氣候變遷是我們時代所面臨的最重大全球挑戰。我們的國家將繼續朝有建設性的方向攜手合作，以促使哥本哈根氣候變遷會議能夠成功。」
這些國家也利用這項在洞爺湖舉行的會議，討論如何控制不斷飆漲的石油和糧食價格。糧油價格飆漲已對全球經濟造成危害。
但是聲明中說，儘管主要開發中經濟體也會採取行動，僅有富國將落實他們自訂的減排目標。聲明中未提出任何減排數字。
聲明中也未納入日本 的一項提議。這項提議建議開發中國家同意以長期減排換取富國在較短期內採取行動。這是全球氣候變遷談判的主要癥結之一。
八大工業國昨天呼籲世界在二零五零年前讓碳排放量至少減半，並敦促開發中國家也能就此採取行動，但是開發中國家不接受這種沒有約束力的呼籲。
歐洲聯盟執行委員會主席巴洛索為高峰會的結果辯護。
他說：「從已開發國家與開發中國家對抗的角度看待此事，將是錯的離譜。當然，我們接受最大部份的責任，但是這是全球的挑戰，需要全球的回應。」
布希的國際經濟事務助理普賴斯，一如往常的稱讚今天這項由美國 發起的會議。
他表示：「各界普遍承認，讓這些國家齊聚一堂，嘗試找出共同點，是對聯合國 談判的巨大貢獻。」
巴西、中國、印度、墨西哥與南非這些被稱為「五國集團」的國家立刻予以回應，他們呼籲富國必須帶頭行動，因為從歷史的角度來看，富國應為氣候變遷負責。
南非環境部長范斯考維克告訴記者：「在美國改變主意之前，南非覺得五國集團很難向前推進。」
五國集團敦促富國以一九九零年的排放量為基準，在二零二零年前減排百分之二十五到百分之四十。但是八大工業國與布希立場一致，僅表示在京都議定書減排義務二零一二年屆滿時，八大工業國將會各自設定他們的中期減排目標。
世界自然基金會 的「全球氣候倡議」負責人卡斯滕森，指責富國企圖藉著指責開發中國家來拖延行動。
他表示：「有些富國迷失在策略中，似乎忘記了人類與自然的生存極度倚賴他們的領導。」

The limited scope of economics

A major problem of science is that scientists, including mainstream economists, limit their scope to their own disciplines only. They set up assumptions and build their arguments around these assumptions. They fail to see in the real world these assumptions are often not valid or the applicability is limited. Excluding ethical dimensions, for example, can make economic analysis 'manageable' and allows economists to claim themselves being 'scientific', and probably get a Nobel prize. But what happen if policymakers follow economists' advice without modifications? imposing social costs (Coarse theorem? hey, it fails when applying to intergenerational well-beings, and it would create political/ethical conflicts which is another types of social costs). So, when ecnomists say something as benefits > costs, they define the costs very narrowly. In the past it is ok, but now, the world has changed. Now people do not (or do not want to) define benefits and costs as a matter of utility only; collective well-beings are also included in their evaluation. Maximization of personal utility only is just an assumption that can no longer explain human behaviours very well. It is so obvious in psychology.

It also creates problems when economics is divorced from other disciplines like psychology. Human behaviours are not just determined by net utility gains, but right / wrong positions one holds. There is a range of motivations and the balance between utilitarian/deontological positions vary by individuals. Most importantly, it is misleading for economists to say everything is utility-based. It would be disastrous if policies are wholly based on such perspective. This is the way that our society operated in the past and present.

In fact, economics is not very objective indeed. For instance, as said, there are more human motivations than economists assume. Why do they make such assumptions? Some defend that non-utility motivations are just minority and can be ignored. Why should minority be ignored? When they do so, they are making a subjective judgement that it should be ignored. It 'should' be? No scientist is 100% objective. When economists and say social-conservationists evaluate the importance of an act, they simply weigh utilitarian and deontological positions to different degrees. They are doing the same thing but in different directions. Economics is just another school of philosophy, or as some ppl said, a kind of ethic (no 's'): utilitarian ethic. It is built upon an opposite position of deontology (utility vs. non-utility). It is not really a science from a theoretical point of view. (it does if being scientific means methodologically sophisticated, systemical & technical)

Mainstream economics is a closed intellectual system. Restricting to its own disciplinary boundary by claiming it as only a science is not really a strength but a source of those problems we face. Mainstream economists, it is time to open your eyes and listen to other disciplines. Pls do not take an incomplete understanding of reality as truth.

Chaning climate, changing value

Some researchers suggested that WTP reflects not only utility but also one's attitude. When paying for free trade coffee, which we know that it is no difference from those sold in supermarket, part of the WTP stems from our concerns to social injustice. It is an expression of our attitude towards the society. Likewise, boycotts against chained supermarket can be viewed as a kind of unwillingness to pay. It reflects our views about the role of state or the entreprise and probably a particular set of political beliefs (env problems as a result of free trade - liberalist ideology).

So, what is value? what is price? Obviously I pay for charitable flags not for utility reasons. Some defended that acqusition of moral satisfaction is also a kind of utility gains. Well...this is debetable. Can you use demand curve to predict moral satisfaction? Afriad not, evidence shows that it is scope-insensitive: price (in the form of stated WTP) sometimes remains unchanged, or change very little, as double amount of env goods are offered (so called 'embedding effect'). In fact, there are more evidence, like the refusal to make tradeoff (boycotts).

Some defended that those holding strong moral positions are minority. First, there are several categories of moral positions, some very strong (e.g. inviolable animal rights), some weak (change if livelihood is damaged). However, while the extreme one is minority, so does the strong utilitarian position (i.e. human first in any case). Most ppl are in the middle range - some moral, some utilitarian.

Economics grew in the age when ppl only concerned economic well-beings and therefore neoclassical theories worked well. In the past, human mainly looked at their own well-beings (who care black slaves?). Neoclassical theory was a perfect justification to the decision makers who strived to restore and expand their economies. But now, we add social and env justice in our agenda,we want to care about the socially deprived individuals and the future generations. In other words, we refuse to exclusively look at economic goals (except G.W. Bush and his followers). So the old schools simply fail to explain and inform the society which has changed a lot.
Modifying Clive's words: Climate is changing, preference is changing. Definition of value is also changing.

My political beliefs

Below is a map showing my political beliefs (thanks John for the link). I am a centrist! Well...I think it is quite true. I was an advocate of neoclassical economics before I meet ecological economics. That's why I used, and am still using, Malthus and Darwin as my nickname here and elsewhere. They belong to the same origin - so to speak, the 'market-led' tradition of Adam Smith (Darwin's natural selection is essentially a market mechanism).
But I am changing my mind, as the map shows, from capitalist to socialist. Note that I agree with the principle of democracy but cautiously. In some sense, free market mechanisms resembles liberal democracy as they both involve aggregation of individual preference: one thru market, another voting. It is not very conducive to collective and long-term well-beings like environmental sustainability without a process of deliberation.

You are a Social Liberal (61% permissive) and an... Economic Moderate (50% permissive) You are best described as a: Centrist Link: The Politics Test on OkCupid.com: Free Online Dating Also : The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Website: http://www.okcupid.com/politics

Explanation Of Results

We wanted to get beyond the two catch-alls of American politics, the Democratic and Republican parties, and see where people actually stand. Parties can bring together people with marginally differing values and make collective action easier. But party platforms can misrepresent their constituents, and blind loyalty to a party can convince individuals to harbor inconsistent views.

The goal of this test was to exactly classify your personal politics, without the traditional labels. We avoided the edgy party issues and focused on fundamental values. Your score is a measure of what you believe in, economically and socially.

Higher permissiveness, on either axis, indicates a "live and let live" philosophy. Of course, we're almost conditioned in America, "Land of the Free", to think positively of such a philosophy. But practically speaking, permissiviness (or its opposite, regulation) can create any number of outcomes:

For example, on the economic axis, a highly permissive system, like the American system of the early 1900s, might mean things like low taxes and increased scientific innovation. It might also result, as it did back then, in unrestricted child labor and millions of poor people with black lung.

At the other end of the economic spectrum, a highly regulated system might conserve the environment, establish national health care, and eliminate poverty. But as we've learned from the Soviet system, extreme regulation can also lead to stagnation, sameness, and unhappiness. If you liked the test, forward it. Thanks for participating.

My second paper accepted

My second paper got accepted by a journal, 'Energy and Environment'. It is a Grade C journal though (my first publication is in a Grade lower-A/upper-B). Anyway it is pretty encouraging. The title of the paper is 'Achieving environmental goals in a competitive electricity market?: post-colonial Hong Kong, public choice and the role of government' It is expected to be published by the end of this year (December, hopefully).

As I have another paper rejected by a prestigious journal, now my record is 2/3 - submitted 3 with 2 accepted. Not bad!

My supervisor recruits PhDs

One of my prospective PhD supervisors, Prof. J. Dry_zek, is going to recruit PhD students on the politics of climate change with specific focus on China. I copy his message here and pls let me know if you are interested:

"I have recently received a large grant to set up a Centre for Deliberative Global Governance that will among other things have research programs in the global governance of climate change and deliberative democracy in China. I will have available several PhD scholarships, and one postdoctoral fellowship. So if you know of anyone who might be interested in these topics, please let me know."

巨變

巨變

這也許是唯一一個能夠令我認真考慮應不應該如期去澳洲讀書的一個重大變故

PhD offer received!

Great, I've got the PhD offer from ANU! Now it's time to make a schedule.
I think I can finish the MPhil thesis by early September, and then spend two weeks with my GF as we will seperate for months (anyway I will come back 3-4 months later to do the oral defence for the MPhil). I will move to Australia in mid Sept, and register on 1 Oct (coz there is no PhD enrollment in Sept). Hopefully it is acceptable to Clive.

To an enthusiatic researcher there is nothing better than working with good school and good scholars in his field. And it is important that I don't have to pay the expensive international student fee and in fact being paid!

Australia, I'm coming!

四川大地震

地震發生的時候，身處34樓的我也感覺到微微震動，以為是自己頭暈，但細看之下身後那扇門竟也在緩緩晃動，雖然當時不確定是否地震，但那一刻也有想果如果這楝樓真的塌下，我肯定粉身碎骨

死了上萬人，看見電視裡溫總的真情流露，再看看那猶如廢墟的四川各縣，實在叫人動容

大自然的破壞力不但只強而且難以預測，科學家致力用各種科技來提升其預測能力，有些更認為科技是抗衡自然災害的最佳辦法，把人類的將來寄託在科技之上便可以安枕無憂。但是比較緬甸風災和四川地震的救援工作，同樣是不發達地區，為什麼有如此重大的地分別? 即使他們有同等的技術水平，也不一定有同樣的抗/救災能力。決定先救哪些地方/對人民說些什麼安撫說話/如何安置死傷者等問題其實對整件事情至關重要。

自然災害也就是一個道德和社會問題，科技(包括經濟分析)怎麼可以排除這些因素? 以前有些科學家及經濟學常說道德不是他們的考慮因素，這分明是脫離現實

奧運聖火

這是什麼香港? 什麼中國? 連和平示威的機會也沒有, 香港的自由去了哪裡?
大陸憤青, 我覺得你們很可悲, 你們可能連六四發生了什麼事也不知道? 毛澤東殺了多少人? 什麼是人權? 在了解一切前別盲目擁護, ....或許, 在內地根本不會有機會讓你了解個夠
中國的堀起和中國人的本性, 加上西方的敵對心態, 令身為中國人的我感到很不安
三十多年過去了, 為什麼還見不到思想上的進步??

*******************************************

陳巧文展藏獨旗被圍攻 遭警強行抬走 擬投訴濫用武力 (明報) 05月 03日 星期六 05:05AM

【明報專訊】一直表示同情西藏人權狀的香港大學女生陳巧文，昨午在奧運火炬傳送之時展示關注人權的標語，以及代表藏獨的雪山獅子旗。但其抗議活動並不暢順，她昨晨於起步點附近的展示行動，
遭現場數百名內地學生、支持京奧人士辱罵和圍堵，又被警員武力阻止，其後警方以影響公眾秩序為由把她抬離現場。陳表示，會考慮投訴警方使用不必要的武力。


五星旗遮蓋雪山獅子旗
早在清晨6時許，穿上長褲及波鞋的陳巧文到達尖沙嘴 柏麗大道準備示威，與她相隔僅數米的一群科技大學內地生，多次在她接受海外傳媒訪問時，用五星旗阻擋她和遮蓋其雪山獅子旗；由網友自行組織的聖火護衛團亦曾率隊向陳示威，但在發起人張思晉勸喻後已離開。有護衛團成員表示，雙方只互相「眼超超」，並無衝突，在場警員亦沒有阻止。

男子圖施襲被警帶走
至10時許，陳和其他6名友人高舉雪山獅子旗向文化中心的火炬起點進發，即時遭到約百名京奧支持者包圍及以粗言辱罵，又被五星旗遮蔽標語和旗幟，部分京奧支持者情緒激動，咒罵聲震天，情開始混亂。在旁警員此時開始干預，分隔陳巧文一行人和京奧支持者，同時勸喻情緒激動者離開。其間一名男子企圖襲擊陳的友人，被警員抬走。

群情洶湧 陳拒離開被抬走
但混亂情一發不可收拾，沿途京運支持者不斷加入倒陳行列，警員逐組成人鏈，把陳巧文一行人送到警察防線後。陳在警察防線之後企圖舉起抗議標語，但遭警察談判專家劉達強箍頸壓低，劉其後勸喻陳離開，但陳堅決拒絕，劉於是高呼為陳巧文個人安全想，要把她抬走。
此時，數名男警緊握陳的雙臂拖走她，後來再轉由女警接力。陳被抬上警車時情緒激動及掙扎，最終被送往油麻地警署，在場京奧支持者即拍掌歡呼。警方高層人士解釋，陳巧文當時意願反覆：「陳小姐可能因年紀同熱心問題，初初想離開，後來又唔肯。」他又表示，當時群情洶湧，「未見過咁多人的情緒那麼高漲」。

中環 展旗幟未遇阻撓
陳巧文在警署逗留約1小時後離開，而企圖襲擊其友人的男子，基於當事人不追究，其後亦獲釋。陳巧文和友人下午再到中環繼續抗議，一行三人佔據香港會對開一街角，趁聖火車隊和火炬手范徐麗泰 經過時，展示雪山獅子旗和抗議中國人權差的標語。一行人其後再被京奧支持者截住去路，警方以保護安全為由，再把陳巧文及其男友送往西區警署。
對於早上被警方強行抬上警車，陳直言感到憤怒，認為警方並無兌現協助他們抗議的承諾。

警：為安全採取行動
警察公共關係科表示，昨上午兩批人於尖沙嘴發生糾紛，現場警務人員為保障雙方人身安全，即時將他們分隔。為避免糾紛進一步惡化而影響現場公眾秩序，故將10人帶返油麻地警署，他們經勸喻後已獲准離去。

http://hk.news.yahoo.com/080502/12/2te7j.html

Re: An invitation

Dont' be too happy! Today I forward the message to Clive. He quickly replied that it may have been sent to 'loads of people'(see below) who have published on a journal. While contributing to a book chapter is ok but don't take the request for book/journal ideas too serious. It's quite reasonable. Lets see if I can squeeze some time to rewrite my previous publications.

***********************************
Hi Alex,

The offer to publish a book chapter for a collected works volume is clearly related to the article you published. This could be OK but I would normally check the publisher and the person requesting my work. I would normally expect to know both. If I do not or cannot substantiate their credentials then I would leave it well alone. There are many speculative commercial entrepreneurs out there who send these things out.

The request for book ideas shows this is some standard form mailing they have sent out to loads of people. This is a basic request for a book proposal. Just ignore this as if you were about to publish a book you would send a proposal to several publishers and see who came back to you with the best offer, or select a good publisher who you felt would be best and then send them your proposal. I have never heard of Nova publishers. So ignore this they are just mailing loads of people who have published in Energy Policy.

On the chapter. This may be OK but also sounds a bit funny. See if you can substantiate who they are first. I suspect this may just be a waste of your time. You would be better writing-up things for journal articles through a standard peer review process.

By the way, book chapters are normally just accepted by the editor with no peer review but editorial feedback.

Clive

An invitation

Today I received an email from a publisher (see below). Actually it is an invitation for submitting a manuscript to be published in an edited book. I am also invited to throw out some ideas about publishing a stand-alone book or initiating an academic journal. That's interesting. I really want to see a journal of ecological economics for Asia/East Asia.
But I am extremely busy these few months. How can I do so many 'big' things within a short period of time?

**************************************
Dear Dr. Lo,

We have learned of your published research on energy policy. We would like to invite your participation in our publishing program. In particular, I have in mind a new research or review article for an edited collection (invitation only) being assembled under my direction tentatively entitled “Energy Policy: Economic Effects, Security Aspects and Environmental Issues.” The contributions for this edited book are intended to range from 4,000-35,000 words. If you are interested in participating, please consult the Notes for Contributors at the bottom of this letter.

Should your schedule not allow a full contribution at this time, we would welcome either a Commentary or Short Communication of 1,000-4,000 words.

The Commentary should deal with innovative ideas, developments, directions, misdirections, areas which need to be explored, future outlook, prior errors, problems, personnel, funding, or trends in the field which will be published separately under your name in a section titled Expert Commentary. The deadlines for the abstract for the Commentary and the full Commentary are the same as for regular articles. Please be sure to list the affiliations of the authors. References and figures are permitted without limitation.

Short Communications are also subject to the abstract requirement and submission guidelines and deadlines. References and figures are permitted without limitation.

Publication is about 6-9 months after the close of the volume. As soon as a book is listed on our website ( www.novapublishers.com), the codes in the status field are changed to indicate the production stages through publication.

We also invite you to consider serving as the editor of a new collected work under your own auspices (Book Idea Form is available) or by proposing a:

1. Research or review paper of 40,000 words or more for stand-alone
softcover book
2. New online or paper journal idea (open access – personal access free and no charge to publish)
3. Monograph ranging ideally from 70,000-150,000 words
4. Textbook (targeted adoption),
5. Custom publishing project
6. Lecture Notes for publication
7. Conference Proceedings (including Webinars)

We would welcome the opportunity of working with you.

I look forward to learning your thoughts on this idea.

Sincerely yours,
Frank Columbus
President and Editor-in-Chief

Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
400 Oser Avenue, Suite 1600
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Tel: 631- 231-7269
Fax: 631-231-8175
Mobile (direct): 631-741-2210

The presentation yesterday

Yesterday I gave a presentation on my project in the our departmental seminar. Quite successful. The audience (classmates and a few teachers) were astonished at my progress - while others present the methodology of their project I already got data and some analysis. It is just 8 months since I started my work. Althoug their response was very positive, I can still find rooms for improvement, like the amount of information. My supervisor gave me quite positve comments, except my 'informative' powerpoint that made people difficult to get my message. It is because I put too much information on every slide and moved too fast, there was not enough time for people to digest. It was too detailed in some sections, and too complext for those who know little about this field. And I agreed, it looked a bit messy comparing to the first presenter (I was the second). Obviously I need to make a lot of changes before I give a much shorter presentation next Saturaday.

My IELTS result

my IELTS released:
Listening 7.5
Reading 8.5
Writing 6.5
Speaking 6.5
Overall Band 7.5

A few months ago I took the General Training module while this time Academic module. They are only slightly different in Reading and Writing.

Last time I got 7.0, 8.5, 6.5 and 7.0 respectively. This proves that my Writing and Speaking is still weak - perhaps I am not good at 'expressing' my ideas (Yes, I am, even using Chinese, but it is fairly important for an academic because we often need to write and present our findings!)

Preparing for my PhD (3)

Now I have a chance to get my MPhil thesis finished before moving to Australia to do the PhD.

Last month when I talked to my MPhil supervisor I was told that I have to quit (asap) the MPhil programme if I decide to accept this PhD scholarship offer. But I met him last week. Because I have already completed data collection for my project, he suggested me to raise a special request (via him) to the HKU Graduate School for submitting the thesis earlier, i.e. early September 08 (about one year earlier than normal case). After submitting the thesis I can go Australia immediately (but have to go back HK to do an oral defence at the end of 2008). That means if I can work hard (very hard indeed!), I can get the MPhil degree while doing the PhD.

My prospective supervisor who gives me the PhD scholarship offer agreed this in principle. I promise him to complete the thesis within next five months. It's hard but not impossible to me.

So, starting from today, I will keep working and reduce sleepign tmie to no more than six hours every day except holiday. Let see if I can break our department's record!

Book Review

A book review report to be submitted for one of the courses I am taking this semester (the course name is Philosophical Issues in Geography, the content is interesting, but the teaching style is...well...)

Book Name: Greenhouse Economics: Value and Ethics
Publisher: Routledge, London
Author: Cli_ve Sp_ash
Year: 2002

Sp_ash’s book offers insightful counterarguments to neoclassical economics with reference in particular to enhanced Greenhouse Effect. Despite titled as ‘Greenhouse economics’ the book is developed as a critical review of mainstream environmental economists’ misunderstandings of the issue. Intensive discussion on the misplaced role of economics as well as science in general is built upon a postmodernist perspective as a response to their methodological weaknesses in addressing the nature of the problem which is characterized by evidently high uncertainties, complexities and indeterminacy. It calls for a theoretically different approach that removes the consequential and utilitarian preoccupation of standard economics, and accommodates pluralist values and admits partial ignorance.

Normal science and mainstream economics, according to Sp_ash, restrict their analysis and policy recommendations to a claim of truth-seeking and neutrality. This
‘golden rule’, however, limits the development of good policy if applying to the public sphere. His criticisms come with a distinction between weak and strong uncertainty, which the former is meant to acknowledge predictable risks with unknown probabilities while the latter denies any predictability as with the climate change. Justified by a deterministic worldview, the linear and predictable trajectory of climate change then form the basis of cost-benefit analysis that formulates the money balance in case of catastrophic events. An objective fact is taken as given and awaiting to be discovered in forms like the dollar value of the damages following a rise in global temperature, which can then inform what should and should not be done to assure sustainability. However, Sp_ash dismisses such faith as ‘hard’ guidance for policymaking given the strong uncertainty, irreversibility and indeterminacy of climatic catastrophes that make experimental speculative numbers meaningless in developing proper responses to truly unpredictable events. The characterisation of future states via ‘scientifically sound’ cause-effect relationship would excessively simplify system behaviours in action which often operate in non-linear patterns, like human interaction.

Another problem that follows is the treatment of ethical dimensions. Reliance on science throughout the last century appears to promote the merits of a value-free position in the realization of adaptive responses. Sp_ash is sceptical to such a relegation of moral judgement especially in the high-profile debates of global warming. Relocation of inhabitants in low-lying areas and the international distribution of mitigation costs, for instance, inevitably involve justice issues and are beyond the economic dogma of utility maximization defined exclusively by neoclassical criteria. Sp_ash contends that “many economists claim that economic values and scientific research are separable from the moral and ethical dimensions of the problem they study. However, whether discounting or valuing damages, ethical and distributional issues are central to discussing the enhanced Greenhouse Effect (p.192)”. The utilitarianism well established in mainstream economics that serves well in dealing with private goods has entirely missed the point as far as the public good nature of the environment, as exemplified by the case of global warming, is concerned.

The need of a transition from normal science to post normal science is stressed by Sp_ash, following Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993, 1994), who are inspired by a specific postmodernist standpoint. Scientists and economists attempt to search for an objective truth for achieving a set of definitive solutions to the problem and restrict the criteria to their initial worldview. Under a methodological individualism they construct disciplinary boundary based on a set of unrealistic assumptions isolated from the human world and at the same time ignore evidence that is incompatible to their recognized empirical knowledge. Multiple values and deontological positions are excluded from positive economics thus cutting off the connection between science and society. Blatantly contradictory and misleading messages are then created under this narrow definition of global warming issues and its impacts, as demonstrated in the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change strongly criticized by Sp_ash in another article (Sp_ash, 2007).

Criticisms to Sp_ash’s position can be drawn from pragmatic needs. Economists’ simplification can make policy actions manageable and scientific ‘evidence’ can also minimize controversy. Admission of partial ignorance and incorporation of multiple values require a fundamental change in institutional behaviours as acknowledged by Sp_ash. Despite theoretically correct, practitioners may find it impotent to commit such a big move and be sceptical to withdrawing from vested interests, and this creates questions about the extent that the Sp_ash’s recommendations can genuinely make a difference in practice. He may also be challenged as being over-optimistic to an enhanced role of the public when he recommended a deliberative, discursive approach rather an expert-led one. Emphasis of subjective moral imperatives will leave rooms for policy manipulation too. Further, existing institutions tend to have a resistance to the unspecified, or sometimes ambiguous, roadmap, so do the general public in some circumstances.

Nevertheless, the major contribution of this book is in distinguishing the role of objectivity and subjectivity with respect to enhanced Greenhouse Effect issues, while leaving policy recommendations open (in fact, this must be open based on the contexts). Critics should not ignore the fact that the exclusive focus on objectivity is part of the problem per se. It not only relegates ethical dimensions but also puts too much faith to future technologies. If being objective is meant to rely more on science, then one cannot eliminate surprise events associated with the environment as well as human society. “Future technologies cannot be predicted and therefore all the worries of environmentalists may be solved by scientists and engineers. The very same analysts fail to see the logic of their argument. If the future is unpredictable we must plan for the unexpected” (p.279).

Acknowledging subjective values is meant to enhance the capacities of human to cope with strong uncertainties by extending the peer review community to lay people and stakeholders, and the concerned in other disciplines like social psychology and political science. This helps identify unknowns and develop novel solutions, and most importantly, assure equity in the distribution of costs and benefits associated with surprise events, such as relocation of coastal inhabitants due to sudden sea level rise. The issues about who gain and who lose are in fact central to the global warming discourse. They are however more an art than a science that objective judgement always fails to address if not intensifies the problem by, as some economists did, suggesting that a potential (hypothetical) compensation would justify ‘rational’ decisions like transferring chemical wastes to poor countries for lower costs in accordance with the Pareto optimality principle. Sp_ash stresses that objective information and approaches are to some extent ‘subjectively’ created. In his book, the enhanced Greenhouse Effect is taken to indicate the weaknesses of holding such an ‘objective’ position in tackling contemporary complex problems. Criticising on pragmatic issues does not reduce the credibility of his arguments but just repeat the narrowly defined economic doctrines. In fact, part of the current problem actually arises from the intentional avoidance of these complex issues.

To conclude, this book is worth reading in depth. In general it is suitable for readers who have basic knowledge in economics and are interested in a pluralistic approach. It broadens the understanding of the enhanced Greenhouse Effect by critically reviewing the interpretations of mainstream economics in particular. It reminds economists and those who accept their approaches that the issue can never be adequately understood within their disciplinary confines. Sp_ash raises suspicion over the prevalent neoclassicism and meaningfully approaches the issue following the postmodernist trend, while leaving more difficult (but unavoidable) questions to practitioners, including to himself.

五年

剛剛出席了一個大學同學的婚宴，他是我的roomate，跟我一樣都叫ALEX，一起住了三年，他算我在大學裡的最好朋友了，看著他步入人生一個新階段，驚覺原來我們畢業已經五年了

跟很多人一樣，我的大學生活都是十分糜爛 (但比起他我還不算什麼，起碼我還會溫習課本)，常常三五成群，以酒為伴，不到凌晨2、3時不睡，又參與很多校內的活動，不過統統都是沒正經的，例如新生迎新營，三年級的時候便迷上online game，結果成績大倒退。當然，我當時也沒有什麼事業目標可言，只期望畢業後可以找份普通的工作就算了 – 事實上連打算找什麼工作也不太清楚。畢業那年(2003)正值SARS，百業蕭條，往後一年事業都十分不如意，好不容易捱到了2004年，心底裡漸漸有些念頭湧現，告訴自己不應再從事商業工作，而應重新拾回自己於下了多年的興趣 ，那就是環保。

入大學前我一度考慮選修環境科學，但最後因前途考量而放棄了，五年後即2004年，我決定擺心一橫，辭掉了只做了五個月的merchandiser的工作，找了一份環保工作，就是在一個政府機構內當Project Coordinator，籌辦環保教育活動，而代價是賠了HK$3000多元給另一個政府部門，原因是我工作了兩天就辭工。由於工作比較清閒，我有很多時間自行閱讀有關這個範疇的Readings，特別是有關environmental economics的，同時間我亦決定報讀環境管理學碩士，希望借此學更多有關知識，及看看自己是否適合再讀上去，而在課程開始不久，即2006年初，我就轉到港大教育學院當研究助理，目的亦是希望看看自己的research potential，避免走錯路，另外面也是因為對政府部門的官僚制度感到失望，想早日離開。

兩年又這樣過去了，我覺得研究這條路是十分適合自己，於是決定報讀MPhil，為自己再讀PhD鋪好路。令我意外的是，在我開始MPhil不到半年，我就獲得了一個全額獎學金到澳洲讀PhD，而且還是跟隨一位我心儀已久的教授工作，機會難得，我當然不作他想。

如此，這五年自我尋找的過程很快就過去了，我終於如願以償，可以到外國重新開始自己的事業和生活，我人生的另一個階段快要開始了，是十分令人興奮的，然而，這麼一去的代價甚大，想起也十分擔憂，但出國讀書是事在必行，人沒有理想就如行屍走肉，這種人我見多了，作為財務學畢業生，我反而不希望什麼也跟錢掛勾，每天西裝筆直在中環上班就叫人生? 別開玩笑，我不要這樣

物質生活對我不太重要，離開香港這個物質社會可以讓我靜下來做研究。但我最不願意見到的是為了理想放棄我身邊的人，艱苦的日子一齊渡過，我光榮自豪的一刻也要一起分享。

大學畢業是人生一個新階段，現在五年後又是另一個，當年中文大學逸夫書院國懋樓房號H122裡的兩個ALEX，今天一個結了婚，走進人生新的關口，而另一個則將要踏上陌生的土地，開始新事業。無法想像再五年後大家的樣子會變得如何(更老還是更胖?!)，但期望大家都能找到自己理想的天空。

From science to philosophy (with Chinese)

Some thoughts about the development of the discipline I am engaging in. In short, the change in the focus is driven by a recognition that science is not the key to achieving SD although it does have a role to play. We have to look at value, the ultimate source of the problems.

When the science of sustainability emerged in 70s, it was more closely associated with physical scientific perspectives than social or philosophical ones. Earlier researchers in ecological economics (EE) took part in this endeavour by re-connecting ecology and economics and based their works on the biophysical reality. They assessed the sustain-ability of our economy by showing people the failure of the current economic model in accounting for the earth’s operation. They began with energy and material flow analysis, and used this to show the ridiculousness of neoclassical economics. In a series of academic debates, mainstream economic assumptions, like indefinite supply of natural resources and reversible process of resource use, were criticized as misrepresenting the real world in which the scale of economy is subject to biophysical constraints.

Those with a greater emphasis on social or philosophical sides form a new school of thought. They work on this newer perspective, which is still in its infancy, by addressing what value is in subjective terms rather than objective ones. They address the meaning of environmental value based on various non-science viewpoints, like psychology, political science and applied philosophy, which the earlier researchers in EE did not pay as much attention as they do. Some of the earlier researchers who have an ecology or economics background insisted on incorporating the 'truth' of the Earth into policymaking through adopting approaches like energy theory of value or ecological tariffs. It was (and still is) suggested that the best way to build a sustainable path is to find out the existing, objective ‘truth’ and show it to all people, they will then become aware of the problems and do something good. Big changes in policy and human behaviours are thus a viewed as a function of an objectivity. What we need to do is developing right science and getting rid of the wrong one, according to this view.
A key question is raised by the ‘new generation’ in EE: do human behaviours (and hence policy) really listen to objective facts? Is the relationship strong enough so that we can happily rest our future on science? Psychologists may say ‘No’. Lots of psychological researches have showed that it is people’s perception over the facts in question that determines human behaviours rather than the facts per se. For example, an American may be convinced by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” but is unwilling to pay any eco-tax because s/he hates this politician and the dirty political game he is playing.
The new wave starts with a more social scientific perspective. They seek to explore the potentials of understanding human perceptions (or the economics's wrong assumption of it) and behaviours which have no necessary linkage with an objective 'truth'. They research on the subjectivity of environmental value, which is recognized as variable, dynamic and multidimentional. There is no single ‘truth’, but changing contexts depending on spatial and temporal variations. Further, individuals are assumed to be capable of acting rationally and reacting ‘correctly’ to scientific evidence (neoclassical economists hold a view similar to this, i.e. defining utility-motivated actions as rational while excluding ethics). But this finds little support from social psychologists, like Icek Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviours which puts individual’s attitude, subjective norms and perceived behaviour control as the key determinants. Attitude may affect the extent to which people trust an institution and accept a particular piece of scientific ‘fact’ regarding global warming funded by, for instance, Exxon, a big oil company. Norms may also implicitly influence how individuals define what is ‘rational’, so fengshui (風水)is a rational and legitimate belief in Chinese societies and fengshui forest can be most effectively protected by cultural reasons rather than ecological ones. The new comers argue that wrong policy comes from a wrong value model, and wrong science is in turn more like an outcome of both these two, so one has make sure the value system is on the right track for informing science development. While science is necessary, it is subjective value that precludes as well as informs a big move.

生態經濟學是以可持續發展為目標的一門學問，其近30年的發展提示了對環境問題的另一個看法 (當然這裡包含了其他領域的貢獻)。轉變的重點是在於認識到客觀科學不是解決問題關鍵，雖然它仍的確扮演一個角色，我們要著眼於人類對『價值』的定義 - 問題的最終來源。 當可持續性這門學問出現在70年代，它主要從自然科學的角度出發多於社會或哲學的。在生態經濟學的範疇裡，早期旳研究人員嘗試建基於生物/物理的現實，來重新連接生態學和經濟學兩門有著很多共通點的學科。他們透過指出，由於過份簡化及脫離事實，現行經濟模式是無法反映地球的實際運作情況，來評估現行經濟模型的環境可持續性。他們從能量和物質流分析開始，揭示出新古典經濟學的可笑。在一系列的學術爭論中，新古典經濟學的假設，如天然資源的無限供應和資源使用過程的可回逆性等等，被批評為歪曲了現實世界裡經濟規模受生物物理限制這一事實。 當中有部份人比較強調社會或哲學觀點，遂形一個新的學派分支。他們做這方面的工作以較新的角度來看 – 不過目前仍然處於起步階段，他們強調環境價值是由主觀概念，而非客觀。他們以各種非科學的觀點，如心理學，政治學和應用哲學，來解釋和釐清環境價值的定義，而這些觀點在以前是被忽略了的。早期的生態經濟學者很多有生態學或經濟學背景，他們堅持把有關環境的科學'真理'放做政策制定的最主要考慮，並提出解決途徑例如能量價值理論或生態關稅。這曾被認為是（其實現在仍然是）最好的方法:要建設一個可持續發展的道路，就是要摸清現有的、客觀的科學'真理' (例如全球氣溫上升)，並將之展示世人，於是人們就會自然地為了解決這個問題而作出正面回應。政策和人類的行為大改變於是被看成建基於某種科學客觀性。根據這一觀點，我們需要做的是發展正確的科學和擺脫錯誤的那些。 生態經濟學的'新一代'提出了一個關鍵問題：人類行為（和政策）是否真的受眼前客觀事實所影響？這個關係是否真的那麼明顯，而使到我們能夠安心地把人類的將來寄託於科學？心理學家可能會說'不' 。大量的心理學研究表明，是人們對某個事實的主觀的價值態度決定著人的行為，而非客觀事實本身。舉例來說，一個美國人可能會信服戈爾的"Inconvenient Truth" ，但同時因為他/她不喜歡這位政治家和骯髒的政治遊戲，而不願意支付任何生態稅。
新一代生態經濟學家先從社會科學的角度來看。他們尋求對人類認知和行為的了解（或經濟學對此的錯誤假設），並認這些與客觀的'真理'沒有必然的聯繫。他們研究的環境價值的主觀性，及其可變性、互動性和多維性。這裡不存在單一的'真理'，而只有取決於空間和時間因素的不斷變化。此外，人類往往被假定為有能力作出理性行為和正確地對科學證據作出回應（新古典主義經濟學家持類似觀點，即認為純基於利益的行為是理性，而排除道德）。但這種認定對沒有得到社會心理學的實證支持，像Icek Ajzen的計劃行為理論 - 把個人的信念，主觀社會規範和自覺行為控制為決定人類行為因素。個人信念可能會影響到人們有多信任的某個制度或機構，並有多少接受某項科學證據 ，例如由埃克森公司贊助的關於全球變暖的科學研究 (誰會信石油公司提出的『證據』?)。社會規範也可暗地裡影響個人如何界定什麼是'合理' ，是故在中國人社會風水被認為是一種理性和合理的信仰，因此保護風水林最有效的方法是建基於文化方面，而多於生態科學的。新一代生態經濟學家認為錯誤的政策來自於一個錯誤的價值系統，是錯誤的科學的又是二者的結果，所以當前的任務是要確保價值系統沒有走歪，從而提示正面的科學發展。當然科學是重要的，但最終卻是主觀價值阻礙而又能夠推動大改變。

Preparing for my PhD (2)

Talked to my MPhil supervisor this Monday. He was not quite happy about my decision to leave earlier. No doubt this is my fault to leave without completing the degree, so I have nothing to defend. But I know it is a right decision from my point of view, since I think I won't be able to get such an attractive scholarship even I have a MPhil degree and a few publications. CSIRO offers me a package which covers internationship student fee plus stipend (> HK$300,000 p.a., for three years), not to mention the opportunity to work with two renowned scholars in my field. My supervisor suggested that I can apply for Edward Youde Scholarship offered by HK government after MPhil. But I am not confident about this since I got a IIB honour degree and it is apparently uncompetitive.

To my surprise, he suggested me to leave as soon as possible. It is because if I hold the current studentship until August, the department may lose one research studentship place in the coming years. This is due to an unreasonable policy of the university that the department may be penalized if its research student withdraws from the programme (and the student will be ridiculously counted as 'failed'). My department (and my supersior) don't want to get penalized, so they asked me to leave asap if I really decide to go Australia. I was not quite happy about this. My reply was that I need to get a written confirmation from the ANU before making a final decision, and not now.

Maybe he feels like being betrayed. At the same time I also feel uncomfortable. But I will insist on making this hard decision if time goes back, although it ruins our mutual trust.

Seems that I have to give up so many things for this PhD and an uncertain future.

My first publication

My first publication:
Article title: Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined
Journal title: Energy Policy
DOI link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.01.006

Preparing for my PhD (1)

Good news, I have another big name to be my co-supervisor. Dr Sp_ash directly talked to him - Prof J. Dry_zek in ANU, one of the top environmental political scientists and got his agreement several days after we met.

Now I am thinking about my PhD project. I have a plan but it seems to be too big for a PhD project. I raise my question about resource contraints and feasibility in an email to Dr Sp_ash. He suggests me to start with searching for a problem (or an issue) that is interesting and important, then methodology and techniques, and then availability of resource and logistics. He is right, it is far more important to look at the problem/issue first because it determines the nature of the research, which in turn points to what approach you should and can use. Any research has to be contrained by resources available but you should not let it determine your research questions.

My trip to Australia

These three days I am in Canberra, Australia for visiting CSIRO, where I may have a chance to do PhD with a renowned professor, Dr Sp-ash.
On the first day I met him for the first time. We had dinner (or tea?) in a pub and got a long chat. We talked about some academic stuffs, what kind of project I can/want to do, and a little on the procedure. He is friendly, knows a lot about this field and is insightful. I really enjoy talking with him. After this he drove me around to have a quick look on Canberra.
On the next day we went to the CSIRO office where I may work later. I chatted with his current PhD student about the living here. Then, he took me, with his Post-doctoral fellow, to a restaurant to have a dinner. Other than meat and dissert we had beer, wine and coffee after finishing all. The dissert was pretty good! (it is something like French燉蛋). We talked a lots of issues, from democracy of different countries to local culture....but in most cases I could only listen because sometimes I found difficulties to understand what they are talking about, I could just say 'yea', 'oh'. My speaking is just ok, at least they could understand although I often got some grammatical mistakes.
On the third day I first went back to the office and talked to the personnel officer about the visa issues. It sounds uneasy to get a PR until I graduate. Then I had a practice for my presentation to get myself familiar with the situation. At about 11am the Post-doc took me to the new Parliament building. I looked around and knew more about the political history of Australia. I then presented in the afternoon with 7-8 audience. I talked about my previous MSc research project and the current one. There were some follow-up questions from the front but I didn't handle them very well. Overall I would say I can do it better. The final activity was chatting with the professor in a pub. We talked more on my plan for the PhD and some other academic stuffs. Again it's a nice chat. Talking to people with similar intellectual mind with me is always a good experience.

Canberra is quiet but it is good for doing research because you can make your mind clearer, though some people may find it boring. Goods are 2-3 times more expensive than HK. Australia accent is ...ok but a little different. I am just worring about the housing and transport here - I don't even have a driving licence.

Very likely that I will to come to Canberra for the 3-year PhD programme later this year. But I know it will definitely be a big challenge for me, not for the life here but the difficulty in doing the project. It's not hard for me to deal with theoretical issues, but it will be painful to implement survey like what I am doing now. And it will get more problems as I will probably do the survey in China and Australia. Hopefully I can get some fundings to hire someone to do the time-consuming jobs. Another issue is that I have seperate with my GF for 3 years. It's hard, I don't know how my life will be.

Environmental ethics

Some environmental philosophers and ecological economists considered the reductionish approach of neoclassical economics as an ethic by itself in constrast to deontological understanding of the nature of some people in the society. Values in economic sense is narrowly defined in an atomistic, individual-driven way. But the new wave of social-environmental movement is built on rights-based approach, based either on an environmental-consequentialist mentality or absolute rights of non-human and advocating collective values.


Now there is a trend towards deontological values as an ethical basis of sustainable development. To this end, Funtowicz & Ravetz (1993) suggested that we are in the age of 'post-normal' science. Provided that the environment is a public good,they suggested that for achieving environmental sustainability, we have to move from the past utilitarian ethics and atomistic understanding of the world characterising science (both physical science and neoclassical economics) to an open, delibreractive approach emcompassing norms, values and different ethical stances of human in a collective social context. It is because past utility-based policy tools are actually an inapproriate way to deal with the environment as a public good. A self-interested individual may be willing to pay for better quality of drinking water but not global warming mitigation. Decision-makers have to think about what ethical motivations people have when dealing with global environmental problems - a different ethics is needed comparing to the exclusive economic pursit in the past few centuries.

So, there is tendency of (re)constructing a new ethics, new value theory as the world is confronted global issues like enhanced greenhouse effect. This is different from the emphasis of using technical means (by assuming high scientifc certainty) or economic tools (still based on utility maximization) in the past few decades.

Is science the key to global warming?

After reading several papers on global warming and relationship of science and society written by Dr Sp ash, I think it is useful to elaborate the main points in a few paragraphs before I meet him in person.

For those who find difficulties in reading what follows, bear in mind one thing: global environmental problems are not just a matter of science; whether there is scientific evidence of global warming or not does not change the conclusion that the ways we understand and 'operates' the environment are problematic.

Scientific proof is not the key point because of the human's inadequate understandings of the nature. Since science is established on laboratory settings, scientific 'evidence' is based on many assumptions and confined to existing knowledge. It has some key differences from the live world we face which is a dynamic, always changing system, both in subjective and objective sense (i.e. both values and facts). Even though we claim ourselves able to find the scientific 'truth', it would be misleading to suggest that this can determine correct policy conclusions.

Whether global warming exists is always controversial, not only because of scientific uncertainties but more of vested interests. As far as sustainable development is concerned, science is not everything. Kuhnian science extended from laboratory, or normal science which is in constrast to post-normal science (see Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993), has missed humankind as an integral part of the natural world for centuries. Scientifically sound conclusions in natural science and economics literature manifest themselves ethically 'neutral'. But can we, or should we, achieve a fundamentally value-free sustainable path?

Another problem with science is the treatment to uncertainties. In natural science and economics literature there are professionally determined 'evidence' claiming that there is Problem A so that we need to do something for it, or the reverse.
Imagine you are playing puzzle game. If you cannot see how big the picture is, can you tell me precisely which pieces you are missing? No one knows, but we may still be able to make some ways to fix it. Given the numerous uncertainties, varieties and complexities of Earth's operations, can anyone PROVE that there is global warming? This applies to the reverse, can anyone DISPROVE that there is global warming?

Science can make figures precise, but it may be precisely wrong without anyone knowing this except the God.

A point I want to make is that: broadly speaking, every human activity can do harm to non-human entities, over time and space, so you never know what problems follow after solving Problem A. It is more important to develop the ways, or insitutions, through which we can find the appropriate and timely solutions whenever new problems arise, than to develop a single set of solutions to deal with a specific problem. The world is changing, so do the problems and hence solutions. It will not point to a hands-off approach even if global warming is PROVED inexistent.

學海無涯

做研究真是不容易
要面對的不單是經費、資源問題，還有的是研究結果未如理想，更甚者是 - 如果是做social survey的話 - 受訪者對你所作的研究都不表支持
時間、精神上的消耗在所難免，但研究歷程裡的不確定性令你覺得彼岸總是遙遙無期
不知道能不能做到想要的結果，不知道去conference要怎樣present，不知道自己做的夠不夠好，也不確定自己的前途會如何......輾轉反側，連做夢也會唸著晚上看過的學術文章

學海無涯，原來是這樣的意思

Get published!

Another piece of good news - the manuscript I submitted to a peer-reviewed journal 'Energy Policy' is accepted for publication!

In academia, publications are very important to a researcher not only for job hunting but also promotion - as often said: 'publsih or perish'. My supervisor told me that when they recruited teaching staffs, those who did not have more than 3 publications before getting the PhD would normally not be shortlisted, let alone given an interview opportunity. 'Energy Policy' is within the top ten journals in the Environmental Studies category, ranked by impact factor. As a first-year MPhil student I think it is a big surprise to me. Hope that this will help my PhD application later this year.

The article is titled 'Merging electricity and environment politics of Hong Kong: identifying the barriers from the ways that sustainability is defined'. The idea and content are actually based on my MSc dissertation. I spent the later half of my summer holidy to get it finished. It's a bit more than 10,000 words, which is fairly long to read. It's a qualitative one based on secondary data only. This is a piece of comment from one of the reviewers of my article:

"Reviewer #1: I must commend the author for producing this excellent paper which provides a comprehensive review on the development of the electricity industry in Hong Kong. I concur with the views of the author as presented in the paper which faithfully reflect the status quo of the electricity policy of Hong Kong. Findings from the study are reasonable to help identify the barriers for sustainable development and reform of the Hong Kong's ESI in the future.

In conclusion, I recommend the paper be accepted for publication in the Journal of Energy Policy."

Actually, I have submitted another manuscript to another journal (but is of lower grade), again based on my MSc disseration. Hope that there will be more good news soon.