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.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Saturday, January 26, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, January 18, 2008
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
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
Friday, January 4, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)