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.