RE: Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI

[Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith]

This is a fascinating exchange and, quite apart from the critiques of Lovins
it is prompting, touches on a subject that Bram correctly identifies, I
believe, as one that warrants very much more careful examination.  

 

Bram refers to technological fetishism.  I’m not sure if that’s quite the
right term to use to characterize the phenomenon he wants to highlight.  I’m
quite sure, though, that whatever allure technological magic bullets have
for Lovins on the left or liberal end of the political spectrum (and that is
where most observers, I think, would place him, on balance, for the reasons
Matthew recollects), other magic bullets have appeal to people on the right
or conservative end.  

 

In fact, in the realm of energy policy, which is highlighted by Bram’s
comments there’s a rather long history of affinity for magic technological
fixes.  Nuclear power fell into this category after the end of World War II,
when it was touted for a time as a source of electricity for American homes
and business that would be “too cheap to meter.” More recently, in the
increasingly pressing context of transportation energy and the search for
alternatives to oil, there has been a veritable parade of magic bullets
ranging from electric cars to hydrogen highways to biofuels.  And insofar as
some of these technological fixes appear to leave intact the economic and
social infrastructure of (sub)urban living, at least as we have grown to
love it in California, they might very well stand accused of obfuscating, to
use Bram’s words, wider political and social dynamics.

 

On Bram’s more specific point about articles and literature, the allure of
technology as a fix for air pollution problems in France and California is
the subject of David Calef and Robert Goble, “The allure of technology: How
France and California promoted electric and hybrid vehicles to reduce urban
air pollution,” 40 Policy Sciences 1-34 (2007).  

 

In addition, I recommend a very careful reading of the recent University of
California proposal that California adopt a low carbon fuel standard (LCFS).
I do not know of any other comparable attempt to tie solutions to the
problem of reducing GHG emissions to technological fixes.  The interesting
twist in this case is that the precise nature and form of the technologies
that would be developed and deployed remains, as an intrinsic element of
policy design, unclear and uncertain.  The market will apparently reveal
them in the fullness of time.  The UC LCFS report, including a technical
volume and a policy analysis volume, is available for download from
http://www.energy.ca.gov/low_carbon_fuel_standard/ 

 

Geoffrey. 

 

  _____  

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bram Büscher
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 12:29 AM
To: Matthew Paterson; willett
Cc: Global Environmental Education
Subject: RE: Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI

 

Thanks for this clarification Matthew. Perhaps I was too quick in my
assertion, but why I felt especially uncomfortable with the way in which
Lovins presented (as such interesting) technological innovations, was that
it actually obfuscates wider political and social dynamics that have time
and again proven that technological progress in itself is not THE answer to
environmental and/or developmental problems. In a neoliberal context where
the power of being able to sell your story often seems to grant it certain
legitimacy, criticizing and nuancing this seems especially important.

Best,
Bram


-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Paterson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mon 25/02/2008 03:43
To: willett; Bram Büscher
Cc: Global Environmental Education
Subject: Re: Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI

Following what Willett says, however, is that the earlier books, I think of
Soft Energy Paths in particular, were clear that the technological choices
about energy were absolutely political and social. Choosing a soft energy
future was also choosing a decentralised, potentially libertarian, society,
while hard energy technoloies necessitated massive security apparatuses and
so on. This is different to thinking through the social obstacles to the
uptake of new technologies, admittedly, but at least in his earlier
incarnations, there was this recognition of technology as social, before he
got his free-market boosterism somewhere in the 1980s.

Mat

--
Matthew Paterson
Professor of Political Science
School of Political Studies
Université d'Ottawa / University of Ottawa
55, rue Laurier est / 55 Laurier East
Ottawa, Ontario
K1N 6N5
Canada

tel: +1 613 562-5800 x1716
Fax +1 613 562-5371
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web site: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/pol/eng/index.asp


From: willett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 15:39:59 -0500
To: Bram Büscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Global Environmental Education <gep-ed@listserve1.allegheny.edu>
Subject: Re: Critique on Amory Lovins / RMI

Two decades ago, Denton Morrison published a couple of aritlces in the
sociological literatuares laying out all of Lovin's social science
assertions found in earlier books.  He wasn't really critical but it was
clear that even the earlier work had huge numbers of unproven assertions
about society, combined with a pretty good (if optimistic) analysis of
emerging technologies.   I haven't loooked for anything more recent.

Willett Kempton

On 24 Feb 2008, at 15:22, Bram Büscher wrote:

> 
> 
>
> Dear All,
> 
>  I was at the Berlin conference of the Human Dimensions of Global Change
> yesterday and attended a (video conference) presentation by dr. Amory
Lovins
> of the Rocky Mountain institute. I have seen few people so bluntly reduce
all
> environmental problems (and the politics around it) to technological
fetishes
> (apparently accessible to all?).
> 
>  He also advocated another book of his and colleagues entitled 'Natural
> Capitalism' that again combines all the good and the ugly into a
'profitable'
> 'win-win' mix for all of humankind and nature... On the website of the
book
> (natcap.org) it says that they want to publish cheers and jeers, but that
'so
> far, the book has received almost pure praise and that frankly, this is a
bit
> embarrassing'.
> 
>  Now, personally, I cannot imagine this, and wonder whether anybody on the
> list has some suggestions for critical literature/articles. Basically, I'm
> looking for some more practical armour in the face of people who so
> optimistically go about selling such grand illusions.
> 
>  Thanks,
> 
>  Bram
> 
> 
>  
> 
>