Centroids :
The following article is about the future of energy in
America. However, and while the review
is quite good in its own terms, there is special value for
Radical Centrists.
Here are some passages from the essay that, with minor
revision, apply directly to RC :
inconvenient complications, unforeseen side
effects, and less-than-perfect solutions
explaining the difficulties
[ in examples across the United States ] the
message (is) that we can start
making energy changes now, rather
than waiting on some miracle solution.
breaking down complicated concepts while keeping
them interesting
The grid is sort of like the Matrix: all around us,
affecting everything we do
without us usually noticing, and only a few people
really understand it.
Energy change is going to happen, and the change
might be easier if we
all understand the issues and decisions that need
to be made.
Let us go through these quotes one by one.
------------------------------
inconvenient complications, unforeseen side
effects, and less-than-perfect solutions.
It cannot be denied that the solutions Radical Centrists
offer to vexing political problems
are like that, most are less than perfect, doubtlessly some
--if implemented-- would have
unanticipated side effects. Some would be complicated.
In other words, in making a case for RC we need to be
realistic about what an RC approach
can do and about the fact that, especially since so little
by way of RC principles have been
tested in real world politics, our solutions will
sometimes fail. There is NO need to emphasize
the possibility of failure, in fact that would be a very
bad idea. We do need to "sell" the
concept of Radical Centrism. You cannot do that by
undercutting your own arguments.
Regardless, we also need credibility. And you cannot
achieve that by any pretense to perfection.
No-one buys any such thing in the political marketplace
except Yellow Dog Democrats and
party hack Republicans
---------------------------------
explaining the difficulties
What is Radical Centrism ? One thing it isn't is an
ideology with cut-and-dried answers
to all questions, a one-way-street way of thinking. We
still are in the formative stages
of inventing RC. We are a lot further along than in 2004,
when we began, a good deal
of theoretical groundwork is completed. Regardless, the
proof of the pudding is in how
RC might work in the actual world of politics and
governance. About that, there
isn't very much we can say at all. Mark Satin, at one
time, made a really good start
in identifying nascent "Radical Middle" examples from
around the country, but it had
serious limitations, especially Mark's "take" on RC as a
mild version of political Leftism.
That, of course, is not our viewpoint at all.
But Mark did show us how to approach an important task, and
identified the need
for such work. Our bad that we did not pick up on his idea
and go further with it.
-------------------------------------------------------
[ in examples across the United States ] the
message (is) that we can start
making energy changes now, rather
than waiting on some miracle solution.
Actually we have an informal start on doing exactly this,
but there is nothing systematic
about what we have done in this area. Accessing the
relevant examples is nearly
impossible and would take serious research effort in RC.org
files or our personal records.
But people in politics can make changes now without waiting
for anything --precisely
because there are some examples, scattered to be sure,
that provide entry points,
or better, pointers, on how to begin and how to proceed.
------------------------------------------------------
breaking down complicated concepts while keeping
them interesting
We need to find effective ways of communicating the gist of
Radical Centrism
-----------------------------------------------------
The grid is sort of like the Matrix: all around
us, affecting everything we do
without us usually noticing, and only a few
people really understand it.
The need to Radical Centrist solutions to problems is all
around us, and dysfunctional
politics effects everything we do. Only a few people really
understand how
Radical Centrist ideas can work to fix the system.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Energy change is going to happen, and the change
might be easier if we
all understand the issues and decisions that need
to be made.
It seems clear enough that Radical Centrism will become
normative in future
US politics. The current system is a mess and it seems to
get worse with the
passage of time, not better. The growth of Independent
voters, by some estimates
now about 40 % of the electorate, even if that number is
inflated, should tell us
exactly this. Which is to say that it is imperative for us
to get the RC message
out there so that our ideas have a chance to influence the
real world of politics.
We are in the best position of anyone to do this.
=======================================
All of this said, these considerations tell us what is
missing. Two things more
than anything else, so it seems to me : (
1 ) Commitment and ( 2 ) Investment.
Why is there a shortfall of commitment ? No payoff.
No matter how much work anyone puts into RC, while it is
gratifying to have
civil discussions and useful personally to learn new
things --and no-one should
underestimate the value of this-- regardless the feeling
is inescapable
that we are spinning our wheels.
All kinds of good ideas come and go and nothing happens.
Like Mike's proposal
for a RC.org group anthology about Radical
Centrism. This concept seems to me
to be very worthwhile. For sure it could use some "fine
tuning" and some hard
self-criticism so that, if carried out, it might have an
impact, but otherwise the
idea is excellent and it is doable. But what is the payoff
? That is, what is
the motivation besides possible "creative satisfaction" for
many hours of writing
and even more hours of research, not counting any
discussions that might
transpire as articles are shared with the group for
critique / feedback ?
To get RC really off the ground would require much more
than is currently
available, or foreseeable. Especially investment.
If we had a clear ( very clear ) vision for the political
future that showed
how useful RC could be in American politics we would have
something to
"sell" to underwriters. Evidence that we are deadly
serious. At that point
we could realistically hope to persuade one or more
"sponsors" to fund RC
at a level where professional work could commence and
effective
communications to the Web ( and a wider audience ) set in
motion.
To be candid, I still don't see this happening here any
time soon.
Too bad, it is foregoing major opportunity.
Well, I have my own project and my commitment is genuine
and
my investment of time could not be greater. This won't
effect my participation
here in any way that I can think of, but it would be sad
for RC to remain
in the category of "what might have been."
Billy
==========================================
ars technica
Why you should read the book Before the
Lights Go Out
April 8, 2012
In the very first pages of her book, Before the Lights
Go Out, Maggie Koerth-Baker
blows my mind. Not in the sense of "Wow, I never knew that!"
(although I certainly thought that throughout the book), but
more like "Wow, I never thought of it that way!" I’m
referring to the revelation that the reasons for pursuing
alternative energy don’t have to be focused on climate
change. Instead, many Americans care more about energy
security, conservation, or simple nationalism. This sets the
tone for the whole book: let’s skip the reasons and just
focus on the solutions and hard choices that need to be
made.
Hard choices, indeed. This isn’t a book proclaiming that
the hydrogen economy or nuclear fusion or something else
(pick your dream energy source/carrier) will save us all.
Koerth-Baker is optimistic, but realistic: we can do this,
but there aren’t any easy solutions, and it’s probably going
to be expensive. This isn’t about driving a hybrid or
changing your lightbulbs—not that those aren’t good things
to do—but rather, as she puts it, "about the inconvenient
complications, unforeseen side effects, and
less-than-perfect solutions."
The book is a fast and easy read (in the good sense). If
you're familiar with Koerth-Baker’s work as the science
editor at BoingBoing, you know
that she does a great job breaking down complicated concepts
while keeping them interesting. This carries over to the
book, and it reads almost like a long-form blog post, which
is a good thing. Instead of links, every chapter holds a
Neal-Stephenson-esque level of footnotes—52 pages of them
(compared to just over 200 pages of primary content).
As the title subtly suggests, this book focuses mostly on
electricity, rather than transportation fuels or other
energy sectors. This isn’t because those other areas aren’t
interesting, but simply because electrical generation makes
up the biggest single portion of energy use and emissions.
Starting with the first stumbling attempts at electricity
generation and the electrical grid in New York and Appleton,
Wisconsin, in 1882, Koerth-Baker explains how we got here,
and what "here" is: an electrical grid with waste and
inefficiencies at both the generation and consumption ends,
one that requires constant monitoring to make sure there
isn’t too much or too little electricity running through our
wires.
The grid is sort of like the Matrix: all around us,
affecting everything we do without us usually noticing, and
only a few people really understand it. Unlike the Matrix,
however, which was created by advanced artificial
intelligences, the grid has come together piece-by-piece
over the last 100+ years. (Things would probably by easier
if it had been the former, though.) Koerth-Baker does a
great job demystifying the grid, as well as explaining the
difficulties in bringing large amounts of electrical power
from renewables to our current grid.
To explain all these things, she takes us across the United
States, meeting people like the owner of an extremely
energy-efficient home in Urbana, Illinois—so efficient, in
fact, that it can be heated by a single candle in the
fall—and the director of a electrical grid control center in
Houston, Texas. We also travel to the farm town of Medelia,
Minnesota, where the leader of a local nonprofit is trying
to improve soil and water quality by getting farmers to grow
crops other than corn and soy—crops that can be converted to
biofuels to sell locally. These experiences drive home the
message that we can start making energy changes now, rather
than waiting on some miracle solution.
There are a couple minor issues I must bring up, even if
I’m nitpicking. For one, Koerth-Baker insists that the
metric prefix "giga" (as in "gigawatt," one billion watts)
is pronounced with a soft 'g,' as in "jigawatt." Apparently,
the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (back
when it was just the National Bureau of Standards)
formalized this version, but I’ve never heard it said this
way in practice, Back to the Future
notwithstanding. Like I said, nitpicking (and I’m only half
serious).
I do have one slightly more substantive criticism, although
it is still minor. When talking about biofuel made from
grass, she says that researchers are working on making it
compatible with cars. However, this sentence encapsulates a
big problem that the engine and combustion community is
dealing with right now. Without getting into this issue too
deeply, the problem is solvable, but there is a good amount
of work needed to both understand the properties of the
biofuels and to redesign existing engines (or new engines
altogether) that can run on varying fuels.
In all, this is a great book, and one I recommend that
pretty much everyone should read. We interact with
electricity and energy every day, even if it has become
invisible. Energy change is going to happen, and the change
might be easier if we all understand the issues and
decisions that need to be made.
-- 