Fwd: Controversy over Rees & Seibert, "Through the Eye of a Needle
Ashwani Vasishth
The following is from the Radical Ecological Democracy list,
originated by Ashish Kothari, following his work from our Peoples
Sustainability Treaties Initiative presented at the
2012 UN Rio+20 Summit.
* * *
Thank you, for sharing this conversation. I believe that those of us who care about future trajectories NEED to think about the points raised here.
We are all busy people, so, briefly:
I have read the originating article, and have thought about it.
I am VERY familiar with the substantial body of work generated by
Bill Rees, at least following the 1996 publication of his "Our
Ecologial Footprint."
I have a deep respect for his mind, and have learned to always
take him seriously--whether I agree with him or not.
In my framing, the central issue here is this:
Can we--or should we--trust that technology and "progress" will be sufficient to "save us"? Or do we need to dig much deeper, and try to get at the root causes of the current crises?
And as I understand it, based on personal and listserv
conversations with Bill, his framing goes something like this:
I have engaged with sustainability issues, in many different ways, since I began working to reconceive "solutions" to the slums and squatter settlements of Delhi, as an architecture student in 1972.We have, ALL OF US, collectively and globally, exceeded planetary carrying capacity to such a huge extent, that relying on renewable energies and related technological innovations is absolutely unwise
For the past decade, I have taught an undergraduate course called Energy and Society, in which I have struggled--as I continue to do--to find ways to making the issues of local and global carrying capacity and sustainability real for undergraduate students, from within a whole systems perspective.
At this point, I am certain only of two things, in the context of this particular discussion:
- we, all of us--North and South--NEED to find ways of making solutions such as renewable energy both possible and fair, for all of us, and that
- there is NO WAY a reliance solely on such technologies will
ever come close to "solving" our issues
All I can think to say is, good luck to al of us.
I do not know why Steven did not think of posting it on the RED list too. I am taking that liberty. I think it is of great interest for all those who think of themselves as Radical Ecologicals or radical Democrats or both.
Saral Sarkar
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Controversy over Rees & Seibert, "Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition" Datum: Tue, 8 Feb 2022 18:21:04 -0600 Von: Steven Johnson <thinki...@gmail.com> An: The Simpler Way <thesim...@googlegroups.com>, Jonathan Rutherford <johnnyru...@gmail.com>, Ted Trainer <tedtra...@gmail.com>, Josh Floyd <jo...@joshfloyd.com>
As many here may be aware, the journal Energies published William Rees and Megan Seibert's paper "Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition" in July 2021, and the article provoked critical replies and counter-replies which the journal has also published (see below). The editor of the journal, in an "Editor's Note" that now permanently accompanies the paper, has apologized to readers, saying that the paper should never have been published in the first place, and lamenting that its notable flaws were not discovered in the peer review process. Instead of removing the paper, the editor has changed the paper's status from a "review" to an "opinion" piece. (Does this practice of retaining but recategorizing an article that is deemed unworthy of publication have precedent in peer-reviewed journals?)
Some questions that I would like to ask the veteran energy researchers here:
What do you make of this controversy? What is your evaluation of the original article, Mark Diesendorf's criticisms, Vasilis Fthenakis et al's criticisms, Seibert and Rees' two responses, and the Editor's Note? In your opinion, has Energies handled this in accordance with accepted practices? Is the journal's decision that "we shall not publish any other report on this matter, and consider the case closed" justified and appropriate in this case, at this juncture? If not, what should Energies do now, and what interventions by academics from around the world, if any, would be appropriate to make?
Are the criticisms of the article themselves so flawed that there is warrant to suspect that this may be, in effect, a case of censorship, of a journal buckling under pressure that is ultimately driven by economic interests rather than substantive objections, as some believe? Was the original article really so flawed as to clearly merit rejection in the first place? Or is the matter not entirely clear, in your opinion?
Beyond just the controversy over this article, what needs to happen from here on out to help the general public to make informed democratic decisions in response to the question of whether a massive transition to industrial-scale solar, wind, and other "renewable" energy sources is desirable and feasible, or whether we should focus, as Seibert and Rees advocate, on restoring ecosystems and reducing consumption and population to scales that can be adequately powered mostly, in the long run, by wood, biomass, direct mechanical water and wind power, and other pre-industrial means?
The links are posted below.
Steven Johnson
---
Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition
by Megan K. Seibert 1,* and William E. Rees 1,2
1 The REAL Green New Deal Project, Albany, OR 97321, USA
2 Faculty of Applied Science, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Alessia Arteconi
Energies 2021, 14(15), 4508; https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154508
Received: 23 June 2021 / Revised: 18 July 2021 / Accepted: 20 July 2021 / Published: 26 July 2021
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508/htm
(A Spanish translation of the above paper can be read at:
https://www.15-15-15.org/webzine/2021/12/11/por-el-ojo-de-la-aguja-una-perspectiva-eco-heterodoxa-sobre-la-transicion-a-las-energias-renovables/)
---
Comment on Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508
by Mark Diesendorf
Faculty of Arts, Design & Architecture, School of Humanities & Languages, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
Academic Editor: Wei-Hsin Chen
Energies 2022, 15(3), 964; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030964
Received: 16 August 2021 / Revised: 24 September 2021 / Accepted: 24 September 2021 / Published: 28 January 2022
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/964/htm
---
Reply to Diesendorf, M. Comment on “Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508”
by Megan K. Seibert 1,* and William E. Rees 1,2
1 The REAL Green New Deal Project, Albany, OR 97321, USA
2 Faculty of Applied Science, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Wei-Hsin Chen and Enrico Sciubba
Energies 2022, 15(3), 970; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030970
Received: 13 October 2021 / Accepted: 21 December 2021 / Published: 28 January 2022
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/970/htm
---
Comment on Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508
by Vasilis Fthenakis 1,2*
Marco Raugei 1,3,4
Christian Breyer 5
Suby Bhattacharya
Michael Carbajales-Dale 7
Michael Ginsberg 1
Arnulf Jäger-Waldau 8
Enrica Leccisi 1
Daniel Lincot 9
David Murphy 10
Marc J. R. Perez 11
Parikhit Sinha 12
Angus Rockett 13
Sascha Sadewasser 14
Billy J. Stanbery 15
Richard M. Swanson 16 and
Pierre Verlinden 17,18,19
1 Center for Life Cycle Analysis, School of Engineering and Applied Science, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
2 Brookhaven National Laboratory, Interdisciplinary Sciences Department, Building 815, Upton, NY 11973, USA
3 School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics, Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment, Oxford Brookes University, Wheatley Campus, Oxford OX3 0BP, UK
4 Ricardo plc, 30 Eastbourne Terrace, London W2 6LA, UK
5 School of Energy Systems, LUT University, 53850 Lappeenranta, Finland
6 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 7XH, UK
7 Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
8 European Commission, Joint Research Centre, 21014 Ispra, Italy
9 Institut Photovoltaïque d’Île de France (IPVF), CNRS UMR 9006, 18 Boulevard Thomas Gobert, 91120 Palaiseau, France
10 Environmental Studies Department, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY 13617, USA
11 Clean Power Research, 1541 3rd Street, Napa, CA 94559, USA
12 First Solar, 350 W Washington St., Tempe, AZ 85281, USA
13 Angus Rockett, Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, 305b Hill Hall, Colorado School of Mines, 1500 Illinois St., Golden, CO 80401, USA
14 INL-International Iberian Nanotechnology Laboratory, Av. Mestre José Veiga s/n, 4715-330 Braga, Portugal
15 HelioSourceTech, 8987 E. Tanque Verde, Suite 309, PMB216, Tucson, AZ 85749, USA
16 Sunpower Founder, Retired, 24700 Voorhees Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, USA
17 AMROCK Group, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
18 School of Photovoltaic & Renewable Energy Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
19 State Key Laboratory of PVST, Trina Solar, Xinbei District, Changzhou 213031, China
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Abdul-Ghani Olabi
Energies 2022, 15(3), 971; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030971
Received: 12 November 2021 / Revised: 7 December 2021 / Accepted: 21 December 2021 / Published: 28 January 2022
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/971/html
---
Reply to Fthenakis et al. Comment on “Seibert, M.K.; Rees, W.E. Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition. Energies 2021, 14, 4508”
by Megan K. Seibert 1,* andWilliam E. Rees 1,2
1The REAL Green New Deal Project, Albany, OR 97321, USA
2Faculty of Applied Science, School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Abdul-Ghani Olabi
Energies 2022, 15(3), 974; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030974
Received: 13 December 2021 / Accepted: 27 December 2021 / Published: 28 January 2022
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/974/html
---
Editorial Note from the EiC
by Enrico Sciubba
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Niccolò Cusano University, 00166 Roma, Italy
Energies 2022, 15(3), 889; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15030889
Received: 18 January 2022 / Accepted: 25 January 2022 / Published: 26 January 2022
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/3/889/htm
--
Ashwani
Vasishth ashwani....@gmail.com (323) 206-1858 --------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Nelson
Ashwani,
You have missed a premise of Bill’s work that is vital, because it shifts the focus of the conversation. (You are in good company. Many folks miss Bill’s second point.)
As I read him, Bill does say, as you suggest:
1. Hey, folks we who are Modern Techno-Industrial (MTI) peoples and cultures are on a path to death by means of ecological overshoot. (And since we own most of the world, I the rest are going with us.)
He also tries to change the focus of the conversation when he says:
2. In order to have any hope at all we must take a hard look at ourselves and our MTI cultures and see that the way we have come to make sense of the realities of life on this planet, including our own, is no longer a reliable guide to the realities of living on this planet as human persons and cultures. In my language, Bill is saying we are also in “civilizational overshoot.”
Bill’s second assertion is every bit as important as his first. It implies that as long as we continue to accept the MTI way of framing reality as reliable we will fail. What we need is a new way of framing reality.
This part of Bill’s argument is simply not heard in our MTI cultures. The thought that we, with all our extraordinary power, money and technology, could be fundamentally wrong-headed is simply not a thought we can, or will, entertain. So we plough on arguing with each other about which MTI way of making sense is best, missing the point that no MTI path will lead us out of the Wittgensteinian fly-bottle we have got ourselves into.
There is terrific irony here. We who claim to be the capstone of human civilization have developed a way of seeing reality that keeps us from doing the reflexive work of seeing the way we see reality. Therefore, we are unable to test the adequacy of our frame. (The “good”, if somewhat sick, news is that we who are MTI will go to our graves confident that we know what we are doing, but somewhat puzzled about why our efforts did not work.)
Ruben
Ruben F.W. Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
Courageous Leadership for Transforming Change
--
- SCORAI website: https://scorai.net
- Join SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Submit an item to next newsletter: joshu...@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/9b0267db-d067-56d7-bdd0-46bac145a6a5%40gmail.com.
Ashwani Vasishth
Dear Ruben,
Thank you for this.
Yes, but not quite.
Both you and I DO understand the WHOLE of Bill and Meghan's punch
line, I think. I'm pretty sure I do. But perhaps neither Bill
nor Meghan may really be able to tell us the actual whole of this.
I read Edward de Bono, Lateral Thinking, which I stumbled across
in a pavement bookstore on the streets of Delhi, while I was an
undergraduate architecture student in India, back in the early
1970s. I had just emerged from a deep dive into Buckminster
Fuller, and came out gripping the need to understand what it might
mean to take a whole systems approach to the world we inhabit.
Now, five decades later, here I stand.
I am convinced that we are NOT constrained to choose between catastrophe or cornucopia. I choose not to live in a binary world. Nor do I believe that conflicting truths NEED to be taken as mutually exclusive. Rittel and Webber, Wicked Problems, and CS Holling help us see the way. IF we so choose.
What I chose to write, in the post I shared with SCORAI, was written for a somewhat different audience. My emphases may have shifted, because my purpose was different, but it's all there, I think.
My own (and maybe only) divergence from Bill's mind is, I think,
is that I see our primary job, as educators, is help show a way
around the reefs. There is ALWAYS another way to take the world.
--
Ashwani
Vasishth vasi...@ramapo.edu (323) 206-1858
http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~vasishth
--------------------------------------------------------
Professor of Sustainability
Convener, Sustainability Program (BA)
President, New Jersey Higher Education Partnership for Sustainability (NJHEPS)
Director, Center for Sustainability
http://ramapo.edu/sustainabilityTo view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/004d01d8269a%24bdd9db60%24398d9220%24%40shaw.ca.