Breakthrough Blog
 
Daily Breakthrough: Avatar, Eco-Paranoia, and Technology

Share

UPDATE: Alternet and Buffalo Beast have both corrected their posts about Roger Pielke Jr. and Breakthrough and apologized for the error. Score one for responsible journalism - an increasingly endangered species in today's brave new media world.


Conservatives and liberals are duking it out over the blockbuster Avatar's portrayal of American humans as violent corporate imperialists, and of the giant blue Na'vi as humanoids who live at one with nature, blissfully free of science and technology. Old story, old debate.

The strangest and most interesting thing that both sides have overlooked is that Na'vi have both science and technology -- which they use (gasp!) to dominate nature.

Top of the Food Chain: Though they are portrayed as being one with Nature, the Na'vi use their own form of technology to subordinate nature to suit their needs.

In fact, they plug their fiber-optic braids into animals, allowing them to control them, and into trees, allowing them to get all sorts of information, Matrix-like, from Nature.

What James Cameron offers in Avatar are heroes with all of the cool technologies and domination of large mammals that we enjoy here on earth, and none of the eco-guilt from having had, as one angry Na'vi says in Avator, "killed their mother."

If Avatar was looking to popularize other ridiculous myths about technology, it could have shown some lone Na'vi scientist toiling away in his tree house laboratory inventing swell technologies -- with no help, thank you very much, from the government! -- all while spouting libertarian gobbley-gook from the Na'vi equivalent of Ayn Rand.

The White Messiah: David Brooks points out that Avatar is a white messiah fantasy -- but libertarian conservatives like Ayn Rand have made businessmen into their mystical saviors.

Back here on Earth, Obama continues to warn against America losing the clean energy industry to the Chinese, saying today, "I don't want the technology that will transform the way we use energy to be invented abroad."

All this even though Obama hasn't to date lifted a finger to make sure that the $150 billion for energy R&D he promised be included in his budget or cap and trade.

Happily, high tech elders like Justin Rattner of Intel are speaking out for this investment, telling CBS "You don't save your way out of a recession, you invest your way out." Rattner and Intel have the credibility -- they're building $4 billion worth of new factories to make semiconductors in the Southwest.

Intel is proof that the Chinese don't have to eat our lunch. The difference between microchips and solar panels is that America invested serious money in microchips while China's investing serious money into solar. Obama can talk all he wants but he, unlike Rattner and Intel, so far isn't putting his money where his mouth is.

Does anybody even need to hear the economic argument for these kinds of investments anymore? Aren't they, by now obvious?

Slipping in Science: Compared with their cohort around the world, American 15-year-olds ranked 21st and 25th in science and math, respectively. That's surprisingly low for a country that insists it is a world leader in the sciences.

Maybe to Breakthrough readers, but not to most people inside the beltway, where despite having just seen an $800 billion stimulus, folks in Washington still insist that new public investments in technology to create jobs and competitiveness are politically impossible.

For that reason it came as shock and awe to see WaPo business columnist Steven Pearlstein make the strong case for productive investments "for infrastructure, basic research, clean-energy development and expanded public higher education."

That column is a welcome shift from his incoherent column on Waxman Markey, which argued that the government shouldn't "pick winning and losing technologies."

If the government had followed Pearlstein's advice on that issue then we wouldn't have radios, computers, fax machines, WiFi, solar panels, the Internet, wind turbines, or cell phones. And the Na'vi wouldn't have neurotransmitter braids.

The Great Tech Exodus: Shi Yigong was recently lured back to Beijing from Princeton. And while only 1 in 4 who leave ever return, the numbers are slowly tilting towards Asia's benefit.

One of the oft-heard claims of the "we shouldn't pick tech winners" crowd is that even if America cedes all manufacturing to China it doesn't matter because we remain strong on basic science.

But that shibboleth, too, might be coming to end. The Gray Lady reported yesterday that China persuaded Shi Yigong, an apparently brilliant cutting-edge molecular biologist, to emigrate back across the Pacific. Yigong must have been offered some serious ka-ching and suction in China since taking the Dragon's offer required that he turn down $10 million dollar research grant he was recently awarded from the Sleeping Giant.

"Bright greens" talk a big (and boring) game about the need for tech, but they are mostly interested in technology of limits (read: green buildings, mass transit, etc etc) -- a position consistent with the larger eco-politics of limits, which sees Nature as harmonious, fragile and constantly on the verge of collapse due to the evil greed of rapacious humans.

Apocalypse fatigue notwithstanding, apocalypse mongering is still everywhere, from the opening film of Copenhagen, with a little girl running from global warming earthquakes to continuing McCarthyite attacks on Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr. by bloggers like these.

Breakthrough asked Alternet to correct the post, which claimed that Pielke, Jr. was industry-funded and a global warming denier -- smears consistent with those Ted and Michael documented against Roger. Alternet editors took down the section mentioning Roger. But the rest of the post is still up, and it's still creepy, openly fantasizing about the death of people with whom the authors disagree. The authors try to dress it up as comedy; it's about as funny as frat guys making rape jokes.

Avatar, for all of its green nostalgia, at least offered uplift, inspiration, and excitement about being alive -- something that can hardly be said about what passes for the ecological left these days.

   Like what you see? Subscribe to our RSS feed here...


Share


TrackBacks (0) 25 COMMENTS:

Breakthrough Institute's successful pressure on Alternet to truncate my Buffalo Beast and Alternet article was scurrilous and hypocritical.
You can't very well accuse Romm of climate McCarthyism and pull off a stunt like this one.

I don't care if you lack a sense of humor: you are, after all, attorneys. But merely because I criticized Roger Pielke Jr., your Breakthrough Fellow, you put the screws on Alternet. Didn't they teach you about the First Amendment in law school?

Pielke, by the way, is dispised by practically all climate scientists. If you want expertise in that area, why not go down the street, to UC Berkeley? There are Nobel prizewinners there, but instead you went for a widely discredited political scientist from Colorado.

It's Breakthrough that politicizes climate science. I would be happy to debate this whole issue in public, either in print or at a function.



Mike, if you had written a post about why the climate scientists who you follow don't like Roger Pielke I'm sure that Alternet would not have objected. But you didn't do that. You repeated well-documented lies about Pielke. He is neither a skeptic nor is he funded by the fossil fuel industry. That is why Alternet very appropriately corrected your post. That's responsible journalism, not censorship.



For the record, there is not an attorney in the house here at Breakthrough -- a pretty simple matter of record that you could have confirmed in about five seconds on the Breakthrough site or emailing us before posting your comment. But apparently, you were either too lazy or too cavalier about such matters to have bothered.



You may be entitled to your own creepy death fantasies but not to your own facts.



-- Michael

Venture funding for clean tech was only $5.64 billion in 2009, down from its record $8.47 in 2008. That's all the vaunted private sector is able to muster.

For comparison: Afghanistan/Pakistan warfare costs about $2 billion a day, and Americans spent $39 billion on pet food in 2006.

So, obviously, only government can do a job this size, and the private sector should be in a supportive role, as in highway construction. "Picking winners and losers" is a more difficult issue. We like to believe that in America merit has a fighting chance, and that political clout should not determine the direction of our efforts. But how can merit even get in the game? There is practically no private sector money going into clean tech. Venture capital (and angel funding) demands at least a 10X return with an exit in 2 years. That short an exit and that high a bonanza return on investment precludes any technology development, and favors scavenging opportunities.

So I don't follow the pundits who see American innovation and the "free market" coming to the rescue of the Rust Belt and the atmosphere. I wish it were true, as I guess it used to be, but America today aborts its infant clean tech, preferring to use the CO2 crisis as an opportunity to push the cap-and-trade offset scam.

The human family cannot keep recklessly overproducing unnecessary stuff, hyperconsuming and excessively hoarding limited resources, and overpopulating the planet as the leaders in our not-so-great generation are advocating so adamantly. Everyone in the human community appears to be implicated in the work at hand of finding a different way from the patently unsustainable "primrose path" set out by those who extol the virtue of greed and arrogantly proclaim that their greed-mongering is God's work. The most dangerous fraud consciously perpetrated in our midst is the widely shared perception that insatiable avarice is an inherent aspect of human nature. Unbridled greed may rule the world in our time but such behavior is contrived ..... a willful, foolish and selfish result of a consensually validated misperception of what is real about the nature of being human, I suppose.

Dear Mr. Shellenberger:
I stand corrected about attorneys on your staff. I must admit that I don't always fact check very thoroughly when I write blog comments, making your accusation of laziness valid in this case.
As for your claim that I am repeating lies about Pielke, his misstatements of fact are widely documented. What, specifically, are you referring to? And when it comes to climate change expertise, why in the world did you choose him? It would appear to a rational person that this indicates a political bias toward free market and conservative solutions, as well as doubt about the peril we are in.
I don't care if you call me lazy, or even if you believe that I have creepy death fantasies (I'm nonviolent). My article stands, however, and remains fact checked and solid, so I don't appreciate the implication that I am a liar.
It is your own independence as a putative think tank that is at stake. I speak only for myself. It would appear that your organization answers to much larger concerns.

Mike,

Roger Pielke Jr. is not a skeptic. He is not a free marketeer. He is not a right winger. He is not on any corporate teat. Nor is the Breakthrough Institute. These facts are well established in the public record and just a few minutes on his blog or ours could have established that. So what exactly is it that you claim to have fact checked in your piece? Your continuing efforts to justify your smear only further demonstrate your apparent total ignorance of Pielke's work.



Ted

Roger F. Pielke, Jr. is a lucid thinker whose excursions from fashionable (and wrong) opinion have made him a target of climate McCarthyism. I hope Mike Roddy will give him a second look, and a break.

Roger is in the position of the little boy in the tale of The Emperor's New Clothes, who dares to add up the numbers that show the real scale of the world's energy demand and its relation to CO2 emissions. This is heresy to the dogma that changing to fluorescent light bulbs and other conservation measures will be enough, i.e. that "we already have all the tools we need." If you are looking for a corporate bad guy, he would be about my last choice. How about the promoters of the cap-and-trade offset scam and their smear tactics?

Ted-
I don't agree that Pielke is not a skeptic, based on his record, and particularly his habit of chiming in with discredited climate bloggers such as McIntyre and Watts. Regarding his and TBI's belief that our CO2 problem is best addressed by inventing our way out of it and becoming energy self sufficient, there are limits to what we can do here.
Solar thermal is the most promising utility scale power solution, in my opinion. Even with recent and projected advances, however, it's unlikely to compete well with coal and natural gas in the foreseeable future. A busbar cost differential of $.02-.04 is pretty big, actually. That means taking a stand against fossil fuels, particularly coal. The best way to do that is to remove their various subsidies, something Obama talked about but we have seen few results from. Recent administrative moves against MTR are also helpful.
I have detected little interest from you or Pielke in making the choice to become enemies of the fossil fuel companies. The facts of the climate danger we are in lead to that position, in my opinion. Energy independence, the course TBI stresses, allows room for natural gas, oil, and perhaps even "clean" coal, all paths that will lead to doom.
Regarding corporate teats, almost all NGO's rely on corporate funding, including yours, even if it's routed through a charitable fund or a nonprofit institution. This is hardly a secret, and is not a corporate teat in the narrow sense, but is in reality, based on the sad and timid performance of Big Green organizations.
I have read plenty of Pielke's work, and like many people have sparred with him on blogs such as Dot Earth. As you said, his record speaks for itself- you don't like Romm or Lambert; I believe that they are both brilliant and reputable thinkers, whose research on Pielke sets the standard.
I'm in the business of funding alternative energy plants, by the way- $200 million to $2 billion, if there is an entitled site. Your belief in this direction is correct, it's just your emphasis that is wrong.

Mike,



Both Alternet and Buffalo Beast have now removed Pielke from your post so I think the verdict on your so called "fact checking" is pretty well in. The definition you now offer of corporate funding is so broad as to be meaningless. Given that you apparently make your living selling energy efficiency to hotels, I presume you would now put yourself in such esteemed company as well.



The clear implication of your post was that Pielke and the others on your list were funded by fossil fuel interests to deny global warming. Your ongoing efforts to pass off your misrepresentation of Pielke as factual offers a pretty good object lesson in how climate mccarthyism works and your apparent interest in debating the best technological and political way forward is belied by your dismissal of anyone who disagrees with you as a fossil fuel funded corporate hack.



Ted

Don't be too quick to declare victory here, Ted. The verdict is not quite in from this whole episode.


Ted: Verdict in. Buffalo Beast has now formally corrected the post and apologized to Roger.



My definition of a corporate teat is "so broad as to be meaningless"? The Rockefeller family, one of your primary sources of funding, made its fortune from Standard Oil, and remains heavily invested in many fossil fuel interests. That's more a direct connection than some of the others on my list. In these circumstances, I don't blame you for laying off the oil and coal companies.
"Climate McCarthy"? Bad metaphor, and cheap shot. Senator McCarthy imagined communists everywhere, and was an insane and stupid alcoholic. I and some of the others you criticize do so on the basis of your policy statements, which do not reflect either the science of current climate trajectories or adequate solutions to alter them.


Puhleeez! The Breakthrough Institute is obviously biased toward "growth is good" nonsense, and the articles posted here are some of the most hate filled I have ever had the misfortune to have to read.

Yuck! That is the quality posted here.

You guys are so obvious -- you might as well use writers from the Fox network.

Garbage, and more garbage.

Dear Mike,



While I don't know you well enough to ascertain whether you are an alcoholic, two out of three isn't bad. But really, you don't need to be stupid, insane, alcoholic, or for that matter a U.S. Senator to employ McCarthyite tactics, you just need to be intensely ideological, a characteristic of which you appear to be amply endowed.



Like any good mccartyite, you see enemies everywhere, in this case enemies of the planet. And you continue to demonstrate a laziness about your facts that borders on hostility. For the record, RPA sponsors our work but does not fund it. Virtually all of our funding comes from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, trustees of the dreaded Sara Lee pound cake fortune, and the Lotus Foundation, funded by members of the Pritzker family. Any half-assed journalist or blogger could have figured this out in a few minutes. With another minute or two you could have figured out that both those foundations fund CAP, home of your glory boy Joe Romm.



Mike, that shovel in your hand is not turning up any dirt on us, it's just digging the hole you're standing in deeper. Put it down and retreat with dignity.



Ted

Mike is working to make clean energy cheap, which is what we all want. So I respect the sincerity of his view, and I think you should, too, Ted. Mike is one of the good guys. While I don't agree that making clean energy cheap necessarily means making coal more expensive (with consequent brownouts), some sincere thinking about the problem by Mike and other experts might lead to a breakthrough.

Solar thermal might supply some baseload capacity, if it could get connected to the grid, and if the water waste problem could be solved, and if it could be deployed at a scale sufficient to replace coal in time to make a difference. That would have to include India and China. I'm not optimistic about that. Meanwhile, fossil fuel is what keeps the lights on and the air conditioners running. Plug-in cars will make coal even more indispensable in the US and the rest of the world.

Ted, Eli wouldn't recommend your calling other folk incoherent or drunk after reading this avatar post.

You guys are the definition of passive aggressive and it sure looks like the Climate McCarthy's won here, surpressing a point of view you don't agree with. You and Roger sure jumped on everyone when the CRU Emails were made public, but you don't like it much when others call you out.

Think what you like about Roger Pielke, Mike Roddy and Eli don't think much of him, and Roger thinks the world of himself, your attacks and Roger's whining, sure are the best McCartheyite work seen in a long time. And you know it won. You called in your chips and you got Roger removed from the list. Eli now eagerly awaits your whines about how others are not respecting you.

You also don't understand what McCarthy did but you are trying your best to emulate him.

Mike is all out front. He doesn't have the self control to be the kind of sleaze that McCarthy was, and he�s never had anything remotely like the power McCarthy had.

Roger, on the other hand, is organized enough that any sensible person worries about his sleaziness, and you are his cat's paws.



Ted: Good luck with that one Professor Halpern. Such phony equivalencies might make sense in the rabid warrens of "alarmist" bunnies and "denier" bunnies but most folks are actually capable of discerning the difference between critique and smear, responsible journalism and censorship. Alternet and Daily Beast removed Pielke from the post not because they were trying to shut down debate but because the post contained obvious falsehoods. If you or Mike want to attack our views or Roger's, have at it. There's plenty enough there for you to disagree with without making stuff up. Roger has reiterated his offer to post a guest post from you or Mike. A brave bunny would take him up on the offer.

Two out of three ain't bad? That was a good one, Ted. You give me credit for not being an alcoholic, but believe that, like McCarthy, I am stupid and insane. Based on that statement, your and Michael's credibility, already almost nonexistent, is now approaching the atomic level.



Ted: For a guy who started off this thread complaining about other people not being able to take a joke, you turn out to be awfully thin skinned yourself. Think about that next time you consider writing a piece fantasizing about other people's deaths.



I return to my main point in The Beast. You could have gone down the street to Berkeley to find a climate scientist to staff your organization as a Senior Fellow. I know three PhD's in the field there personally, including a Nobel Prize winner and IPCC author, and another with an international reputation from feedback loop field work, and there are others, of course. Instead, you chose Roger Pielke Jr., who allies himself with people like Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat, and, like Watts, likes to create the impression that the work of our most reputable climate scientists is fraudulent. If I could compare you two to anyone it would be Fair and Balanced Bill O'Reilly. It's not that you are wrong. You are not even remotely deserving of being taken seriously.

Wilmot, IEHO solar thermal and wind make a lot of sense on small scale for villages in India and China which are not on the grid. Building small, relatively simple to repair units and distributing them would help a lot.

Mike Roddy- Your credibility will be enhanced and you will show that you are not making stuff up if you simply prove the accuracy of this statement with a reference or a link, or some basis in fact:

"Instead, you chose Roger Pielke Jr., who allies himself with people like Anthony Watts of wattsupwiththat, and, like Watts, likes to create the impression that the work of our most reputable climate scientists is fraudulent."

From where I sit it looks like you just pulled that accusation out of your ass. Prove it.

Open Invitation to Mike Roddy and Prof. Joshua Halpern (Eli Rabbet):

Since you guys seem weirdly obsessed with me and my views, you have an open invitation to prepare a guest weblog for my site which explains your substantive disagreements with my policy views. Lets give them the airing that they deserve. Here is a list of some of those views in case you don't know what they are:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-invitation.html

Others here:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/q-with-tom-fuller.html

And my various peer reviewed and non-reviewed publications:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/show_all_pubs.html?showAllRecords=true&searchString=&action=Search&goInto=&toClose=

The only requirements are that (a) you don't lie, (b) you source your claims, (c) you stay away from creepy death wishes or threats or anything remotely close.

Also, Mike Roddy, please do note that I have no association or alliance with Anthony Watts. You could have emailed me or searched my blog and obtained the correct answer in 2 minutes. Why make stuff up?

To accept this invitation my email is pielke@colorado.edu

Have at it.

This thread appears to have pretty well run its course. Mike and Professor Halpern are welcome to head over to Roger's blog and post a guest blog if they dare. The smart money here says that without the ability to dress up ad hominem as argument in a supportive echo chamber, neither will take him up on the offer.



For the record, both Alternet and Buffalo Beast have formally corrected Mike's post and apologized to Roger.

So you challenge one out of 15 entries on the list.

That tells me you substantially accept all the others as truthful and valid entries.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/144990/the_15_most_heinous_climate_villains

Thanks.

Yael: Hello Richard, I think I made it quite clear in the text of the post that Roddy's death fantasies were creepy across the board, regardless of each "villains'" stance on climate change. If there are specific claims made about others on Roddy's list that you know to be false, I'd suggest you bring it up with the editors at Buffalo Beast and Alternet.

So what is a spectator to this mess supposed to think? Although I'm sympathetic to his point of view, Roddy's hyperbolic style plays loose with the facts so he's not trustworthy. Pielke Jr. rarely takes denialists to task when they are obviously mistaken and/or distributing disinformation so he's not reliable (not to mention that on some of his posts [e.g. had an undergraduate explain simple statistics to me] he comes across as not the sharpest tool in the shed. Eli Rabbett understands the science of global warming better than anyone here but it seems his disagreements with Junior have become personal. I'm not all that familiar with the Breakthrough Institute (sorry!) but your (and Roger's) use of Eli's real name when he prefers to use a pseudonym is almost universally considered sleazy.


Ted: Sorry Dave, when Professor Halpern hides behind a pseudonym to spread information that he knows to be false (i.e. that we are funded by fossil fuel interests or "right wing libertarian" types) he properly deserves to be outed. Trashing the reputations of others while hiding behind a pseudonym is not ok. And if you didn't get the sarcasm in Roger's undergraduate statistics post I'm afraid the joke is on you.

This is my first visit to your website, having first read the article in question at Buffalo Beast and become confused by comments about the removal of #14.

I thought it was pure snark and hysterically funny - not creepy at all. It was clearly meant to be political satire with a very serious message at heart.

Anyway, I'm going to Avatar this afternoon to see for myself what the controversy is all about - in advance though I recommend the review linked here: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/01/why-humans-doom-themselves.html

Update! Saw the movie, here's the report:

http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2010/01/avatar.html

Thank you Breakthrough Institute for helping inspire me to see it!

The nasty, defensive tone of your response says more than I was expecting! I didn't realize I was stepping on a hornet's nest of personal animosity. Sorry that I have upset you!

Nordhaus:

Every single sentence you posted was a flagrant lie.

I am joining millions of environmentally educated and concerned citizens in pushing for the death of the Breakthrough Institute and all the other astroturf and greenwashing efforts.

It's such a MiniTru, isn't it, since the actual purpose of the Breakthrough Institute is to put the breaks on environmental regulation and mitigation as long as is inhumanly possible.

Dave, it's an interesting question of who is real. Samuel Clemons signed his checks with Sam, but his books with Mark Twain. It's an interesting situation and if you are at all contemplative Eli recommends your trying it.


The thing about Eli is that when he sprung to life the opportunity existed to create a (somewhat quirky) personality and mileau and it has been fun trying to grow that. The question also existed about how deep to hide the Jim Henson and the decision (taken on Eli's advice, he is a wise Rabett) was not to broadcast the information, but not to pull a Joe Klein either and deny, but simply to ignore. The reaction of Prof. Pielke and the BTI are more than indicative of their lack of self awareness and humor. Their need for ownership gets in the way, which makes them fun to twit.


As to Roger and Me, it's not exactly personal (how could it be with a bunny, Roger's ears suck and he hates carrots) on the ad hom level, but Eli does object to the manipulative excess Roger engages in, the coy (ok, that's style) self promotion and the stealth denialism.


Ask yourself this, who and what does he attack, who does he not attack. That's the key.


Ted and whatsname are much more in your face types, perhaps because they have to come up with dollar one to support themselves. Nasty but trivial.

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use basic HTML tags for style)
Use the <br> tag for line breaks (returns).

HTML is allowed, but in an effort to prevent SPAM if your entry contains URL's it will be held briefly for moderation.

Please email comments@thebreakthrough.org if you're experiencing problems when trying to comment.

Breakthrough Blog
RSS Subscribe to RSS Feed

twitter Follow the BTI on Twitter

twitter Join the BTI on Facebook

donate to Breakthrough

Recent Breakthrough Blog Posts Archives
Categories
Contributors
Blog advertisement
Nau Clothing
 
 
Privacy : Contact