Showing posts with label LA Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LA Times. Show all posts

Thursday, December 17, 2009

"Climate change e-mail scandal underscores myth of pure science"

From December 16th's L.A. Times.

Very good read and worth your time.

The authors remind us that using science to make political decisions is just as dangerous as using politics to make decisions in which science is needed.  Some selections:

"The real scandal illustrated by the e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors, but that scientists and advocates on both sides of the climate debate continue to claim political authority derived from a false ideal of pure science. This charade is a disservice to both science and democracy. To science, because the reality cannot live up to the myth; to democracy, because the difficult political choices created by the genuine but also uncertain threat of climate change are concealed by the scientific debate."

"That myth has allowed politicians to shirk their responsibility to be clear about the values, interests and beliefs that underpin their preferences and choices about science and policy. Better to recognize that decision-makers, depending on their political beliefs, will weigh the evidence and risks of climate change differently when evaluating policy options. Their choices will influence the distribution of benefits and costs, and will have varying and uncertain prospects for success. Voters should evaluate the decisions on that basis, rather than on the false notion that science is dictating the choices."

"The choices are extraordinarily difficult; the costs of action, and inaction, are potentially momentous. No one can know what the "right" decisions will be, but the e-mail controversy reminds us that imperfect people, not pure science, must decide that question. This is a job for democratic politics, informed by, but not shackled to, a pluralistic, insightful and imperfect scientific enterprise."

Thursday, October 29, 2009

"Suddenly, America digs farming"


This is quite an enjoyable piece from the LA Times musing about the growing infatuation and romanticizing of farming in America. As the piece points out, this new perspective on farming is completely removed from the large, corporately dictated farms that account for much of the farming the U.S. Not to say that there are not independent farmers who are not wrapped up in questionable practices (and ethics) of corporate farming, but that's far from the primary form of farm. The reasons? Who knows? Certainly the popular emphasis on local produce, responsible farming, and the associated benefits - health, economic, and social - have a great deal of influence. Maybe it has something to do with western and work wear being fashionable?

Regardless, I suppose my hope for this new found affection is this. I hope that instead of fostering an unrealistic notion and ideal of farming that this attention will throw some light on where our food comes from, how it is produced, and the costs and benefits of producing food by those methods. I also hope this trend will illuminate some of the things we as consumers can do to encourage and nurture those folks who are trying to farm in a way that is responsible vis-a-vis their land, resources, and environment; their neighboring landowners and community; and their consumers.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Obstacles to Expanding Public Transit in the U.S.

In a recent L.A. Times piece, David Lazarus discusses some of the obstacles currently inhibiting the expansion and creating of a "world-class" transit system in the United States. Read his article; he is much more eloquent than I. But I will make a few brief observations about some of these obstacles as I see them.

Transit expansion was one of the most touted pieces of the Obama administration's stimulus plans. However, the money for transit projects is focusing on new build projects while ignoring the fact that many local and regional transit systems are struggling to fund daily operation of their existing routes and services. (See "A Seat on the Bus?", The Nation, July 22, 2009.) As Lazarus indicates, transit must be affordable, reliable, and pleasant - characteristics which are hard to reach or maintain when funds are insufficient. Yes, expansion of transit necessitates new construction, but building support and enthusiasm for transit requires focus on customer service and efficiency.

While the stimulus funds grab headlines, local funding issues should not be ignored. Lazarus points out the difficulty in raising sales tax revenues for Measure R in L.A. County. In Denver, the Regional Transit District (RTD) and its FasTracks program are suffering a similar fate in efforts to add new light rail lines in the Denver metro area, including a much-needed connection to outlying Denver International Airport.

Incentivizing transit means discouraging car use for everyday commuting purposes. Parking fees, inhospitable urban driving (traffic), gas prices - all of these could contribute. However, the American attachment to the personal automobile is ingrained in most of us, and taking commuters out of the driver's seat will not be an easy task.

Land use and development (or redevelopment) must conform to, encourage, and permit (on a practical level) public transportation. Cities like New York, Boston, and Chicago have established transit systems that were in place early in each city's life. Development conforms to the transit routes there like it conforms to highways and roads in other cities. The difficulty that some big cities are facing now is retrofitting a transit system to a land use pattern built for automobile commuting. In Denver, finding locations for tracks, stations, and rail yards has involved contentious and controversial use of eminent domain. Even if these problems are solved, many station locations require an automobile to access them. Many potential riders simply opt to stay in their car for convenience's sake, even if it means spending more money on gas and parking. This is not an easy problem to solve and will continue to be a spur in the side of transit proponents seeking to build or expand intra-urban transit systems.

Those are a few thoughts. This is a topic that is likely to come up again here. If you have particular thoughts or questions you would like to discuss, please leave a comment on the site.