As a general response to this stuff, you might
also check out Langdon Winner's books from that era.
Ronnie
At 11:12 AM 2/25/2008, Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith wrote:
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. Im not
sure if thats quite the right term to use to
characterize the phenomenon he wants to
highlight. Im 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 Brams comments theres 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 Brams
words, wider political and social dynamics.
On Brams 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/>http://www.energy.ca.gov/low_carbon_fuel_standard/
Geoffrey.
----------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[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
[<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[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>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 <[email protected]>
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
>
>
>
>
>
*************************************************************************
Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Professor of Politics, Dept.
of Politics, 234 Crown College
University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Phone: 831-459-3275/Fax: 831-459-3125;
http://people.ucsc.edu/~rlipsch/home.html
*************************************************************************
