GEPED folks: Lovins' stuff in the 1970s was interesting for numerous reasons, but in many ways much more interesting than his market capitalism stuff more recently. Most people seem to forget that he came out of the anti-nuke campaigns of the 1970s, working in the UK for FoE among other activities. Part of that campaign was to find technical alternatives to nukes and this is where the whole focus on technology and price started.
The whole soft energy framework focused explicitly on end use, and then worked backwards to show that there were all sorts of simple technologies (and not any one single magic bullet) that were much more economically and ecologically sensible than the centralised power grids fed by nuke power stations. His early 1980s stuff dealt with the security dimensions of nuclear proliferation, and his arguments back then about security being compromised by making the U.S. dependent on petroleum from the Persian Gulf turned out to be prescient. If you haven't read *The Energy Controversy* by Amory Lovins and his critics (San Francisco Friends of the Earth 1979) from cover to cover, then you have missed a real gem of policy analysis. OK its 29 years old and even thinking about it is making me worry about my pension, but there is a wealth of stuff back there that is really useful as a template for looking at what has changed, the lessons learned, and yes to use Lovins' master metaphor from the poet, matters of "the road not taken". Most of *the Energy Controversy* is about US policy issues, but British teachers could do precisely the same exercise with Gerald Leach and his friends *A Low Energy Strategy for the UK*, also published in 1979 (London: Institute for Environment and Development). The historic comparisons there would be especially interesting given that Margaret Thatcher intervened in all this in the 1980s and her destruction of the coal miners and the coal industry dramatically shifted the UK energy mix. In terms of teaching, and this list is about teaching, the obvious way to use Lovins is to ask the question, well if its all so simple and logical, the physics works, the chemistry works, the economics works, then how come societies aren't actually doing these sensible things? The students can begin to explore which industries get what subsidies. How corporations buy up patents. (Talking of 1979 does anyone remember Ray Reece's *The Sun Betrayed*?) How licencing of new technologies works. Why people buy ecologically damaging technologies, and all the other things that we teach! (And yes do also read Langdon Winner as Ronnie suggests!) Thirty years later all these themes of foreign dependence, the dangers of proliferation, the economics of what happens when oil prices rise are back again with a vengeance; so forget Lovins' recent market stuff if you have to, but don't throw out the historical baby with the contemporary bath water!! Better still, keep the bathwater, and get students to read a couple of recent Lovins pieces and then juxtapose his suggestions with a detailed political economy analysis of energy, power, business and war like for instance the provocative formulation in Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan "Dominant Capital and New Wars" *Journal of World Systems Research* 10(2). 2004. pp. 255-327, then sit back and watch your students debate the issues. All the best, Simon On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Ronnie Lipschutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. I'm not > >sure if that's quite the right term to use to > >characterize the phenomenon he wants to > >highlight. I'm 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 Bram's comments there's 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 Bram's > >words, wider political and social dynamics. > > > >On Bram's 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 > ************************************************************************* > > > -- Simon Dalby, Ph.D. Professor, Carleton University www.carleton.ca/~sdalby Political Geography Section Editor of Geography Compass (www.blackwell-compass.com)
