Forum OpenACS Q&A: Re: Greenpeace.org nominated for Webby-Awards

Collapse
Posted by Bob Smith on
Whether or not we can see the world as it is, it seems we often choose to see the world as we wish it were. Despite being educated in science, math, logic, and engineering, we are swayed by business, personal, and political goals, and subvert objective reasoning in favor of emotional responses. Whether this is because we are not capable, because we are too lazy, or because we are being dishonest, is not always clear.

An example brings together bats and global warming (or efforts to do something about it, whether it exists or not). In efforts to promote “green” or “clean” energy, TVA acknowledged it negatively impacts bat populations by operating a wind power plant (1). Despite this problem and others, TVA continues to advertise their Green Power Switch program as being good for the environment. They use other overly optimistic (i.e. misleading) arguments for this purpose (2). TVA was also willing to support relatively dangerous technologies under this program (3). Basically, TVA, a government corporation, is willing to sell the public power from any source if the public will buy it (4). First they choose a goal (like selling “green” power); then they gather marketing materials to support the goal.

If TVA, an arm of the same US government that brings us education standards, chooses not to (or cannot) see the world as it is (eg. does not develop and use objective standards for comparing and developing power sources), then who will?

I also agree the 404-page is cool, but Greenpeace is another organization that apparently chooses to view the world as they wish it were, and then gathers marketing materials to support their conclusions, especially regarding benefits and disadvantages of nuclear power versus other power sources.

  1. Chapter 4 of Environmental Assessment
  2. Claim that $8 per month of Green Power provides the environmental benefits of planting an acre of trees
  3. Dangers of Regenesys Energy Storage
  4. Talk on TVA Public Power Research Initiatives
    Answer to question of why nuclear was not considered "renewable" (answer: marketing surveys).
    Anda A. Ray, Director
    Public Power Institute
    Tennessee Valley Authority
    Presented February 20, 2002
Collapse
Posted by Andrew Piskorski on
Bob, yes, I fear I am straying into dangerous political grounds again, but it's a basic litmus test question: Ask a self-described "environmentalist" what he thinks of: 1) Nuclear power. 2) Space access and development. If he's against both, then he almost certainly has no real idea what he's talking about and isn't worth wasting much of your time listening to.

(Only IMNSHO, no warranty included, all caveats apply, etc. etc.)

There are probably many other similar litmus test items for quickly ferreting out the symptoms of "choosing to see the world as you wish it were, rather than as it is", but those are two I'm aware of.