agrea logo Stephen R. Connors
AGREA - Analysis Group for Regional Energy Alternatives
MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
Room E40-465 • tel: 001_617_253_7985 •  connorsr@mit.edu
MIT-LFEE Logo
  On Campus

  About Steve
  Research

  Recent Talks
  Select Papers

  Links
  Beyond MIT

  Big Ideas
  Bon Mots

  AltWheels
  AMC
    
 

Bon Mots    ... or near-random thoughts / musings / working hypotheses ...

     "Catch Phrases" I've Come Up with Over the Past Several Years


Letters to the Editor...

On Saturday, 2 Sept. 2006 I had a "Letter to the Editor" published in The Boston Globe in response to a column by Alex Beam, entitled "MIT's inconvenient scientist". Below is my letter as it appeared in the newspaper. The downloadable PDF has this and the text of the letter as submitted, plus Alex Beam's orginal column from August 30th.

 

⇒  Inconvenient Journalism
COMMUNICATING COMPLEXITY is one of the largest challenges facing both scientists and journalists. Alex Beam dodges this challenge in his column by suggesting that there isn't a scientific consensus on whether climate change exists. The journal Science laid that debate to rest in December 2004 by showing that of nearly a thousand peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, none concluded by suggesting that human activities were not influencing the world's climate.

Furthermore, consensus is not synonymous with unanimity. Professor Lindzen is correct when he points out there is still a great deal of uncertainty surrounding climate mechanisms, natural and man-made. He and others are working to close those knowledge gaps, and should not need a lawyer to do so. Today's debate is not on whether climate change exists, but on how it will manifest itself, and what we can do to mitigate its impacts and adapt to whatever changes do come.

•   Download the Letter to the Editor and the Alex Beam column (60k).


Musings on Sustainable Development...

   Levels of Development...

The semantics of "development" have evolved over the years. What was "economic development" from the 1960s through the 1980s has transformed it itself into "sustainable development" in recent years following the Bruntland report, assisted by the UN Millenium Development Goals (MDG).

One tricky discussion has always been, what do you call "underdeveloped" nations and regions. In the 1970s, an probably even earlier, "less developed" became "developing" presumably to indicate continuous improvement and not connote "backwards" economies.

Comparing my Peace Corps days in Benin, with recent trips to other "developing" nations like China and India, it is clear that some areas are less underdeveloped than others. This is reflected in term like "emerging economies," etc. Then I look at the economies of the so-called industrialized "North." These are not uniform either. Do we need yet another classification for the "high end" affluent economies. I think so. This is what I came up with.

 

⇒  Less Developed
Unfortuantely, some spots on the globe are truly less developed, and through a variety of circumstances, likely to remain so for some time to come. Many places in sub-Saharen Africa come to mind. Strife and/or AIDS ridden Africa like Dafur, Somalia, Zimbabwe and Botswana. Truly tough times and situations, so kudos to Blair and the G8 for keeping it on the front burner, and to Gates and Buffet for devoting their riches to help solve them.

⇒  Developing
This classification is for nations and regions that are on the move, but are still in terms of quality of life, degree of economic activity, etc. might not yet have hit thier stride. Smaller nations in Latin America come to mind. A safe guess is that they are still on the cusp, and greatly exposed to world economic conditions and the world commodity prices for cotton, coffee, copper, etc.

⇒  Emerging
Perhaps "rapidly emerging" would be a better term, but China and India certainly fall into this category, as does Brazil and several others such as many Eastern European nations. Care should be taken however to assign this category to an entire nation. Clearly East and Urban China, Mumbai, and other urban areas fall into this category, but smaller cities and especially urban areas might still be very much in the "Developing" and even "Less Developed" category. This may also true for select regions of Developed and Over-Developed nations.

⇒  Developed
Europe. This is category for Europe, Japan and most of the other OECD nations, commonly referred to as the "industrialized nations. However, when you look at most OECD countries compared to the USA (and in some respects Canada and Australia), you see a marked difference especially in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions per capita. So, another category is needed.

⇒  Over-Developed
With affluence in Europe and the USA being so close, but US citizens using so much more energy, it could be argued (easily) that we are "over-developed" and that with quality long-term planning and coordination we could drive less (live less in our cars), and reduce our overall resouce consumption, without reducing—and perhaps improving— our overall quality of life. This is a tough challenge, and unfortunately looking at some big box retailer and SUV trends in Europe, the USA may not be the only "over-developed" economy for long.


   Upcoming Bon Mots...

 

Development and Equity
⇒  The "Haves," "Have-Nots," and "Have-to-Muchs"

 

Alternatives to R&D (&D&C)
⇒  Technology Development, Deployment and Use
⇒  Technology Innovation, Integration and Implementation

MIT
Connors Home
04 Oct 06 
web.mit.edu/agrea © 2006 S.R. Connors