Summary
Highlights
Rick Shangraw introduces Andy Revkin, an award-winning journalist known for covering climate for decades, and Dr. Brad Allenby, a faculty member in Sustainable Engineering and Law at ASU, known for his provocative insights into industrial ecology. The session is set up as a dialogue between the two speakers, with audience questions encouraged.
Brad Allenby opens by showing two advertisements (a George Washington Super Bowl ad and an Apple 1984 ad) to illustrate how deeply technology is integrated with our understanding of personal freedom and identity. He argues that simplistic solutions fail because they don't account for the complex, often irrational human and cultural elements embedded in every problem, especially climate change, where negotiations have seen emissions rise. He suggests exploring how technology's allure shapes human behavior and considering how to manage this relationship.
Andy Revkin emphasizes his role as a communicator, exploring environmental issues through conversations with scientists and engineers. He highlights the shift in his focus from biogeophysical problems to the human mind and its role in processing information, noting the concept of 'cultural cognition' where predispositions often dictate the acceptance or rejection of scientific findings. He uses striking visual data, like scaled representations of Earth's water and atmosphere, and the rapid growth of cell phone ownership in developing countries, to illustrate new ways of conveying knowledge and the potential of a 'noosphere'—a global sphere of thought and information. He concludes that both technology and ethics are insufficient alone for addressing 21st-century challenges.
Brad agrees with Andy's points, emphasizing how rapidly change is undermining operating assumptions, citing China's educational advancements and global cell phone access in developing countries. He provocatively asks if anything about the human experience is non-contingent, given advancements in memory-altering drugs and radical life extension, which challenge sustainability assumptions. Andy, while optimistic, believes the information gap is closing, allowing knowledge to spread faster and empower communities, as seen in the example of a Kenyan woman using solar power for her cell phone business.
The moderator asks how universities can better export knowledge to decision-makers. Andy argues that academia's best role is to make the case for science and inquiry, including celebrating failures. He presents a graph showing the historically low and fluctuating federal R&D budget for energy compared to health and military. Brad criticizes academia as 'badly broken,' teaching outdated information and failing to impart wisdom amidst information overload. He suggests that academics are often unwilling to admit their shortcomings.
An audience member questions the anthropocentric framing of the discussion. Andy explains that focusing on the human element is crucial because humanity impacts natural systems, advocating for 'anthropophilia'—seeing ourselves as part of the larger system. Brad agrees, stating that humans are currently shaping carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and biodiversity. He argues that no single ethical system (anthropocentric, ecocentric, biocentric) is sufficient to understand the complex world and that an integrated approach is needed.
A question arises about whether to postpone or accelerate climate catastrophe for easier management. Andy explains the two options: building public will to reduce emissions or pushing hard on technology. He notes the lack of public will, especially with rising emissions in China and India, and suggests the scientific community needs plasticity to develop toolkits for future clarity. Brad states that existing climate change constraints are often ignored, noting the failure of the Kyoto Protocol. He uses the Montreal Protocol's success with CFCs as an example of having technological options readily available. He proposes 'meat in factories' as a geoengineering technology, freeing up land from inefficient animal agriculture and potentially mitigating other environmental cycles. He emphasizes balancing costs and benefits through a portfolio approach, lamenting the polarized climate discussion.
The moderator asks if continuing the Kyoto talks is sensible given past failures, suggesting a shift to sub-national, city-level solutions as the world urbanizes. Brad believes the Kyoto Protocol will continue not because it's effective directly, but because it maintains the visibility of the issue, leading to systemic adaptation at various levels that aren't explicitly perceived. Andy, who has followed climate diplomacy for decades, agrees that the framework convention enshrines obligations for emitting countries to help poorer nations adapt. However, he criticizes the late 20th-century model of treating climate change solely as a pollution problem, arguing it doesn't apply to the energy system. He suggests integrating climate considerations into development assistance and technology partnerships, shifting away from a climate-centric agreement that aims to engineer the economy.
An audience member questions if humanity is demonstrating a self-correcting mechanism or acting like bacteria on a petri dish. Andy asks if we can prove we are more than bacteria, noting that while science shows the 'edge of the petri dish' (planetary limits), humanity hasn't shown the capacity to modulate behavior in anticipation of risks. Brad discusses technological evolution's role in sustaining large populations but warns against two types of 'Kool-Aid': extreme pessimism (limits to everything) and extreme optimism (economics always works). He emphasizes the need for better understanding of integrated natural-human systems. The discussion then shifts to the role of corporations in sustainability. Andy believes corporations should foster education and acknowledge the need for intellectual infrastructure, but also highlights capitalism's 'rapacious' nature and the challenge of redefining fiduciary responsibility. Brad provocatively suggests corporations push academia on its failings. He also cautions against assigning corporations responsibility for 'sustainability,' as the definition is subjective and difficult to enforce, citing AT&T's experience with a German rating organization.
An audience member introduces the concept of the Anthropocene era, where human culture reorganizes geological systems. They ask about the university's role in this epochal geological transition. Andy quips about having almost coined the term himself. He then poses the central question: will the transition to a 'greater Anthropocene' be a conscious evolution of humanity or one enforced upon us by environmental systems when we hit planetary limits? Brad agrees on the convenience of the 'Anthropocene' term to describe human impact on natural systems, particularly critical dynamics, noting it is a useful concept for understanding our current state.