We have a special connection with the institute because of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of our nation’s top universities, and because of the Department of Energy. We believe that the work that is being done here at Masdar has the potential to solve some of the most urgent challenges facing our planet. How do we develop sustainable energy sources that can power our cities without contributing to climate change? How do we create technologies that are scalable and both use less power and are widely affordable? How do we supply water for drinking and farming in places where fresh water sources are decreasing? How do we achieve economic growth without relying so heavily on fossil fuels where they’re drilling for them, selling them, buying them, or burning them?
...I want my country to know how advanced you are in pursuing clean, renewable energy. I want the world to know that the United States is partnering with you, because we are betting on Abu Dhabi and the UAE. We are betting that this incredible investment represented by Masdar is going to pay off. And when it pays off, it will not only mean a better life for the people of this country and this region. It will have ripple effects throughout the world.
I'm going to tread carefully here because I love reading Respectful Insolence. The blog's author, who goes by the pseudonym "Orac," is ridonkulous-smart, obviously passionate, and above all, not one to mess with. I'm also going to stress that the following represents my personal opinion, has nothing to do with work. (I have worked in the past for pharmaceutical company clients; not doing anything with them currently.)
Orac spends a lot of his time mocking the anti-science crowd, as is his right. He's quite good at it. He does so from his perch at Scienceblogs, which according to their own marketing data is read mostly by scientists (or at least people with graduate degrees and people who manage scientific projects). He's apparently gotten some criticism that he's simply talking to other scientists when he makes his arguments - that he's "preaching to the converted" and this helps no one. I've made a somewhat similar argument, though I've never called out Orac specifically:
Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other.
So I was interested in his response, which you should read but is summed up like this:
When I hear such charges now, I think I'll just refer the one doing the complaining to this video:
Let me stress Orac is under no obligation to be a Science Ambassador. It's not his job to move the public opinion needle. He can write whatever he wants, and I'll probably read it and nod my head and smile. But given that he made this response, I assume he's at least interested in the issue.
I realize this response wasn't made personally for me. But it oversimplifies the criticism. First, who assumes there's only "agree and disagree?" It's precisely because there are so many people in the middle that I think Science's PR problem is so tragic. (oh, and the little bit in the video making a play on the word "converted" evaporates if you prefer the term I sometimes use, "preaching to the choir.")
This video is a curious defense of homophily. Of course it's good to have discussions within one's own community. Of course it's good to galvanize ideas and sentiment and rally the base - it just can't be the only thing you do. (See "Palin, Sarah.")
The thing that irked me the most about the video (and I realize this isn't Orac's original material) is this idea that posting material online "makes it available" so people can see it when they're ready to change their opinions or accept new information.
Sorry, this is a cop-out. Again, no one is forcing Orac or anyone else to be an Ambassador. But if he cares about "moving the needle" in the public, he's smart enough to know this isn't how diplomacy works. The anti-science cranks of the world aren't waiting around for people to find them. As Orac points out, they're showing up on Huffington Post and Oprah and daily news shows - you know, where the people are. And they're listening to people and communicating in terms that resonate. (And by the way, they're pushing their new book or their new line of organic herb supplements that remove "toxins" or cancer-curing magnets, which could be yours for just 4 easy payments of $29.95 but supplies are limited so ACT NOW!)
The whole premise of the argument is based on the notion that people outside Orac's circle are either already getting his information, or will actively seek it out and know where to find it in the future. That's just not how communication and persuasion works. You don't convince people that a particular treatment for a disease is important simply by publishing an article in JAMA. It's just the first step.
Calling the other side a bunch of quacks probably feels good. Using scientific data to show why they're quacks probably feels good too. And if that's all you want to do, that's fine. I'll keep reading it.
If you're interested in more, you have to get out and find those people in the middle (we know they're not reading scienceblogs and they're not likely to look for scienceblogs) and listen to their concerns and understand their motivation and explain your position in terms that are relevant and understandable. You have to get out of your comfort zone a little.
...today I’m announcing that over the next year, we will work with partners in industry, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to establish a standing effort that will harness the power of connection technologies and apply them to our diplomatic goals. By relying on mobile phones, mapping applications, and other new tools, we can empower citizens and leverage our traditional diplomacy. We can address deficiencies in the current market for innovation.
Let me give you one example. Let’s say I want to create a mobile phone application that would allow people to rate government ministries, including ours, on their responsiveness and efficiency and also to ferret out and report corruption. The hardware required to make this idea work is already in the hands of billions of potential users. And the software involved would be relatively inexpensive to develop and deploy.
If people took advantage of this tool, it would help us target our foreign assistance spending, improve lives, and encourage foreign investment in countries with responsible governments. However, right now, mobile application developers have no financial assistance to pursue that project on their own, and the State Department currently lacks a mechanism to make it happen. But this initiative should help resolve that problem and provide long-term dividends from modest investments in innovation. We’re going to work with experts to find the best structure for this venture, and we’ll need the talent and resources of technology companies and nonprofits in order to get the best results most quickly. So for those of you in the room who have this kind of talent, expertise, please consider yourselves invited to help us.
In the meantime, there are companies, individuals, and institutions working on ideas and applications that could already advance our diplomatic and development objectives. And the State Department will be launching an innovation competition to give this work an immediate boost. We’ll be asking Americans to send us their best ideas for applications and technologies that help break down language barriers, overcome illiteracy, connect people to the services and information they need. Microsoft, for example, has already developed a prototype for a digital doctor that could help provide medical care in isolated rural communities. We want to see more ideas like that. And we’ll work with the winners of the competition and provide grants to help build their ideas to scale.
Now THAT'S an open platform.
Of course, we're already seeing innovation from the ground up to meet a multitude of challenges, like mapping technology from Ushaidi's work in response to the earthquake in Haiti to the work of innovators like Lalitesh Katragadda. But it's amazing and inspiring to see this kind of open call from the most influential diplomat in the world.
I'm looking forward to learning the details of this contest. I'm wondering if they will make all the submissions public - it could become one of the largest (if not the largest) repositories of technology-based innovative solutions to the worlds problems ever built.
I don't think I'm exaggerating at all to suggest that this project could become Secretary Clinton's legacy. The potential here is absolutely enormous.
Yeah, I know, you didn't think I could do worse than "Copen-Puffs", but I did.
I contributed a column to Business Lexington this week where I labeled COP15 the "You First Summit." Basically everyone is willing to talk tough and demand action but no one will lift a finger unless someone else does it first. There's still one more day to see if the brinksmanship will end and people will get serious, and you could argue that's what it takes in global negotiations.
Here's the sad part - I actually wrote the column before the conference began. Call me cynical, but call me right. Tim Hurst was kind enough to pick up my "coverage" of the summit over at Ecopolitology, and there have been a few more updates since then - mostly sad. Of course, if you're an optimist that means that President Obama is about to swoop in at the last minute and save the world.
Samoa waits patiently for countries with money to do something. The Samoan Ambassador to the UN showed up and basically told the rest of the world while they're posturing, his country is sinking into the ocean. Not good.
Developing countries walk out, then walk back in. "Negotiations" were halted for a few hours while the G77 decides to show the world they're serious by not picking up a ball and not going home. The COP15 President resigns suddenly - but really, this was planned, we just forgot to tell everyone. Now the Danish Prime Minister is the "President" of COP15 but Connie Hedegaard is basically still doing everything she was doing. Apparently with all these presidents flying in the Danish leader needed more clout, but...
No one is listening to the prime minister of whats-is-stan or someplace. Reuters reports that 120-ish heads of state are in Copenhagen and all want to address the assembly, but the assembly is busy in negotiations. So the leader of an entire country talks to a half-empty room while some low-level bureaucrat whispers into his earpiece, "I'm sorry Mr. Prime Minister but you've gone over your allotted five minutes."
Secretary Clinton pulls $100 billion out of thin air. In what could be argued as a shift in position, the US apparently is ready to participate in a $100 billion/year (i.e., the low end of what's necessary for poor countries to address climate change) global fund to help Samoa and other countries, though where this money will come from and how it will be spent is not known.
But there's a bright side too. One of the people who's actually working at the summit says it's a big deal, mostly because everyone is talking about climate change and a number of big countries have made tentative commitments - this wouldn't have happened in the absence of the summit.
There's no doubt that people will declare victory once this thing is done. But I'll be talking with three of my green-blogging pals to get the straight skinny...
US, China become frenemies. So we're all, "China really wants to pollute more and they're trying to make it look like they're cutting carbon and they're really not," and they're all, "yeah, well the US promised a boatload of cash to poor countries to fight climate change and they didn't do it." And yet you can see that look in the bureaucrats eyes that shows they really love each other but don't want anyone else to know. You know, because they keep lending us money and we keep buying their stuff.
Sarah Palin says something to get attention and the media falls for it again. I want to be respectful of the former Governor, but let's face it, that op-ed was a joke. We need serious people to work on this issue in an intellectually honest manner, and we need to be at the table for major negotiations on serious issues. This op-ed (and I'm not sure she wrote it herself) added nothing constructive to the discussion. She has every right to say it, but I don't think it was helpful. OH NO YOU DIDN'T WRITE AN IDEA DOWN ON PAPER! And speaking of saying things, apparently discussion drafts are no longer fashionable. Seems some "rich" countries put some thoughts on paper in advance of the meeting, and some developing countries got mad because the thoughts helped those rich countries more than developing countries, and there's only supposed to be one idea on paper at a time. Or something. I'm sorry but I can't get too upset about this. People develop negotiating strategies in advance of negotiations all the time. On occasion those strategies will be put on paper. It doesn't mean they become the final product. (See "reform, health care.")
Global Voices makes a splash. I've been waiting for the GVO special section on Copenhagen, and it didn't disappoint. They have 4 bloggers on site - from Kenya, Brazil, Ghana, and Maldives. they're tracking the citizen media about Copenhagen - NOBODY else is doing this like they can.
Some significant developments in environmental policy, as our enviro-elites meet in Denmark:
The "endangerment finding." The US EPA has all the authority it needs to move on regulating carbon. It just needs to come to the conclusion that carbon emissions constitute a danger to public health, which it did this week. Frankly I think this is really just another facet of the Administration's stimulus package - more corporate lawyers are going to be paid thanks to this single decision than pretty much anything else EPA does... ;)
File under, "duh." The earth is warming. This decade will likely be the warmest on record, and 2009 is shaping up to be the 5th most warm year. Brought to you by the World Meteorological Society. Bangladesh goes Oliver Twist. When it comes to funding to fight climate change, The Bangladeshi government says, "please sir, I want some more." As in 15 percent of any fund that is created to fight climate change. While most American's can't find Bangladesh on a map, Think about 20 million people displaced if the oceans rise by one meter. That's more than the entire population of Florida.
Gordon Brown talks tough. The British Prime Minister wants the EU to strengthen its carbon reduction goals. No surprise here. Politically he's on the ropes back home and he needs to look strong on this issue. Of course, it's easy to talk tough when you're calling for things beyond your control...
I tried to give a preview of the conference over at Earth & Industry. While I'm sure a lot people will come out of this meeting insisting that a lot has been accomplished - after all, they don't want all this time and money to be wasted - my prediction is the real results of the summit will be to just punt the agenda down another year, Of course, we'll have a piece of paper that says everyone promises to take it very seriously next year, but that's it. Because once you filter out all the "fierce urgency of now" rhetoric, once you get past all the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers who still want to question the science here, the whole issue boils down to two words: "You first." But more on that later.
Despite the cynicism, I do think it's important for world leaders to get together to focus everyone's attention on a crucial issue. So here's what you should look at to get the REAL scoop on what happens in Copenhagen this week.
The IPCC home and report: This is the online home of the UN group that writes and revises the analysis on the climate change science. This is the site you visit first to know the facts.
COP 15 home: The conference home page. You can learn who's meeting where and so on.
Reuters Copenhagen page: Reuters did a phenomenal job covering the G20 Summit, I expect them to do the same here. Crowd-sourced newspaper editorial: OK, not really "crowdsourced" the way techies define it. But the Guardian led a group of 56 newspapers in 45 countries to publish an editorial about the summit and the issue. I don't usually take newspaper editorials very seriously but this constitutes a very high level of collaboration in an industry that isn't really known for playing well with others. That alone makes it worthy of reading.
Communication Tips for Scientists and Reporting Tips for Journalists: UC-Berkeley cranked out a couple of very useful one-pagers for scientists and journalists who may be getting together for the first time thanks to this summit. Sarah Kuck at Worldchanging reproduced both. The lasting legacy of this summit may very well be how people talk about it - so let's hope everyone gets this right.
The #cop15 twitter hashstag rss feed: I'm putting this in my sidebar for now. There doesn't seem to be a consensus yet on a hashtag, some people are using #climate, but that strikes me as more general.
Those hacked emails everyone is talking about: No, they don't disprove the science about climate change. They really don't even throw it into question. But this is a problem - scientists, perhaps reacting to the incredibly politicized environment here, may have attempted to exclude critics from the scientific discussion. That's not cool. This issue is too serious for people to be excluded - scientists have an obligation to explain to the lay public why their critics are wrong and why further delay is dangerous - but they don't have a right to exclude people because of their political leanings or financial motivations. (They can start by using those UC-Berkeley tip sheets.) Here in America we just had an administration where one side of a scientific argument was routinely silenced. We can't give them an excuse to do it again once they come back.
I'll be on the look out for more news coverage of the summit - online and off - and try to give a list as soon as I can. I'm really curious to see what the GVO folks will do, since climate change has really morphed into a foreign policy issue more than anything else, at least in my mind. Meantime I hope this gets people started...
The Obama Administration has reportedly used four major speeches in four foreign capitals to outline its foreign policy vision - Prague, Cairo, Moscow and Accra. I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been a major speech planned in Asia or South America, but I guess you can't hit every country in the first six months...
Here's what the speech in Prague looked like:
Cairo:
Moscow:
and Accra:
I found it interesting that the word "people" keeps popping up as the most prominent word. I think the word common in all four clouds we should be looking at more closely is "power."
While most of the English-speaking blogosphere continues its obsession with dead pop stars, there have been a number of very important developments in foreign policy - even aside from the historic preliminary agreement between the US and Russia to cut their nuclear weapon stockpiles by a third. I'm finally seeing very strong integration between mainstream journalists, social media mavens, political entities and technology.
If you know where to look, you can find a wealth of information about Honduras, a Central American nation with about 7.5 million people. Shortly after President Manuel Zelaya tried to hold a non-binding referendum that would potentially change the country's constitution to let him remain in office beyond 2010, military leaders placed Zelaya under arrest on June 28 and shipped him off to Costa Rica, and swore in a new president from Zelaya's political party. Zelaya has tried to return, but his plane was prevented from landing in Honduras.
There has been some debate over whether this is a coup d'etat or not, and the best breakdown of it I've found is at, not surprisingly, Global Voices Online. They've assembled videos from people on the ground on both sides of the issue.
The Organization of American States has suspended Honduras' membership and demanded the President be restored to office. Further, Secretary Clinton made a point of attending the State Department's daily briefing personally to raise the issue. The journalists in attendance asked some very insightful and important questions. Here's the video of the briefing:
Now if we could only let the dead rest and move on with our lives...
For those of you who only get news from American sources who think "foreign news" is whatever Amy Winehouse is doing right now, Zimbabwe is a country of about 12 million people in Southern Africa. It's known for its rich mineral deposits, beautiful places like Victoria Falls, its high poverty and HIV rates, and its ruthless leader, Robert Mugabe. On March 29 the country held general elections and most impartial observers concluded that the opposition party, led by Morgan Tsvangirai, won a clear majority. The "official" results, released by Mugabe, declared that no party won a majority and a run-off vote would be required on June 27.
Leading up to the run-off, the country has seen a systematic campaign of intimidation and violence, including the arrest of Tsvangirai, who ultimately pulled out of the run-off to prevent further bloodshed. Today the western world has tried to convince other countries in Africa to refuse to recognize the Mugabe government and find a diplomatic solution to transfer power in a way that reflects the will of the people. These efforts have had limited success.
Not surprisingly, the best coverage of the crisis in Zimbabwe has come from inside Zimbabwe. But it's come from bloggers. I'm particuarly impressed with Sokwanele's efforts to map incidents of violence at the blog This is Zimbabwe. You can follow Sokwanele on Twitter for breaking news, and it's amazingly good - when Twitter's working, of course.
Global Voices Online had been following and linking to some of the more noteworthy posts, but that's dropped off a bit. There's been a lot of commentary about Zimbabwe at Open Democracy, and thankfully not all of it is from the Western intellectuals' perspective.
The American media's coverage of foreign events leaves a great deal to be desired. (By the way, America, the Serbian ruling coalition collapsed this weekend. This is kind of a big deal.) I've blogged and tweeted a bit about this for some time now.
A big reason for this is the massive cutback in US networks' spending on foreign bureaus. As Jon Freidman writes, another big reason is the editorial decision-making at major media companies. When Roger Clemens and Britney Spears get more coverage than Vojislav Kostunica and Alvaro Uribe, Americans don't know enough about the world beyond their borders.
Enter the blogosphere, and the new media corporation. Blog hubs like Global Voices Online provide the kind of diverse media coverage that major news networks won't or can't. How do they do it? Simple - they use bloggers as foreign correspondents and they work cooperatively. GVO likes to focus on what the western media doesn't. Frankly, that gives them a lot of ground to cover.
Look at what happened in Armenia. (hat tip to Profy.) The media there is state-owned. So when a state of emergency was declared there in late February after a contested election and subsequent violence, the only thing the government wanted people to know is what they told them. Traditional independent media, if it were there, would be easy to identify and close down. Online media is a bit more difficult to squelch, but it appears the government even took the step of shutting down YouTube in the country.
Enter the blogosphere, with hundreds of sites under the blogger and wordpress domains, publishing information that may be biased but is clearly more independent. And they pop back up as quickly as they're taken down.
Of course, "citizen journalism" (I still hate that term) doesn't have to be inspired by a political crisis. From a business perspective, Global Voices Online is actually the new model news network. It's a global news and commentary channel, complete with a vast roster of correspondents and a breaking news service via Twitter. And they pull it off at a minute fraction of the cost that CNN or BBC would incur.
I've written about this before - specifically looking at Green Options as a model for this. GO is more of a niche publication, but recently it's branched out into a network of very specific blogs, all covering different aspects of environmentalism. It's an enviro-channel now.
Of course, the news networks may play the "bloggers aren't journalists" card again. However, most of the writing that you see on these blogs is as good or better from a journalistic standpoint. In many cases these are beat reporters with a better knowledge of their beats. In others, it's easily identifiable opinion, much as you'd see on any op-ed page.
We know that journalists rely more on blogs every day as sources and for story ideas. Many journalists write blogs of their own. Now if they could only follow bloggers' lead...
I've written I don't know how many times about Facebook's clearly wrong decision to keep "pro-anorexia" groups there, despite the growing body of evidence and medical opinion that these sites are harmful. My latest post yielded a comment from "Lauren":
This article inspired me to create a "Ban Pro Ana/Mia Profiles and Groups on Facebook" group. It only has eight members right now, but I'm hoping it will end up making a difference.
I checked it out, and wouldn't you know it, Lauren is now pushing 40 members. Yeah, I joined the group.
I like the idea of using Facebook to protest Facebook. I just think it's more constructive than walking away. Sadly, Facebook still isn't listening to this group (admittedly still small but growing, and more importantly, right on the merits) or many other protest groups, but if enough users speak up I do think they'll ultimately revisit the issue and change their position.
So congrats and thanks to Lauren for leading the issue!
I'll readily acknowledge the unleashing of my inner nerd again and say I'm really interested in the Kosovars' declaration of independence from Serbia. We're witnessing history. This is the corner of the world where entangling alliances and ancient hatred led to The Great War.
The American media's coverage has been depressingly lacking. They're only getting to the story in a meaningful way now. It's as if everyone here has forgotten the US-led NATO coalition that brought about Slobodan Milosovic's ouster. European media has covered this as a major story for weeks. I checked out BBC's coverage, and thought it was quite good, but frankly I think no one has provided the perspective that Global Voices Online has. (I follow GVO on Twitter.)
They introduced me to Viktor Markovic of Belgrade 2.0 with some amazing home video, pics on flickr, and commentary. For a time he was tweeting @belgrade. He writes:
So, what exactly is going to happen today around 15:00 and how are events going to unfold the following days? Our prime minister says that European Union, together with the US will “kidnap” a part of Serbia. But the reality is, Kosovo is not going anywhere, Albanians are not really going to take the part of the land and carry it over to a whole different place, as the word “kidnap” suggests. The border will stay where it was, with probably the same crossing fluency. Monasteries will stay where they are, hopefully. The name will change, instead of “Kosovo province” it will become something completely different – are you ready? wait for it… (drumroll) – “Kosovo”.
But the biggest question remains as it has been for the last eight years – non-Albanians’ safety and the right to live and move freely in Kosovo. In the future, this issue will be the responsibility of Albanians only, since our prime minister and our politicians have done very little to show that they care about the people as much as they care about the territory, monasteries and the name.
This is just the latest example of how citizen journalists (egad, I hate that term, but there it is) use social media to share perspectives, expand and enhance their global reach and become part of our living history. It's the kind of thing I like to point to when otherwise respectable members of the political and cultural elite in our country dismiss bloggers as unfit to engage in "proper" global discourse.
You just can't get this anywhere else, and we're all better for it.
Yes, that guy. At least the blog is currently allowing critical comments. Of course, when it comes to social media and Ahmadinejad, there's really nothing better than this.
At no time should you endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.
This isn't the first time we've seen this by any means. But it does weaken the argument that many professional journalists make that their less "professional" counterparts provide content that is somewhat less than ideal. This situation is developing rapidly, and the social media tools that were demonstrated in Myanmar and the California wildfires are already being put into play.
Sheesh. The stuff you learn when you visit Aussie political blogs.
A lot of us have noticed a growing trend in government blogging (the UK's ambassador to Afghanistan is the latest, and yes, David Miliband is at it again) so I've been searching out some political writing on blogs from other countries. I'm sorta going in alphabetical order - earlier this week it was Argentina.
This week I learn via Oz Politics, one of Australia's most widely read political blogs, that Health Minister Tony Abbott had a really, REALLY bad day of campaigning:
On a day that the Government had hoped would be dominated by its $310 million health plan, Mr Abbott's behaviour became the central theme after he insulted a dying asbestos campaigner and arrived 35 minutes late for a debate at the National Press Club.
(insert chucklehead reference here.)
I'm struck by how differences in the Australian political system lend themselves to more accessible discussions with leaders on specific issues. This wasn't the first time Abbott and shadow minister Nicola Roxon have gotten together to debate health care in public. Our electorate isn't accustomed to accomodating a healthcare debate between Secretary Leavitt and a Democrat.
BTW, for those of us in this rankings-obsessed field of PR, here's a pretty clever Aussie blog ranking site.
I've been talking a bit lately with US political bloggers on both sides of the aisle about their relationships with the campaigns. It's a bit of a love-hate relationship right now. A topic for a future post.
