[Radix] Ben Wisner's cri du coeur -- Help him puzzle "climate science"

Fri Nov 3 09:35:42 PST 2006

Hi Ben, two comments and a final regard:

>From my point of view the problem is not the attempt of modeling or the 
modeling itself. All models are representations and abstractions of reality 
and with restrictions or limitations according to the considering hypothesis 
or assumptions. Complex systems and theirs dynamics (as the interaction of 
environmental and human systems) are very poorly represented by traditional 
metrics. The modelers should never forget this and therefore the type of 
decisions feasible to make based on coarse grain resolution or approximately 
views or proxies. Statistic, probability, possibility, fussy sets and logic, 
evidence, neural networks theories are very useful approaches to capture the 
different type of uncertainty both in simple as in complex systems, and some 
of them can help to capture and include subjectivity, expert opinions, and 
so on. Some of them at present are outstanding methods of knowledge to have 
not only a hard view but also a soft view of situations, processes, etc. 
Therefore, the problem are not the methods or the measures or the metrics, 
but their appropriate use according to the inherent limitations, the type of 
information available (hard or soft) and the type of decisions expected to 
make.

Now, many can think the models themselves are not related to the political 
interest, but this is the core of the problem. I think they do, particularly 
if they are holistic and use soft variables as the case of social and human 
systems. The most important of the models besides the abovementioned issues 
is the underlying conceptual framework, the type of abstraction, the type of 
understanding of the problem. I insisted many times in the past in our 
debates on complex systems about the weight of the epistemological 
background of any model, particularly if they are holistic or integrated 
approaches (indeed, not any representation can be comprehensive at all) and 
the type of language used to communicate, for example, risk and 
vulnerability. Then, I agree neither it is possible nor convenient any type 
or standardization for metrics used to measure risk and vulnerability. Risk 
is a normative concept (reference always is involved) when we try to measure 
it. It is the metrics of insecurity, then it has inherently acceptability or 
non acceptability, it has a relative degree (always fuzzy) and therefore it 
has implicit decisions. The visions of risk and vulnerability can be 
aggregated, particular, sector-oriented, and political! Then I don't believe 
in standards but in plural approaches useful to communicate risk and 
vulnerability according to conceptual frameworks with different limitations 
and intentions. The idea to have a comparison (using a benchmark) of 
vulnerability and risk over time is useful. Perhaps comparisons among 
different contexts are not suitable (we have discussed it several times), 
but at least to have a comparison with itself to see if the problem is 
growing or not and to weight the effectiveness of risk mitigation, I think, 
is useful and perhaps desirable in the decision science.

Lastly, I know it is a controversy, and I would like to say that I am not 
against to the global climate change. It is indeed a big problem at present, 
but I believe we have lost so much emphasis in the human vulnerability in 
the last years. Climate change concerns are diverting research efforts (and 
too much money) to think again the problem from the perspective of the 
natural hazards. Indeed, the climate variability itself is enough to 
understand the problem from social point of view. Once it was evident in the 
past we started to see clearly about the relevance of the vulnerability and 
resilience concepts in that context. All inputs are very welcome, however 
the academic biases and, why not, the underlying political support of some 
of them, are to be concern.

All the best

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bwisner at igc.org>
To: <philokeefe at etcuk.org>; <t.g.cannon at greenwich.ac.uk>; 
<hgbohle at giub.uni-bonn.de>; <allan_lavell at yahoo.com>; 
<wilcheschaux at etb.net.co>; <maureen.fordham at northumbria.ac.uk>; 
<ilan_kelman at hotmail.com>; <radix at ecie.org>; <sonia.kruks at oberlin.edu>; 
<gkw at MIT.EDU>; <handmer at rmit.edu.au>; <kasperson at sei.se>; 
<frank.thomalla at sei.se>; <briceno at un.org>; <bogardi at ehs.unu.edu>; 
<Bruno.Haghebaert at ifrc.org>; <aniello.amendola at tiscalinet.it>; 
<d.alexander at virgilio.it>; <birkmann at ehs.unu.edu>; <sakulski at ehs.unu.edu>; 
<villagran at ehs.unu.edu>; <mark.pelling at kcl.ac.uk>; <warner at slf.ch>; 
<warner at unu.ehs.edu>; <uoswald at gmail.com>; <brauch at onlinehome.de>
Cc: <bwisner at igc.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:55 AM
Subject: [Radix] Ben Wisner's cri du coeur -- Help him puzzle "climate 
science"

> Dear colleagues,
>
> Here I am in Italy at the end of the 3rd expert working group meeting on 
> measuring vulnerability.
>
> I am getting more and more nervous about the way that the â?ostandardâ? 
> methods for linking human and natural systems â?" in climate change 
> adaptation work, in broader human dimensions of global change work, etc., 
> etc. â?" is using the same paradigm, replete with language no one reflects 
> upon: â?odriversâ?, â?oupscalingâ?, etc., etc.  We saw it in the 
> Millennium Ecosystem Assessment; we saw it dozens of times in the Bonn 
> meeting of the IHDP; and it seems to have become de rigeur in any work on 
> climate change adaptation.
>
> Is this homogeneity healthy?  Where has it come from?
>
> It strikes me that as useful for some purposes as this work is â?" and of 
> course in relation to the andediluvians in the George W. cabal this is 
> essential and important work, as well as trying to get climate onto the 
> agenda of the MDGs and specific PRSPs, etc., sure! â?" such an approach is 
> in danger of MASKING as much as it reveals.
>
> Firstly, while allegedly holistic, it tends to de-humanise and 
> de-politicize.  Whole â?osystemsâ? adapt, respond, are subject to 
> â?ostressorsâ?, etc., etc.  Human agency is absent.  The politics of 
> climate change and other policy decisions are notl a part of these models 
> (see the chapter â?oThe Day after Kyotoâ? in Elizabeth Kolbertâ?Ts recent 
> book on climate change, â?oNotes from a Catastropheâ?).
>
> Secondly, I always say to myself, â?ofollow the money.â?  Who is funding 
> this work?  Why do its practitioners get privileged access to elite 
> decision makers (at least outside the US and Australia, the two remaining 
> climate rogue states) and honors such as nomination to various Academies 
> of Science, etc.?  By contrast consider the situation of scientists who 
> work with local people in a more critical mode, even in resistance against 
> economic globalization (critiquing and exposing the social and economic 
> consequences produced, growing inequalities, etc.).  The comparison is 
> obvious.  The latter group are lucky if they have university positions at 
> all, let along accolades and research funding.
>
> Thirdly, although the establishment modellers are smart and are taking on 
> board participatory methods (merging quantitative and qualitative, etc.), 
> I fear much of this is still in the â?osmash and grabâ? old fashioned 
> mode of ripping off poor peopleâ?Ts ideas and aspirations in â?ofocus 
> groupsâ? that bring them absolutely nothing in return.  Major 
> personalitiesâ?T names appear along side those of academic co-authors who 
> are African, Latin American, Southeast Asian, etc., but nevertheless 
> usually civil society, especially the critical sector of civil society 
> that questions economic globalization, neo-liberalism, corruption, 
> violations of human rights, etc. plays no part in the research.  Nor is 
> there any action plan at primary locality level that follow up: no pay 
> back.
>
> A fourth problem, following on the last, is that the language and output 
> is far too complex to be of use at the village and neighborhood level, and 
> often not at imporant sub-national levels such as municipality.
>
> There are obviously exceptions, but I am growing very nervous, in fact, 
> quite desperate concerning what I see as the tendency as I have described 
> it.
>
> So why does this stuff exist and is it diffusing so quickly and 
> successfully through development and disaster risk reduction circles, as 
> it has among the so-called â?oclimate community?â?  (Parenthetically, I 
> am increasingly allergic also to the cosy language of â?ocommunities.â? 
> Epistemic communities are necessarily conflictual, containing thesis and 
> anti-thesis, or how else would understanding advance?)  It seems that the 
> same pay masters who â?odriveâ? the work on â?ocoupled society 
> environment modelsâ? have learned from George W and Dick Cheney that 
> dissention and difference of opinion are wrong â?" well, strickly speaking 
> INEFFICIENT.
>
> That brings me to my central â?oah ha!â? insight.  The dominant economic 
> elites of the world (and their political allies) believe they need these 
> models in order to regain control over an increasingly unstable 
> socio-environmental situation OF THEIR OWN MAKING.  Again, this is not to 
> dismiss all this modelling work, but to call on the intellectual workers 
> involved to see clearly why they are doing what they do, to question in 
> whose services they work -- whether their work will help reduce poverty 
> and make the earth less unstable.  I'd like these intellectual workers 
> also to think whether they should (and could) use what they do more 
> directly in the service of ordinary people and their organizations (in 
> civil society) â?" trade unions, cooperatives, local NGOs, etc.  Some 
> would say that these institutions are non-democratic and that one must 
> support the official organs of governance.  That is not a trivial issue. 
> However, one has to be discriminating and clear sighted about !
> who uses what, why.  WHY ARE WE MEASURING VULNERABILITY?  In whose 
> interest?
>
> The economic and political elites know that peak oil is bringing with it a 
> reorganization of the ecumene and the earths systems that will take some 
> clever planning to continue to control and profit from exploiting.  These 
> models help them forecast such social trends as international migration in 
> response (so-called "environmental refugees") and conflicts over water 
> (and again this explains the academic cult status of the Canadian 
> Homer-Dixon who give these elites at least the illusion of understanding, 
> thus ability to control!).  Jim Blaut ("Colonizer's Model of the World" 2 
> volumes completed, 3rd in progress when he passed away) would have this 
> kind of answer for me, I think.
>
> This, then is my dilemma and crisis.  Iâ?Tm now 63.  Maybe itâ?Ts mid life 
> crisis (arithmetically true since, as you may know, my plan is to 
> commemorate Hiroshima + 100 and then expire on the top of Mt. Fuji at age 
> 103.  I am not sure the cause, but I do know that I have reached 
> saturation point and am on the point of bailing out.
>
>>From 1960s â?" 1980s I worked almost totally outside the structures of 
>>international development assistance (bilateral national level donors) and 
>>international organizations except for short focused technical 
>>consultancies.  My one longer experience with FAO on agrarian reform and 
>>rural development leave me remembering a head of mission worried about how 
>>he could import a $700 Dollar flag pole for his Mercedes.  During the last 
>>10-12 years beginning with the megacities and disaster work (RADIUS, EMI, 
>>UNU megacities project) I have tried the reform route and have grown to 
>>work much more closely with UNU, ProVention, IADB, even WB.  I am 
>>wondering if this is a good use of my time.
>
> An admired colleague in the UNU EHS has finished her primary year of 
> responsibility as Munich Re Prof of Social Vulnerability and has returned 
> to Mexico to work with the Peasant University and Via Campesina.  I find 
> that kind of work much more satisfying.
>
> I guess what I want to know from your side â?" and I really need advice 
> â?" do you think there ANY radical space in the global society-nature 
> modelling world (institutionally in the IPCC, UNFCCC, etc., etc.), ANY way 
> that this work can be bent (as, recalling Martin Luther Kingâ?Ts saying, 
> â?oThe universe bends toward justiceâ?), toward empowerment of ordinary 
> people?
>
> I know â?oyouâ?Tll still need me, and youâ?Tll still feed me, when Iâ?Tm 
> 64â?, but if I am going to live long enough to reach 64, I need help in 
> deciding what this tsunami of modelling hegemony means, where itâ?Ts come 
> from, and where itâ?Ts leading.  As I told a friend the other night here 
> in Tuscany, I see this stuff as a trolly.  I donâ?Tt know where it came 
> from (but I am beginning to suspect it has to do with excess capacity on 
> super computers once used to design nuclear weapons) and I donâ?Tt know 
> where itâ?Ts leading (except not to the radical cut in green house gases 
> and consumption needed but only to cosy â?owin winâ? tweakings).  For now 
> I jump on and off this trolly and hope it is also a vehicle for some 
> Tanzanian, Mozambican, Salvadoran friends.
>
> What do you think?
>
> All the best, BEN
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This mailing list is provided by ECIE.ORG for RADIX
> To post a message, send it to: radix at ecie.org
> To subscribe or unsubscribe visit:
> http://ecie.org/mailman/listinfo/radix
> See more information about ECIE:  http://www.ecie.org/
> Radix - Radical Interpretations of Disaster:
> http://online.northumbria.ac.uk/geography_research/radix/
> 