Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
header_07
search_bar_left
date_box_left
date_box_right.jpg
search_bar_right
sidebar-top content-top

Embracing Science

Jeffrey Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. His last contribution to Webdiary was Who beats corruption?

by Jeffrey D Sachs

Long-term economic progress comes mainly from the invention and spread of improved technologies. The scientific revolution was made possible by the printing press, the industrial revolution by the steam engine, and India’s escape from famine by increased farm yields – the so-called “Green Revolution.” Today’s era of globalization emerged with the spread of computers and the Internet. Thus, when we seek solutions to some of the world’s toughest problems, they, too, are likely to be found, at least in part, in new technologies that can resolve old and seemingly intractable problems.

Consider poverty in Africa. Every conceivable explanation has been given, usually focusing on what Africans do wrong. But a visit to Africa’s villages makes clear that the problems have more to do with the struggle for survival under difficult physical conditions than with any special problems that are unique to African societies.

Africa’s farmers produce roughly one-third or less food per hectare of farmland than their counterparts around the world, resulting in massive hunger, which is exacerbated by a heavy disease burden. Malaria poses a unique challenge, owing in large part to Africa’s mosquito species, which are especially adept at transmitting the disease. Other tropical parasitic diseases imply similarly extraordinary burdens in Africa. Add the practical difficulties of broken-down roads and few cars and trucks, and economic isolation follows. So the challenges of survival are enormous.

Yet practical solutions are at hand, because simple and low-cost technologies can address specific problems. Low farm yields can be addressed through improved seed varieties specially adapted for African conditions, combined with technologies for replenishing soil and managing water.

Malaria can be controlled through newly designed long-lasting mosquito nets and a new generation of effective medicines. Other tropical diseases also can be controlled, and practical technologies for safe drinking water can dramatically reduce diarrheal diseases. Mobile phones, local wireless Internet, and more paved roads could do much to break the economic isolation of Africa’s villages.

Donor countries incessantly ask Africans to change their trade policies, government institutions, public administration, and more. Some of these changes are important, but the role of the rich countries has been lopsided, focusing on everything except how to finance and introduce practical technologies to solve practical problems. The rich countries’ mistakes wouldn’t matter if African countries had enough money to adopt the needed technologies on their own, but Africa is so poor that it must get financial help to escape poverty.

The development challenges in Africa are just one example of how tough societal problems can be addressed by the design and spread of improved technologies. The same will be true of how the world best addresses manmade climate change – another of those seemingly intractable global problems.

Right now, rich countries are changing the world’s climate by emitting billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year from the use of coal, oil, and natural gas. In future years, China and India also will make massive contributions to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet no country, rich or poor, is keen to cut its energy use, owing to concern that to do so would threaten jobs, incomes, and economic growth.

New technologies will provide a key part of the solution. Already, “hybrid” automobiles, which combine gasoline and battery power, can roughly double fuel efficiency, cutting carbon dioxide emissions by half. Similarly, engineers have developed ways to capture the carbon dioxide that results from burning coal in power plants and store it safely underground. This new technology, called “carbon capture and sequestration,” can cut by 80% the carbon dioxide emitted during the production of electricity. The costs appear relatively small.

Consider also the depletion of ocean fisheries through over-fishing. Global demand for fish consumption is growing, and so, too, is the global capacity to catch fish, driving some species to the point of extinction. Improved aquaculture, in which fish are grown at manmade fishponds and reservoirs is still far from being a perfect technology, mainly for environmental reasons, yet it is enormously promising.

On a recent visit to Africa, a senior agricultural scientist said that in today’s world, the scientist is closer than ever before to the farmer, but farther away than ever from the policymakers. Politicians don’t understand science, and rarely seek the advice of scientists and engineers in addressing major issues. Everything is viewed as politics and votes, not as technical problems requiring technological expertise, which is why Africa’s poverty is so often attributed to corruption rather than to ecological challenges.

It is easy to dismiss the suggestion that technology can save the day. After all, technological advance also requires good governance, market forces, effective universities, and more. Politics will still play its role.

Nevertheless, it’s time to recognize that governments are ill-equipped to understand the sophisticated technological challenges and opportunities facing the world, and that new ways are needed to ensure that science and technology are given the prominence needed to address a wide range of increasingly urgent global problems. Now is the time for every major international agency and national government to assume responsibility for gaining the scientific and technological expertise that they will need in the twenty-first century.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2006.
www.project-syndicate.org
left
right
spacer

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Renewable energy

Mark Ross, I think the main problem with renewable sources of energy at the moment derives from supply limitations, not issues of demand. I don't think Jackgreen is going to be whacking up a new Hydro plant anytime soon and there are always NIMBY issues with wind.

Whilst I understand Nuclear power is not a renewable source of energy, I think it is our only realistic source of low emission base load power in the near future. Unfortunately I think we're going to be running on mostly coal in the foreseeable future due to political inertia and the widespread fear of nuclear power.

demand creates supply

Gareth, Jackgreen have signed a 10 year supply contract with the Alinta Wind Farm, which they say will guarantee them 70% of their future requirements. Anything else they need will be sourced from hydro power in Queensland.

You're right to say that Jackgreen won't be investing in any power generating facilities. That's not their game. They are resellers in the energy market. They sell black electricity to us and buy Green Power Rights (GPR) with the proceeds.

Jackgreen is all about branding and marketing, but at least they're directing capital to the green energy industry. One would assume that some of this capital would be used for physical plant development.

On the issue of nuclear power, I agree totally.

I'm only concerned about whether we have the ability to run a safe nuclear program.

Can we trust all levels of government to maintain an uncorrupted regime of safety and workplace requirements?

Do we have the scientific expertise required, including a rigorous adherence to good scientific practices despite external pressures.

In a privatised nuclear energy market can we trust that the program will not be compromised by commercial (shareholder) and labour force (union) pressures.

Sweden has shown that, with strict government regulators, private nuclear power can work. I just don't believe that Australia is mature enough for that endeavour.

Renewable energy

gpulford says that "Australia has no excuse for not using more renewables".

A very true statement. Unfortunately, as consumers of energy, we were never given any real choice of where our energy came from, until now.

Check out this website. I've made the change and it was completely painless.

Yeah yeah, stuff Kyoto etc.

Sorry to say this, but Mr Sachs seems to be the mouthpiece for the Howard government's pro-US stance on climate change, ie let's do nothing apart from making it worse. What a load of rubbish this article is. I'm a scientist and and engineer and I can see plain and simple that to pour more technology at the problem is just making it worse (except for the industries who get the dosh, of course). Where is the energy coming from to make all these new techologoical wonders? Or has Mr Sachs discovered a new form of nuclear fusion that he's not telling us about?

The real issue here is that Australia lives off its coal industry, as America lives off its oil industry. Both of these are massive global warming causes. Australia has no excuse for not using more renewables and encouraging people to waste less and be more energy efficient. The place is bathing in sunshine. I don't notice much happening in this area however, unless you count building coal-fired power stations.

Sachs - you're dreaming!

"...engineers have developed ways to capture the carbon dioxide that results from burning coal in power plants and store it safely underground. This new technology, called “carbon capture and sequestration,” can cut by 80% the carbon dioxide emitted during the production of electricity. The costs appear relatively small."

Well this is news to me.  I suspect news for the Federal Govt too, who are putting a lot of R+D money into attempting to make the concept work.  My  admittedly rudimentary understanding is that cabon capture and sequestration appears to be technically feasible.  Does anyone know whether there are any pilot plants in operation?

Disturbing to see an economist make data-free predictions re costs!

Science, Lack of Capital and Other?

I have no doubt that Professor Sachs is correct in stipulating that technological progress has had a critical role in the advancement of civilization.

 

Unfortunately like most academics he appears to ignore the reason why fundamentally Western society, for all its faults was the driving force behind most of the advances in human civilization.

 

That is, we had the societal traits and political economic structure that provided the certainty for individuals to delay consumption and invest in capital.

 

It is this lack of ability to form capital due to confiscatory economic policies and other dysfunctional human traits such as war and ethnic rivalries as to why much of the third world are so poor.

 

In regard to promoting transfer payments from rich to poor in the form of technology, this will do nothing unless they have the basic building blocks to allow formation of capital.

Civilisation or Barbarism?

Honestly no part of the world has a mortgage on “advances in civilization”. Rob, if you want to say that the West has followed a historical path that led to a society engaged in the relentless accumulation of capital without limit and that this has produced marvels and wonders along with despoliation, exploitation and death then OK. But to designate “lack of ability to form capital” as dysfunctional seems to ignore how much barbarism accompanied this civilisational advance, including the barbaric effect that it visited upon and continues to visit upon the rest of the world.

Sachs’s faith in the technological fix strikes me as naïve and question begging.

Actually, they're a pack of bastards really.

"Nevertheless, it’s time to recognise that governments are ill-equipped to understand the sophisticated technological challenges and opportunities facing the world, and that new ways are needed to ensure that science and technology are given the prominence needed to address a wide range of increasingly urgent global problems."

It's a dangerous and naive assumption that governments don't "understand".

It may be that those in control of governments will not profit by making the necessary investment transfers needed to implement the right technological solutions required to generate an effective outcome.

Professor Sachs seems like a nice fellow. But perhaps a bit ingenuous and maybe too trusting in the good intention of others.

Here's an interesting review...

"Angola is by most accounts a decimated, nearly hopeless land, ruined by more than three decades of war. But there was a moment in the mid-seventies when this former Portuguese colony shone as a beacon of hope for all Africa. It was here that the mythic power of white military supremacy was smashed by black troops from Angola and Cuba. And though the role of Cuban volunteers in this victory inspired Africans and left internationals everywhere, the details of the story have remained largely hidden and even in Cuba, uncelebrated."

More...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 2 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 5 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 6 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 14 weeks 3 days ago