Welcome to BIO / EES 105 – Energy in Our World: Some opening thoughts

1. Welcome to BIO / EES 105 – Energy in Our World:Some opening thoughts Kenneth M. Klemow, Ph.D. Professor of Biology Associate Director, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

2. What is the secret of life? http://www.beautifulbritain.co.uk/ http://www.fcps.edu/ http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/

3. What is the secret of life?

4. How do plants and animals ensure many grandchildren? http://shelledy.mesa.k12.co.us/ http://www.rogerwendell.com/australia.html

5. Humans are great at modifying our environment http://www.nyc.gov/html/om/html/gracie.html http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/ http://www.ny.nrcs.usda.gov/

6. Modifying our environment takes energy

7. Securing energy has been a quest of mankind for millennia. Ari, we need energy. Need. Energy. My empire for energy.

8. Before 1880s, energy use small scale

9. Beginning in 1880s, energy scaled up http://fineartamerica.com/featured/market-street-manchester--1890-ronald-haber.html http://www.petroleumhistory.org/OilHistory/pages/Columbia/Wells.html

10. In past century, we have become reliant on centralized energy generation http://12degreesoffreedom.blogspot.com/2010/06/no-king-coal.html http://wonderstube.com/world-wonders/

11. U.S. success in first half of 20th century due to coal http://info.heylpatterson.com/

12. After World War II, other fuels supplanted coal

13. Optimism ended in 1970s

14. A national debate erupted Let’s conserve energy Ain’t no gas shortage, hippie!

15. Energy debate rages on • Influences foreign policy of many nations • Concerns over global climate change • Concerns over nuclear waste disposal

16. What about alternatives? • Account for <10% of energy • Each has own drawback • Critics argue against poor energy density, unreliability, yield

18. Every energy form has benefits and drawbacks

19. What about shale gas?

22. Potential of Marcellus Shale • Underlies 95,000 sq. mi. • Recoverable reserves of 360 TCF • Supply 14 years U.S. consumption • Potential to create 280,000 jobs • Potential as transportation fuel • Potential economic impact of $2 trillion http://pennsylvania.sierraclub.org/

23. Some people are worried • Groundwater pollution • Surface water pollution • Habitat fragmentation • Noise • Decreased property values • Conversion of rural landscape to industrialized • Greenhouse gas emissions http://www.propublica.org/

24. http://www.miningtopnews.com/ http://dearsusquehanna.blogspot.com/ http://alleghenysc.org/ http://www.choosenepa.com/

25. Problem: People seem to be talking past each other citizensvoice.com/news/ http://www.treehugger.com/

26. How to solve? • Conventional wisdom • Public will make wise choices if given sound information • Conventional approach • Convert public concerns to research questions • Address questions using science • Publish findings in peer-reviewed journal • Scientists take steps to explain findings to public • Deficit model

27. Does this work? • Case study: • Osborn et al (2011) PNAS paper on methane in drinking water wells near gas installations • Paper intensely discussed by public

28. Public reaction polarized • Welcomed by drilling opponents • Natural Gas Watch: “Study demonstrates unequivocally that fracking does, in fact, contaminate the water in the area where is used.” • Criticized by drilling advocates • Energy in Depth website published “Durham Bull” essay, providing lengthy accounting of the study’s reported faults.

29. Public engages in “cherry picking” • Develop position on an issue • Filter science based on their position • Embrace science that agrees • Reject science that fails to support • Often attack credibility of scientists, journal, review process • Thus, deficit model doesn’t work http://wiki.ironchariots.org/images/b/b8/Cherry_picking_med.jpg

30. What happens with science does not fit bias? • Partisans criticize scientists • Scientists routinely discredited based on funding and affiliation • Criticism often personal, credentials, funding called into question • Web 2.0 promotes dissemination of these views, with little filtering.

31. Some believe no additional research needed. • Proponents: “We know we are extracting gas safely, don’t need research to verify what we already know. • Opponents: “We know fracking is destroying our environment and communities. Don’t need research to verify.” • Both sides seem more interested in convincing others of their position, than in keeping an open mind.

32. What’s the solution? • “New Conservation” approach • Requires collaboration between concerned citizens, industry, policy makers and scientists. • Translational Science • Scientists engage with concerned citizens, policy makers, industry • Adopt citizen science approaches • No cherry picking • Bridge System II vs System I thinking styles • Goal is to build trust and respect • Encourage decision-making based on rational, fact-based discourse and not emotional arm-waving.

33. Alternative: More of the same http://www.treehugger.com/ citizensvoice.com/news/