Science, Innovation, Politics
I think the Prins article is a good summary of the Hartwell Paper, but I question one assertion. Regarding the proposed re-framing, he says "our case...has not been being clearly heard. Now it is beginning to be so, especially in Asia and the Americas."I'm not aware of this discussion outside of a few blogs. Are there any politicians or mainstream media outlets that have taken it up? Until that begins to occur, I don't think the issue is being heard.Another good summary that Roger suggests is a Nature article by Isabel Galiana and Christopher Green entitled "Let the global technology race begin". It's an easier read (at least for me) but unfortunately, it's behind a pay wall.I'm anxious for this discussion to reach critical mass.
It's a good summary and summaries are important to improve general access to the ideasI'm sure from what I've read that some renewable technologies can't do the job - in simple terms they don't provide the energy concentration required for the grid. eg. see David McKays analysis (without the hot air). From this perspective I would seek clarification of the phrase "without trying to pick winners beforehand". There would inevitably be a political struggle b/w some woolly headed green thinking about renewables with more realistic solutions such as nuclear. I don't see how the science and the politics can be completely decoupled - while agreeing that they are far too tightly coupled at the moment.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.