Duncan Stewart
Obviously, we are facing incredible challenges and you have kind of touched on some of these huge challenges facing the planet and obviously these are now on our doorstep and happening very fast. How do we deal with this issue? Before I open it to discussion to the audience, because we’re now going to have a good discussion, first of all, questions – questions and answers – but dialogue here for the next half hour. And I’m hoping we’re going to get some good comments. But how do we deal with this challenge? Because science, if you like, we know what’s going wrong. We know how serious the issues are. And yet we look at our politicians, we look at our economists, we look at our religions – all of these have, if you like, exposed us to denial. And we are in a state of denial on this planet. And we are facing, with all of this knowledge and all of this science, we seem to be facing into a disaster. How do we deal with this and how does science take the role that should be leading us through these challenges that we face?
Aubrey Manning
Well, as I was saying at the end, my inclination is that there is not enough general knowledge about the sheer facts of how we live – our position on the planet, really, that we are living on capital and not on income. This is really it. And I think that the great majority of our fellow citizens don’t accept that. We do believe that the h is limitless.
One of the ways forward, I believe, is through better knowledge and coming to love the Earth. I mean, any... to get some of this concern. I mean, I don’t want everybody to go around thinking about the world of wounds, because the world is still a very beautiful place and, in a way, nature is very forgiving. If we give it space, it can recover. The Aral Sea is beginning to fill up again.
But I think you hit upon it, Duncan. We do need much more the voice of science in society. The trouble is that we are ruled in general by people who have an economics background. And I hope that this financial turmoil which is operating in the world at the moment may have some good results. I feel, as an outsider ‑ to the world of finance, that is – it indicates that they’ve been living on unreal expectations. They’ve been living on denial that growth can be perpetual, and I think any scientist, certainly any biologist, could tell you that perpetual growth is impossible. The only thing that can go on growing for ever is ideas, and we’re not short of those. And the way forward is through, I think, an enhanced status for science, really. We should be pushing hard for better science and always pushing up against the naďve political views, which we’ve had now.
Now, it’s no good knocking politicians, as I said, because we do vote them in, don’t we? But surely there must now, I think there must now be a pause. We have had probably a bit more than a tap on the shoulder – I would have thought a good nudge or a kick on the shins – yes? – that something is going wrong. I don’t want to end, don’t want to put a depressing note, but it is depressing. In Britain, you see, the price of oil went up to $140 a barrel or something. It’s now down to $65 a barrel. So the price at the pump, which is what all the media go for – what does this mean for the price at the pump? The price at the pump has come down again and people are thinking, ‘Right, you know, the Earth’s providing again. We’re back to normal.’
It’s very understandable. I mean, I share it. I go into the garage and I fill up and I say I’m jolly glad. You know, I’m saving Ł4 on this tankful. I don’t want to appear in any way superior or arrogant. It’s no way forward. We have to understand where people are coming from. But surely the precautionary principle would suggest that if we’re being sensible we really ought to take stock and prepare for what’s to come.
I mean, you’ve been doing a lot of work on energy conservation yourself and trying to get some sense into the construction industry. It’s not an easy task, I imagine, because it’s always price. But, in the end, it’s going to be more expensive, isn’t it, if we don’t?
Duncan Stewart
Well, I think there’s only one solution with our buildings and that is to make them such that we have the technology, we have the knowledge and when we are building, there’s only one way to build and that’s passive buildings that have no demand for energy. And we can do this. And we can do this with our electricity through renewables. But we need to conserve in the future. We need to change our transport. There’s big challenges facing us.
Aubrey Manning
Yes. Transport is one of the big things. It really is. Well, what do you feel? It’s very – which would be your first point of attention were you – I won’t say Barack Obama, he’s got other things to deal with – but the Taoiseach?
Duncan Stewart
Who’s going to open the questions?
Question
Yes. Not really a question, it’s more a point that I was taking when you were speaking, that you said. I think it comes down to the community, that we as scientists, we have a responsibility to teach people in that community. I mean, I think any scientists in the room – and I’m assuming most people are – it’s easier for us to have community in science and understand it and to love it. And I think that we have such a strong responsibility to pass that on and I think that’s a large part of the problem, that so many people are ignorant about science. And I think that the way science is educated – certainly in the secondary schools and certainly at third level – we’re not really taught that. We’re taught that we’re scientists, we love scientists, and we’re this sort of close‑knit community when we get it. But we’re not spreading that and I think that’s what needs to change. We have to be given that ability to pass it on and to let other people understand that ability.
Duncan Stewart
How many scientists in the room here, by the way? Yes? How many? Most people non‑scientists. Yes. Well, for those that are scientists, do you believe that, you know, we are giving enough cognisance to science in Ireland? You know, are we treating science seriously enough? Do we give it its presence? I mean, are you outnumbered by economists? I think the Professor here mentioned, you know, the influence of politicians and economists. We’re incredibly influenced by these. But is science given its place?
Question
Certainly at the more entry‑level science jobs, I know in Ireland, anyway, that it would be an easier decision to say I’m going to study accountancy or I’m going to study finance, because the chances are I’ll make a much bigger salary in the long run. But to go into science, I know that you can end up with a very highly esteemed job and be very respected in your field, but as I was saying, at those lower levels, you never get that. But I think the point I really wanted to make at the start was that when we’re taught science and when we go on to study science at third level, we’re not given that, the ability to pass it on to other people. As an accountant or an economist, you know that you are going to have to go and spread that at some other point. Whereas a scientist, as I say, we’re just a small close‑knit community and I don’t feel we pass it on.
Aubrey Manning
A comment I would make is that, I mean, I very largely agree with you, but I am encouraged by how many of my students in Edinburgh – particularly, I’m no biologist, of course – how many of them are very interested and anxious to put across their science to the public. Quite a few of them want to go into jobs in the media and into writing, and in fact we’re very proud that two or three prestigious popular journals in science are being edited by Edinburgh graduates now. So there is a move that way. But you’re completely right. The idea that scientists are separate from the rest of the community, because what I feel is I don’t want to think just about scientists being better at communicating – that’s got to come – I want ordinary – well, that’s a derogatory term – I want other people to understand science as a part of culture.
C P Snow’s 'two cultures', you know, that was 50 years ago or more. There’s still a bit of that. It’s possible for people, educated people, to say glibly, ‘Oh, I don’t know anything about science. It was never for me. I don’t understand anything about it at all.’ And they can be regarded as educated people. But if they said, ‘Oh, I never heard of William Yeats. Shakespeare – who’s that?’ You couldn’t say that, could you? No. Because that’s culture, whereas science is not culture – and that’s where we’re going wrong. Science is culture.
Duncan Stewart
Where do you take the subject of creationism and – what is the new word for it? – intelligent design?
Aubrey Manning
Intelligent design.
Duncan Stewart
Yes. How do you treat those sorts of topics or the big climate change deniers?
Aubrey Manning
The climate change deniers do not worry me so much because I think, actually, the facts are mounting so fast now that they are scrabbling for what few crumbs, molecules of comfort they can gather and I think they’re much less vocal now. Creationism frightens me a bit, because we know its influence in the States and it’s commoner here than one would think. It’s coming, you know, from the world of academe. You think, ‘Oh, you can forget that’, but you can’t. It’s always out there.
I don’t know. You have to start where people are coming from and you must teach real, good biology, real evolution as a branch of science, which it is. It’s evidence based. It requires hypotheses which can be refuted by other evidence and so on. And we have to teach that as part of science. But you have, I think, to say, ‘Well, look, I hear where you’re coming from, but you do realise that what you are saying now is not science. And the reason I know it’s not science is there’s no way in which you could be disproved, is there? So, you’re trying to interpret the world in a different way from me. But the way you’re interpreting the world is all very well, but the way that I’m interpreting the world is actually standing the test much better. I mean, the way I’m interpreting the world’ – and I’m thinking here of rational science, evolution, the laws of physics and so on – ‘the way I’m interpreting the world is what you really believe most of the time, isn’t it? Because when you get into an airplane, you expect the laws of lift and thrust and gravity to be operating, don’t you? You don’t have some vague belief that something else may be operating, which you don’t know about and you can’t prove. No. You rely on a scientific explanation of the world to keep you in the air.’
I think I’d begin to go at it this way. I think you have to, however difficult it may be, one has to – I don’t want to use the word ‘respect’ because I don’t respect it, but I tolerate it if I know where it’s coming from. I mean, most people who are creationists have been brought up that way as young children. I mean, the sad thing is that you do tend to go the way your parents have brought you up, haven’t they? I mean, I remember so well. I mean, I was brought up a rather strict Baptist and, as a little boy, I believed all that – I really did – and sincerely and deeply. And I suppose it enriched my life. I don’t want to be – what worries me is if it’s being used as a substitute for science. I mean, I wouldn’t mind, I suppose, intelligent design being mentioned in social or religious affairs studies in schools. I mean, it is a phenomenon which you have to deal with it. But to teach it in a science lesson is a contradiction in terms. Sorry. Does that – madam?
Question
I think you are preaching to the converted somewhat in this audience. The very nature that you’re giving the talk, people are coming because maybe they’ve heard of you or they’re interested in the subject. The big issue is really trying to get people who aren’t interested in it interested. And I think that kind of starts really at nursery school and parents have some role to play, but if they’re not interested themselves then you’ve got to give someone else the chance to do that. But you can do simple things like taking kids out and showing them what the trees are like, what’s in the trees, how do they grow, where do they start. There’s so many things that can be started at a very young age, and I think that’s hugely important because unless you love the planet, as you were saying there, there’s no hope for the planet at all. And I suspect everybody here probably has an interest in the natural world, the geological world and whatever. So we have to get the message out to other people to give them that sense of joy and wonder and delight in the world that surrounds us. And that’s why I think programmes like you’ve been involved in and David Attenborough’s been involved in, many of those BBC programmes, are terrific, because they do give people the opportunity to see beyond their own garden. But then they can translate that into their own local environment and see what is beautiful just on their doorstep.
Aubrey Manning
Yes.
Question
And there was something else I wanted to say in connection with economics. This latest economic crisis we have, what’s happening now is they’re talking about giving tax cuts so we can all go out and spend more, so we can all consume more. So there seems to be, they’re polar opposites, the idea of trying to conserve things and appreciate what you have and trying to keep the economy going, keeping people in jobs. And how do we find a way around that?
Duncan Stewart
Yes. I mean, the economic downturn globally at the moment, is there an opportunity now in the western world, in our countries, to avail of this? I think you touched on it, Professor, there. But should we now be taking, if you like, advantage of the situation to try and readjust and be more sustainable? Because, you know, you mentioned economic development cannot just keep growing the way it’s growing. I mean, how do you deal with these sorts of subjects?
Aubrey Manning
Well, I’m naďve in this regard ‑ you will understand that already, I’m sure – but my feelings are that there is a huge amount of economic activity and opportunity to be generated in retracing our steps. Because, if we’re going to move – suppose we set our sights on moving to a carbon‑conservative economy, that’s going to involve a whole series of really big changes and a lot of economic effort. One’s going to switch from making cars to keeping cars going and one’s going to switch from resource‑profligate industries to resource‑conservative industries. Now, a whole lot of these things are happening – it’s not all bad news, is it? But there is a real opportunity here and, I mean, in its limited way I think our Gordon Brown has been saying that he’s going to try to launch initiatives to increase insulation in housing. I mean, it’s retrofit, of course, which is always more difficult, but there are ways in which one can make houses much more energy conservative, and this can generate a lot of activity. There are very sophisticated ways – well, I’m speaking to the expert here, sir ‑ you know there are very sophisticated ways of making places carbon neutral. There’s huge opportunities in various types of renewables. A lot of money’s gone into wind power – I’m sure it has in Ireland. I saw, I think, driving in from the airport a big wind farm and so on. That’s off‑the‑shelf technology, really, but there are other sorts of technology involving harnessing sea power. Well, it’s going in Strangford Lough, I think, in the North. Maybe here too, I don’t know.
Duncan Stewart
Tidal.
Aubrey Manning
Tidal energy – much more reliable than wind. You’ve got it twice a day and, of course, the turbines work in both directions. So you have four cycles a day going. There’s all of that and, linked to that, I was impressed – oh, it must be 20 years ago. A friend of mine, moving into a new house in Oregon in the States, he was able to go into his local sort of B&Q or hardware place and buy a heat pump. You could get them off the shelf. And this was a simple thing. It works like a refrigerator backwards – yes? And so, instead of pumping the heat out of your food and pushing it into the kitchen, you take the heat out of the local pond, if it’s there, or out of the soil, if it’s out there and you pump that heat – that’s low‑energy heat – you intensify it and you pump it into your house.
Now, at that time, the heat pump he was able to get, he had a bit of a pond in his garden and so on, he could get a heat pump which I think had an efficiency of two and a half. In other words, you put a kilowatt of energy into it and you get two and a half kilowatts out. Now, that sounds like good news to me. And this was available in the States 20 years ago. Now, what it needs is a bit of push from the Government and pull from the market, and surely we can switch over here? And there are opportunities for regeneration all along the way. And I think the same is true of conservation in a whole range of areas. Of course, it’s been so easy up to now because we’ve had cheap energy. I mean, energy is still too cheap, isn’t it?
Duncan Stewart
Yes. I mean, energy is still incredibly cheap, isn’t it? I mean, when I was a child, you know, labour was cheap and energy was expensive.
Aubrey Manning
Yes.
Duncan Stewart
It is completely reversed now and I think we’ve probably gone through a whole generation of oil at less than $20 a barrel.
Aubrey Manning
Yes.
Duncan Stewart
And now we’re facing a huge change.
Aubrey Manning
That’s right. I’ve got some maverick colleagues in Edinburgh who are dealing in a thing called ‘unitax’. I don’t expect many people – I certainly had never heard of it. But I can recommend a website for any of you who’ve got an idle hour and you’re just surfing the web. Punch in ‘Farrell Bradbury’, which is not a very common name. I can spell – F‑A‑R‑R‑E‑L‑L, I think he is, and Bradbury – B‑R‑A‑D‑B‑U‑R‑Y.
Farrell Bradbury is a heretic and therefore worth listening to, I think. He is in favour of shifting onto a carbon taxation system – energy taxation, actually. And so what he suggests is that a country – and it had better be Europe‑wide, I think, this – starts shifting from income tax to energy tax. And you, the Government of Europe says ‑ oh, if we only had one here ‑ it says, ‘Right. Over the next 20 years, we are going to shift’. So, 5% a year – 20 fives is 100. 5% a year we’re going to shift. Income tax is reduced by 5%; energy tax goes up 5%. 10%. And eventually you pay no income tax at all – but you pay a lot for energy.
His moral is that of the German economist/theoretician, Weissacher[?], who said, ‘Taxes should tell the truth’. And, at the moment, we tax our labour, which is infinitely renewable. So long as we’re alive and fit, we can go working. We have ideas. So we are renewable. But we don’t tax energy enough and energy is not renewable. Well, it may be one day if we ever can harness the solar power of the Sun and so on, but for the next 100 years energy is going to be very, increasingly expensive. So at the end of Farrell Bradbury’s 20 years, you’re paying no income tax, but you’re paying – what shall we say? – 50 euros for a litre of petrol.
Duncan Stewart
What do you feel about that?
Aubrey Manning
That’s horrific.
Duncan Stewart
Would anyone like to come in on that?
Aubrey Manning
But he does the sums – excuse me – he does the sums and he shows that actually you’re not doing so badly. And you’re being – and the whole of industry has changed over. It’s now intensely energy conservative.
Duncan Stewart
This is the economics.
Aubrey Manning
Economics. Yes.
Duncan Stewart
And, of course, economics is science too, is it not?
Aubrey Manning
Yes. Sure. Sure.
« Back to Lecture