by Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler)
Reflecting on the US response to the covid pandemic, Dr Fauci provides several key insights into complex risk management – related to climate change and grid transition.
Dr. Faucic discuss recent past anti-covid measures have been cited as follows,
“(W)e looked at it from a purely public health point of view. No name for The others to make broader assessments—those whose positions include but are not limited to public health. Those people have to make decisions about BALANCE between the potential negative consequences of something versus the benefits of something.”
I was surprised to learn that Dr. Fauci doesn’t think public health should be in full control of the pandemic response. But he’s right. We need diverse experts to provide input and influence policy choices – some worry about public health, others worry about personal health, others worry worry about children and others well understand the economic impact of it all. Doing everything possible to stop the spread of covid, all costs and other considerations cursed, should have reduced the general welfare of society and yielded completely sub-optimal results. superior. Focusing solely on covid risks is likely to backfire even for those most at risk from covid.
In the United States, the balanced path that Dr Fauci is currently advocating has not been seriously pursued during the pandemic. With the Covid panic, it seems public health has taken over with an overriding goal. Personal health and wellness advocates have found few forums and opportunities to engage and influence policymakers. Acting against the central views of those in power can have serious consequences for individuals and organizations. Looking back, many people find that balancing competing perspectives and values better served all of us. By focusing solely on the threat of covid, we increased the risk from so many other threats. Many people now understand that our “best” scientific understandings are subject to challenges. It seems that we need “others” to speak up, but those voices fail to find the platform they need to influence policy and direction.
There are some parallels here with the “experts” pushing for policy related to the climate “emergency” and emerging plans for net zero. my recent posting discussed why grid experts are silent while policies are issued calling for a sharp increase in wind and solar power. It is clear that not enough policymakers want to hear about the potential negative consequences associated with increasing penetration level from wind and sun. Perhaps our experience with covid regulations can shed some light on the discussion that will occur around grid policies. Both the covid and net zero efforts are dominated by an overly focused group of experts, creating a narrative that is too simplistic to guide policymakers, the press, and much of the public. These narrow professionals and their followers are largely unaware of the large negative externalities caused by their initiatives. Public health is concerned with public health, not individual health or the economy. Many of those currently pushing for net zero mobilization focus on reducing CO2, not grid reliability or the economy.
Contrary to Dr Fauci’s call for “others to judge more broadly”, in practice, often when a disaster or emergency is announced, the voices of “others” are marginalized. , ignored, discredited and/or belittled. Instead of allowing different voices to “balance” concerns, disaster claimants become self-righteous and authoritarian, arguing that other voices are at best a wasted distraction and The worst is the work of people with selfish or sinister motives. Such sentiments can appeal to policymakers, the media, and the public. As a result, crowds want to build consensus on a complex and highly uncertain issue, and they promote the idea that anyone who challenges the narrative of “consensus” is a threat. danger.
The narrowly focused, fear-based public health approach to avoiding covid, largely to the exclusion of all other concerns, seems to get worse as it spreads to the general public. overreaction became popular as the sandy skate parks and beaches were closed. In my active 55+ community, our board is regularly visited by public health officers. They focus on lesser-known risks, and studies like this recommend that pedestrians be careful with slip transmission. They lock down our outdoor recreation facilities, remove nets, and encourage longer-than-reasonable isolation. Arguing against their efforts in favor of a two-pronged strategy of avoiding covid and also promoting personal health, is seen by many as a selfish and ignorant view. They insist that they are following the advice of “experts,” but that is only from a narrow perspective from a narrow field of expertise. Much of the population is affected by unwarranted public health concerns, to the extent that for many people staying at home, watching TV and drinking is seen as a responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, the health consequences of that strategy in older adults are generally not as good.
Fear-based appeals for a “green” grid follow a similar path. Stories come from leaders in the field influencing regional and local governments as well as individuals. Many regions oversubsidize solar energy to the rich at the expense of the poor. Ridiculous “green” projects attract support. Just like covid, those who challenge the “green” narrative are under suspicion. “Forget about the economy. Forget about the negative effects associated with wind and sun. Forget about the cost and reliability implications or what it can do to our standard of living. We are facing a disaster.” As technical claims about the shortcomings of wind and solar out-of-sync are repeatedly met with exclamations about how bad climate change is, you realize that fear has driven the discussion. logic aside. It is hoped that one day “green” experts and advocates may soon see the wisdom of Dr. Fauci’s statement rewritten here for them:
“The broader assessment is for other people… Those people have to make decisions about the balance between the potential negative consequences of something (asynchronous discontinuous generation) vs. the benefit of something (economically reliable energy)”.
Those who call for economy and reliability along with social responsibility and “green” concerns should not be viewed as enemies. They should play an important role in broader assessments of energy policy. They should not be seen as industry disruptors or science deniers but as professionals with a responsibility to help strike a balance in the policy process.
There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that Dr Fauci actually seeks to encourage balance around larger issues as covid policies evolve. But his more recent reflections offer solid good advice.
“These pPeople have to make decisions about the balance between the potential negative consequences of something and the benefits of something.”
One day, we may hear “green” experts exclaim, after major experiments fail, that, “I was just talking about what green energy can do, providing the right balance. It is up to others to be fair and public about the shortcomings of technology.” By then it would be too late. Let us now challenge all the “experts” to demonstrate their commitment to: 1) balance, 2) address their criticisms, 3) understand the limitations of their knowledge. and 4) help cultivate an appreciation of how other professionals can help better understand the potential negative effects of their proposed actions.
conclude
Fostering healthy debates with diverse views around important issues, such as potential grid transitions, is the best way to develop sound policies. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving away from such hopes, as those in control argue about our/their’s “best knowledge” and help quell anything that might negate them. Shadows of doubt surround their story. When disaster is predicted, favoring the selection of “experts”, the opposition is quelled and then unbalanced. The abused formula is to declare disaster, propose solutions, claim time is running out, argue that “misinformation” is harmful, and then control the dialogue that works against all. both of us. While it can inform decisions and policies, it is often misguided and long-term needs and feedback mechanisms are often overlooked and overlooked.
As suggested by Dr. Fauci, in any major job there needs to be a balance. Understanding this in advance is better than realizing it in hindsight. The justification for balance is summed up in this 2016 posting:
“The power system is extremely important with regards to economic development, quality of life as well as health and safety. To best meet the needs of any given area, there needs to be a balance between economics, reliability, and public accountability. An imbalance in any one area will have consequences in others and, in fact, could prove to be counterproductive across all.”
The correct operation of the power system is critical regardless of the threats posed by climate change. Concerns about climate change should not cross a credible economic net. In fact, quite the opposite, the greater the threat of climate change, the more important it is that we supply electricity properly. Climate change will not pair well with an unreliable, too expensive, and unfeasible energy system. Focusing too narrowly on public responsibility (CO2 reduction, equity, social justice) without adequate attention to economics and reliability is a recipe for disaster. Bring balance.
