The National Audubon Society considers canceling itself
How thoroughly has diversity, equity and inclusion penetrated the sciences? “To the core!” at least if the recent travails of the National Audubon Society are any indication. For over two years, a woke storm has roiled the Society over whether it should purge its namesake, John James Audubon, from its title. After a year-long review, the Society’s Board of Directors recently announced its decision: Audubon’s name will stay.
The Society’s CEO, Elizabeth Gray, defended the decision on the sensible grounds that, for whatever his faults, Audubon remains a pivotal figure in the history of science in our once young republic. His legacy includes establishing ornithology as the burgeoning field that it is today, which draws both on professional experts and passionate amateurs. The board concluded that the Society’s mission, and ornithology in general, would best be served by keeping his name and the tradition it represents, while honestly acknowledging the man and who he was. This was accompanied by a promise to devote $25 million to the Society’s efforts to expand DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging, to use the Society’s rendering). This has not mollified the cancel campaigners, of course. Threats to rename state affiliate chapters, to withhold results from the Society’s famed Christmas Bird Count, and other retaliatory measures remain hot topics on Twitter.
One might ask: isn’t this just a small quibble among prickly and persnickety birdwatchers, much ado about nothing? Perhaps. But sometimes small controversies can provide great insights because they allow more detailed scrutiny than would be possible with a larger problem.
The brief against Audubon includes the usual tropes. He owned slaves. He had doubts about the emancipation of slaves. He was a plagiarist and a fabulist. He harbored other impure thoughts. The counter-argument is also familiar: he was a man of his times (1785-1851). This idea, that one cannot judge people by future moral standards (was Audubon a transphobe?), and that we are all capable of making our own judgments on gleaning the good men do from the chaff they leave, carries no water for the cancel campaigners. To say it’s all or nothing is to miss the point: nothing can stand in the face of such absolutism.
So if Audubon is to be condemned as a fabulist, what is one to make of the writings of one of his most vocal critics?
J. Drew Lanham is a wildlife biologist at Clemson University, a passionate birder, and an ardent lover of nature. In short, he is precisely the kind of person that the Audubon legacy has helped to foster. There is much about him to admire.
Yet Lanham is a prolific fabulist himself. He has the rare ability to peer into the souls of white people and perceive the cold cruelty that lurks within their hearts, just by looking at them. This remarkable ability transcends time itself, allowing him to expose the malevolence of Audubon. He goes into the field for a bird survey, expecting to be “hanged that day.” He helpfully notes the special rules that black ornithologists must follow to avoid being lynched (question: how many black ornithologists have been murdered in Lanham’s day, or ever?). Lanham laments that he rarely encounters other black birdwatchers in the field. I think I know why: he’s scaring the daylights out of them.
Turning to another critique: was Audubon a plagiarist? So says Matthew Halley. In an impressive bit of historiography, Halley argues that Audubon’s painting of the “Bird of Washington” (likely an immature bald eagle) was copied from another contemporary painter of birds. Yet Halley’s critique lacks important historical context that would allow us to make sense of it. For example, Halley asserts that Audubon “was not formally trained in science.” Here’s some context: the word “scientist” did not even come into usage until 1834, when Audubon would have been nearly fifty, and seven years after the first edition of Audubon’s The Birds of America was published.
And here’s more context: “science” in Audubon’s day was not a practice of set norms and procedures, as it has come to be today; it was more entrepreneurial. Where modern science draws on the public fisc to pay its bills, Audubon (who was not a wealthy man) had to sell himself to wealthy patrons. What he had to sell was his extraordinary paintings of birds.
Still more context: the concept of intellectual property only began to take shape in the early eighteenth century, and it has been in flux ever since, driven (as it always has been) by evolving technology. From the invention of the printing press to the era of digital cut-and-paste, the line dividing plagiarism from fair use has never been clear-cut, and it remains fuzzy to this day. In the era of ChatGPT, we may find very soon that the solid ground Halley and others think they are standing on will liquefy under their feet.
So when Audubon painted his Bird of Washington, was he plundering someone else’s intellectual property (plagiarism) or was it fair use (not plagiarism)? Or was Audubon simply an entrepreneurial hustler who beat out his rivals to emerge as the era’s preeminent cataloguer of the North American avifauna? In answering that question, context is vital. In the end, the charge that Audubon was a plagiarist is anchored to a pretty thin reed.
However, it is not evidence of perfidy that has been driving the “cancel Audubon” campaign, but a narrative: the ongoing danger facing the black ornithologist — “birding while black,” in Drew Lanham’s phrase. What of that narrrative: is “birding while black” real or just another fable?
The infamous “Central Park birdwatching incident” of May 2020 is revealing. To recap, it was an early morning encounter between Christian Cooper, a black man birdwatching in the Ramble section of the park, and Amy Cooper, a white woman walking her dog. Their encounter, part of which Christian Cooper caught on his phone, blew up into a sensational example of the post-George Floyd narrative of systemic racism, of a privileged white woman attacking a defenseless black man just minding his business.
The evidence for this is as flimsy as Drew Lanham’s imagined impending lynching. A closer look at the narrative reveals that Christian Cooper was the likely instigator of the incident, that he had a history of inciting such encounters, and that Amy Cooper was likely the convenient target of a simmering conflict, not between black and white, but between birders and dog-walkers using the park. Yet systemic white racism was the narrative everyone wanted, and so that was the narrative everyone got.
So we see the real problem with the “cancel Audubon” campaign: it does not rely on a cool evaluation of evidence, a sober weighing of the good versus the bad. Rather, it is driven by a ginned-up narrative of racism, a slow-motion mob action with its aim being discord, not amity; division, not unity; aggravation of white guilt and white masochism rather than looking to move on from a troubled past; a sordid mud-wrestle rather than the transcendent and beautiful — like a love of nature and the role that birds play in its cultivation.
This is the future that is already playing out for the Audubon Society. It is the future that looms before us all.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2023/04/the-national-audubon-society-considers-canceling-itself
***********************************************************The Case Against Electric Vehicles
Compared to an electric car, a combustion car is a primitive and complicated device. But the combustion car has a energy usage system that electric cars are unlikely ever to match
Electric vehicles are expensive. The average price of an electric vehicle is about $18,000 more than the average price of a gas vehicle, and profits have been elusive even at that price point.
If electric vehicles made significant environmental progress, that would be one thing. But they don’t. Electric vehicles are not “zero” emissions—they create more emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles when they are produced, and they also cause emissions when they are charged, usually by burning fossil fuels.
Mining for many of the materials needed for an electric vehicle battery is done nearly exclusively overseas and is dominated by China. America’s lone lithium mine is responsible for about 2% of the world’s annual supply. Traditional cars have never been cleaner: Even President Barack Obama’s EPA head noted they are 99% cleaner than they were just a few decades ago.
Not only will electric vehicle mandates cost us more at the dealership, but they will also destroy American jobs. By limiting choice and increasing costs, fewer people will buy cars, hurting auto manufacturers and dealers alike.
Auto mechanics, masters at prolonging the life of the internal combustion engine, will also be impacted. America’s farmers would be devastated since more than a third of the corn crop ultimately goes to biofuels.
And America’s oil and refining workers would face a heavy blow. That is a huge issue in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, since all three have major oil refineries and form the epicenter of the refining industry on the East Coast.
Before COVID-19, America was leading the world in oil and fuel production, and we had finally achieved what every president since Richard Nixon dreamed about: energy security. Manufacturing jobs like those found at auto plants and refineries support dozens of other jobs and are the foundation on which an economy can be built. The oil and natural gas industry supports over 700,000 jobs in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware.
Why destroy those jobs? Jobs are often impacted by technology, and if electric vehicles end up being a consumer’s choice, that is understandable and the price of progress. But if people want to continue buying internal combustion engine vehicles, these workers could continue to serve their neighbors and provide for their families for decades to come.
Thankfully, members of Congress—led by Pennsylvania Rep. John Joyce—recently proposed the Preserving Choice in Vehicle Purchases Act, which is intended to counter and restrict the potent effects of the California plan by protecting the rights and freedoms of individual consumers.
Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey should not join California. Last month, the political polling and survey company Ragnar Research conducted a survey showing that a resounding 73% of Delaware voters opposed a statewide ban on gas-powered vehicles by 2035.
Supermajorities in Delaware understand that buying a car is highly personal and the second most important financial decision we make. Bureaucrats in distant capitals do not know your situation, and they should not dictate your choices.
Internal combustion engine vehicles offer superior range, convenience, and durability at an affordable price. The median internal combustion engine vehicle has a range of 403 miles compared with the median electric vehicle at 234 miles. Cold weather and using the heater can reduce that range by some 40%. That means more frequent stops for electric vehicles to charge, and they take much longer than filling up at the pump.
Delaware’s and New Jersey’s internal combustion engine vehicles ban will hurt consumers, farmers, workers, and our national security. It’s time to say no to California’s car ban—in Harrisburg, Dover, Trenton, Washington, D.C., and across the country.
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/commentary/the-case-against-electric-vehicles
**************************************************************Polish PM vows to fight 'pseudo-green' EU plan to ban petrol cars
Poland’s Prime Minister has vowed to do “anything” to win the fight against a “pseudo-green” European Union ban on petrol and diesel engines.
Brussels plans to outlaw the sale of new petrol and diesel engines from 2035 through a ban on tailpipe emissions as part of its net zero plans.
“The ban on the sale of combustion cars after 2035 is unacceptable for the government,” Mateusz Morawiecki said. “We will do anything to protect Polish families against another pseudo-green idea by rich countries and bureaucrats from Brussels.”
Mr Morawiecki said that his Law and Justice party supported climate action in Poland.
But he added: “Not if its targets are set during backstage negotiations against the will and interests of millions of Europeans, including Poles.”
His government argues the ban would be expensive for families and hurt Polish firms producing car components for well-known global brands.
Germany won a carve-out from the ban for internal combustion engines running on greener e-fuels this week and now backs the amended law.
That has left Poland as the only EU country openly opposing the green law. Warsaw voted against the ban, while Bulgaria, Romania and Italy abstained.
But now that Berlin backs the EU ban, and the regulation has been amended, it will be almost impossible for Warsaw to prevent it becoming law.
The watering down of the ban raised questions over a similar British ban, which takes effect in 2030 but allows hybrid vehicles until 2035, and a potential loophole in Northern Ireland, which will have to follow the EU ban, unless it is blocked by Stormont.
Mr Morawiecki’s pledge to oppose the EU ban came as Law and Justice launched its campaign for parliamentary elections in autumn.
Poland has often found itself at odds with the EU over climate change legislation, as it looked to protect its coal industry over the years.
Miners have totemic status in a country where they were pivotal in the Solidarity protests against Poland’s then-communist government.
Mr Morawiecki has locked horns with the European Commission over accusations of sliding democratic standards, a crackdown on gay rights, and a Constitutional Court ruling questioning the supremacy of EU law in Poland.
Brussels is withholding billions in coronavirus recovery funds, amid the disputes, which have been played down for fear of exposing EU divisions after the invasion of Ukraine.
In a speech on the future of Europe earlier this month, Mr Morawiecki called for a repatriation of national powers from Brussels to make the EU “more democratic”.
“We share common values, but each nation has its own identity,” he said in the flagship speech in Germany.
************************************************************
As the British Government unveils plans to make Britons poorer and colder... Welcome to basket case Britain
In their Gadarene rush to beat the rest of the world to a carbon-free future, ministers appear determined to turn Britain into an economic basket case.
Today was Green Day, when the preposterously titled Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Grant Shapps, unveiled the Government's latest madcap plans for making us colder and poorer.
Presumably, Shapps had no idea that Green Day is also the name of a popular American punk rock group, whose breakthrough hit was called Basket Case.
Come to think of it, though, what could be more appropriate. In their Gadarene rush to beat the rest of the world to a carbon-free future, ministers appear determined to turn Britain into an economic basket case.
While even the EU hits the pause button on plans to phase out fossil fuels, at least for motor vehicles, our Government has set the controls for the heart of the sun.
Shapps flatly refused even to consider that there might be an alternative to banning the sale of all internal combustion powered cars after 2030.
This is despite Europe having second thoughts following the development of so-called 'e-fuels,' which are a clean alternative to petrol and diesel. So while German manufacturers get an exemption for e-fuelled cars and vans, the British motor industry gets a kick in the teeth.
Britain's ban on the sale of conventionally powered vehicles starts in 2030, five years before the rest of Europe. We're even phasing out hybrids from 2035.
Shapps said: 'We are not in Europe. We don't have to do what Europe does on this stuff. We have always been more forward leaning on this stuff than the EU.'
No, we don't have to copy Europe. But that doesn't mean cutting off our nose to spite our face.
Forward leaning? More like falling head-first from a great height.
Already, BMW is moving some of its UK operations abroad. Others will follow suit if they are prevented from at least exploring whether e-fuels have a viable future.
Today, however, the Government doubled down on its deranged carbon-neutral agenda, with Rishi Sunak announcing that car makers will be forced to ensure that 22 per cent of all vehicles sold in Britain are all-electric by 2024, rising to 100 per cent in 2035 — even though the chances of there being enough reliable electricity generating capacity to charge them all are less than zero.
Sunak and Shapps seem hell-bent on doing more damage to our domestic motor industry than useless managements and union militants like British Leyland's Red Robbo inflicted in the 1970s.
That should go down well in Red Wall seats in Derbyshire and Sunderland, where Toyota and Nissan employ tens of thousands. For now, anyway.
Of course, when it comes to leading the anti-car charge, XR poster boy Shapps has plenty of previous. During Covid, he bunged councils £250 million for 'temporary' measures to encourage cycling and walking.
At the time, some of us warned that these allegedly temporary measures would inevitably become permanent, even when the pandemic was over. And so it has come to pass.
In the name of saving the polar bears, local authorities across Britain have declared all-out war on motorists. Net Zero has become a convenient excuse for closing roads and imposing punitive fines and congestion charges. [...]
Forgive me for repeating former deputy Labour leader Nye Bevan's quote about ministerial incompetence in 1945: 'This island is made mainly of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organisational genius could produce a shortage of both coal and fish at the same time.'
Today, our island is sitting on half a century's reserves of shale gas and billions of barrels of untapped oil and natural gas in the North Sea. Yet our modern organisational geniuses have managed to produce a home-grown shortage of both gas and oil, purely out of short-sighted political vanity.
As a result, we are forced increasingly to rely on forests of hideous, bird-shredding, onshore, War-Of-The-Worlds windmills and the promise of as-yet-untested mini nuclear reactors — which if the Government's less- than-impressive record on public infrastructure projects (HS2 anyone?) is anything to go by, won't be operational until way beyond 2050, if ever.
From what I can gather, the only new initiative announced today by Grant 'Green Day' Shapps was the launch of two new 'carbon capture clusters', whatever they are.
Still, I can certainly think of a word to describe the Government's Net Zero energy policy. And it definitely begins with 'cluster . . .'
Welcome to Basket Case Britain.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment