Dear Ted,
I hope you will not misunderstand or take personally my attempts to be
very explicit about what a person means, in this case, what you mean. I
have wasted altogether too much time trying to be "polite" and avoid
pinning people down, and I'm not going to bother any more. All I can say
is that I am willing to be subject to the same. With this preface, I
request even more clarification.
Ted Rogers wrote:
> My exposure to this methodology was through H. T. Odum who
> continues to push the envelope. If I remember correctly it was absolutely
> critical that embodied energy in equipment and structures be properly
> included and amortized in the accounting.
You do remember correctly. What is not 100% clear is whether you agree
with Odum and accept Odum's view in this or whether you are simply
reporting what Odum's position is. It is, of course, part of our
academic training to be very "passive voice" about things, but after a
point I find that this inhibits, rather than enhances, one's ability to
communicate.
> I am glad that this dialogue has begun
I first subscribed to this list with the expectation that this kind of
dialogue would be the norm! Boy was I surprised to discover that some
call this "controversial"
> and would like to point out, Loren,
> that I believe that it needs to be maintained for the next couple of
> decades...
Ted, I agree with the above up to a point. However, some of us (at
least myself) have ALREADY spent a couple decades engaged in the
dialogue and are inclined to continue it ONLY if some action seems
likely because of continued investment in the dialogue. Otherwise it
just seems like time wasting. Howard Odum's "Energetics of World Food
Production" dates from 1967. I am getting pretty tired of hearing about
the wonderful discovery of things which have been known for decades.
One of the barriers to engaging in this kind of dialogue is that it is
actually quite a bit of work to remain on top of the subject matter and
the literature to date. I have here Odum's "Environmental Accounting"
from 1996 and I am finding that it is darned hard to read. Another is
that many people seem extremely reluctant to take a position and explain
how they get there. I don't go too far in trying to guess why that is,
but all of the possibilities I can imagine are rather disturbing.
Loomis and Connor (Crop Ecology, 1992) make no bones about the fact that
they don't agree with Odum. They refer to his analysis as "energy
fundamentalism" and take an alternative view of embodied energy. I
personally think it's an "apples and oranges" problem, where each is
applying the embodied energy concept in a different context, not
recognizing the essential difference in the context or in what he
considers to be the boundary conditions of his system. So each may be
"correct" within his own context. This creates a problem for
discussion, since they use the same words to mean different things.
I'd love to see a group here take on this subject in a serious way, but
it would require substantial effort on the part of the participants, so
I am doubting that it will come to pass, based on my observations to
date.
Loren Muldowney
loscott@envsci.rutgers.edu
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@cals.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/san/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 03 2000 - 12:00:35 EDT