Betraying the Planet

[Ken Friedman-2]

Dear Colleagues,

Paul Krugman's column in today's edition of the New York Times is
terrible and sobering reading. I urge you to share this with your
friends --

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html

Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, is a consistent and powerful
voice for sustainability as the foundation for long-term prosperity. Of
course, without a livable planet, there will be no one left to prosper
and nowhere left to do it.

What frightens me about this column is that the predictions are changing
even more dramatically than I had realized. Scientists at MIT are now
predicting a rise of as much as 9 degrees by the end of the century. I
was already frightened by reading what will happen with a rise of 6
degrees in Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees - Our Future on a Hotter
Planet

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246266527&sr=1-1

I'm passing this along, not to criticize one group of political
opportunists , but because Krugman has his fingers on the issue.

Warm wishes,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

--

Betraying the Planet

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: June 28, 2009

So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In political
terms, it was a remarkable achievement.

But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from
representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the
bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something
about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help
thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the
planet.

To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of
climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the
latest climate research.

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists
expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying
rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise
in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be
considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome
if we continue along our present course.

Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a temperature
rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are now
predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas
emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors, like
absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be weaker
than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is
self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause
some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into
the atmosphere.

Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers
and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy.
As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the end
of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North
Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and across
the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally
occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual events.

In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of
life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify
failing to act?

Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong.
And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on
hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue,
consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific
consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting
responsibly.

But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didnthought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right
thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being
interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy
implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in it —
and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds
their denial.

Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the
declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change
is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the scientific
community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would
actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe
that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal
consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it has
managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures
to Arctic sea ice.

Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.

Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention
the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to
rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a
point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic
impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.

Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it
politics as usual?

Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that
terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose
face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the
existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing
future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in
their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about.
If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

--

[Jan Coker-2]

Dear Ken,

I think this kind of distraction is debilitating. It keeps the cycle  
of doing nothing going. As designers there is a task clearly set in  
front of us, regardless of the political to-ing and fro-ing which is  
only reflective of short sighted self interest.

We have the resposibility to use our education and skill to further  
the ecological and social sustainability of our planet. We have  
personal choices of where we draw the line on what we will collaborate  
in and what we won't. No amount of rationalization can justify  
abrogating our own responsibility. We have in the end to live with our  
own conscience; and maybe in the end it comes down to deciding what we  
will personally sacrifice. What jobs we will not do.

As for the discussion of global changes, are they-aren't they, that  
discussion was over long ago. Design is a creative activity which is  
an adventure in the future. If we do it well it can add to the beauty  
of lives, functionally, socially, physically. Sure its possible to  
make mistakes but designer are in the position were they might employ  
an ethic of not only knowingly doing no harm but also doing nothing  
unless it is clear that it can better global life.

Remember that the tobacco industry argued for the harmlessness of  
smoking long after any doubt of its harmful consequences was  
dismissed; even to the point of lying, threatening, and bullying. And  
the industry continues to find ways to promote death by funding  
advertising by buying Hollywood/media support, by buying political  
collusion with industry profit, completely ignoring the fact that they  
are killing people. Not only the company does this, not only people's  
bad choices do this but those who work in the industry and aid in the  
secondary industries, the John and Julias are personally colluding to  
commit murder.

Warmest,

Jan

Jan Coker, PhD
Upfront3
1 /174 East Tce.
Adelaide, SA 5000
Australia
0403855539
coker@...

'The source of crafts, sciences and arts is the power of reflection.  
Make ye every effort that out of this ideal mine there may gleam forth  
such pearls of wisdom and utterance as will promote the well-being and  
harmony of all the kindreds of the earth' Baha'u'llah mid-1880s











On 29/06/2009, at 6:42 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Paul Krugman's column in today's edition of the New York Times is
> terrible and sobering reading. I urge you to share this with your
> friends --
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html
>
> Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, is a consistent and powerful
> voice for sustainability as the foundation for long-term prosperity.  
> Of
> course, without a livable planet, there will be no one left to prosper
> and nowhere left to do it.
>
> What frightens me about this column is that the predictions are  
> changing
> even more dramatically than I had realized. Scientists at MIT are now
> predicting a rise of as much as 9 degrees by the end of the century. I
> was already frightened by reading what will happen with a rise of 6
> degrees in Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees - Our Future on a Hotter
> Planet
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246266527&sr=1-1
>
> I'm passing this along, not to criticize one group of political
> opportunists , but because Krugman has his fingers on the issue.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
> Professor
> Dean
>
> Swinburne Design
> Swinburne University of Technology
> Melbourne, Australia
>
> --
>
> Betraying the Planet
>
> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>
> Published: June 28, 2009
>
> So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In  
> political
> terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
>
> But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came  
> from
> representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected  
> the
> bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do  
> something
> about greenhouse gases.
>
> And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help
> thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the
> planet.
>
> To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of
> climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by  
> the
> latest climate research.
>
> The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists
> expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a  
> terrifying
> rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a  
> rise
> in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be
> considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome
> if we continue along our present course.
>
> Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a  
> temperature
> rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century, are  
> now
> predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas
> emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors,  
> like
> absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be  
> weaker
> than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is
> self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause
> some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide into
> the atmosphere.
>
> Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T. researchers
> and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our economy.
> As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the  
> end
> of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North
> Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and  
> across
> the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally
> occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual  
> events.
>
> In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of
> life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify
> failing to act?
>
> Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong.
> And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent  
> on
> hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the issue,
> consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific
> consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting
> responsibly.
>
> But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didnthought hard about  
> a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right
> thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being
> interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy
> implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe in  
> it —
> and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds
> their denial.
>
> Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the
> declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate  
> change
> is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the  
> scientific
> community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so  
> would
> actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to  
> believe
> that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal
> consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it  
> has
> managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures
> to Arctic sea ice.
>
> Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.
>
> Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention
> the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to
> rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a
> point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s economic
> impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
>
> Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it
> politics as usual?
>
> Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
>
> Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed  
> that
> terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose
> face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the
> existential threat from climate change is all too real.
>
> Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat,  
> placing
> future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s  
> in
> their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry  
> about.
> If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
>
> --

[Prof M P Ranjan]

Dear Jan and Ken
Thank you for your thoughts and references, rather alarming indeed.

It is not just the US Senators and the tobacco industry that is in denial
but so are so many other industry and business sectors which wish to ignore
the writing on the wall and bash on as if nothing has happened, in spite of
the current deep financial crisis. Designers have a role to play and I am
not sure that we are equipped to play this role going by what is taught in
schools and how the profession itself is organised and the manner in which
these concerns are being expressed and the influence that we wield on the
politics of climate change and other such pressing issues that confront us
on a daily basis.

Look at the automobile industry, and its advertising blitz, as if nothing
else mattered. The WHO report on traffic safety tells us that 1.3 million
lives are lost from road accidents and more than 50 million serious injuries
are caused and this is a direct result of design action in my opinion, both
industrial design as well as effective communication design and i am sure
you can add design research to this list if you so wish. (0 percent of these
deaths are in developing countries!!
<http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_traffic/en/>

The same can apply to the mining industry with open cast mines and the
business telling us that there is no option to the ecological destruction of
pristine forests in India and the hydro-electric business that tells us the
displacement of people are for the larger good and in the name of
development and all this in the face of great political opposition by a
variety of activists.

I find this politics of opposition and obstruction is the only voice that is
heard today and the politics of imagination (deep design as I now call it)
that is the design way, however is a very feeble voice indeed. As a
community we are not placing the options in front of our politicians in
visible ways and for this we would need to be both visionary as well as
politically saavy, but our schools and institutions go on as if this is not
their turf at all.

We do not have a theory of public good while the good old Adam Smith dictate
of private good as a base for our capitalist and market economy dictates the
directions of our politics all over the world. Some are talking of
transformation while others talk of innovation as the ultimate mantra, can
old fashioned design play a role here? Any thoughts from the list?

With warm regards

M P Ranjan
from my office at NID
1 July 2009 at 10.55 am IST

-------------------------------------------------------------

Prof M P Ranjan
Faculty of Design
Head, Centre for Bamboo Initiatives at NID (CFBI-NID)
Chairman, GeoVisualisation Task Group (DST, Govt. of India) (2006-2008)
National Institute of Design
Paldi
Ahmedabad 380 007 India

Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090
Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
Fax: [phone]

email: ranjanmp@...
web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp
web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in
blog: <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com>
education blog: <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com>
education blog: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com

------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jan Coker <coker@...> wrote:

> Dear Ken,
>
> I think this kind of distraction is debilitating. It keeps the cycle of
> doing nothing going. As designers there is a task clearly set in front of
> us, regardless of the political to-ing and fro-ing which is only reflective
> of short sighted self interest.
>
> We have the resposibility to use our education and skill to further the
> ecological and social sustainability of our planet. We have personal choices
> of where we draw the line on what we will collaborate in and what we won't.
> No amount of rationalization can justify abrogating our own responsibility.
> We have in the end to live with our own conscience; and maybe in the end it
> comes down to deciding what we will personally sacrifice. What jobs we will
> not do.
>
> As for the discussion of global changes, are they-aren't they, that
> discussion was over long ago. Design is a creative activity which is an
> adventure in the future. If we do it well it can add to the beauty of lives,
> functionally, socially, physically. Sure its possible to make mistakes but
> designer are in the position were they might employ an ethic of not only
> knowingly doing no harm but also doing nothing unless it is clear that it
> can better global life.
>
> Remember that the tobacco industry argued for the harmlessness of smoking
> long after any doubt of its harmful consequences was dismissed; even to the
> point of lying, threatening, and bullying. And the industry continues to
> find ways to promote death by funding advertising by buying Hollywood/media
> support, by buying political collusion with industry profit, completely
> ignoring the fact that they are killing people. Not only the company does
> this, not only people's bad choices do this but those who work in the
> industry and aid in the secondary industries, the John and Julias are
> personally colluding to commit murder.
>
> Warmest,
>
> Jan
>
> Jan Coker, PhD
> Upfront3
> 1 /174 East Tce.
> Adelaide, SA 5000
> Australia
> 0403855539
> coker@...
>
> 'The source of crafts, sciences and arts is the power of reflection. Make
> ye every effort that out of this ideal mine there may gleam forth such
> pearls of wisdom and utterance as will promote the well-being and harmony of
> all the kindreds of the earth' Baha'u'llah mid-1880s
>
>
> On 29/06/2009, at 6:42 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
>
>  Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Paul Krugman's column in today's edition of the New York Times is
>> terrible and sobering reading. I urge you to share this with your
>> friends --
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html
>>
>> Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, is a consistent and powerful
>> voice for sustainability as the foundation for long-term prosperity. Of
>> course, without a livable planet, there will be no one left to prosper
>> and nowhere left to do it.
>
>

SNIP SNIP

[Suchitra-2]

Dear Ranjan,

Just a short response to your concluding paragraphs. I don't know much about
this but there are theories of public good - public trust doctrine, concept
of global public good - which intersect with economics, philosophy,
jurisprudence and ethics. Closer to home, Gandhi's philosophy had 'public
good' at its core. As did Eames' India Report in its articulation of the
purpose of design education.

To the PHD-DESIGN list: Hello! I have been reading posts on this list for
quite a while though I have written for the first time today. I have been
Prof. Ranjan's student at the National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad (the
city where Gandhi developed and implemented many of his ideas)

Best wishes,
Suchitra

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Prof M P Ranjan <ranjanmp@...> wrote:

> Dear Jan and Ken
> Thank you for your thoughts and references, rather alarming indeed.
>
> It is not just the US Senators and the tobacco industry that is in denial
> but so are so many other industry and business sectors which wish to ignore
> the writing on the wall and bash on as if nothing has happened, in spite of
> the current deep financial crisis. Designers have a role to play and I am
> not sure that we are equipped to play this role going by what is taught in
> schools and how the profession itself is organised and the manner in which
> these concerns are being expressed and the influence that we wield on the
> politics of climate change and other such pressing issues that confront us
> on a daily basis.
>
> Look at the automobile industry, and its advertising blitz, as if nothing
> else mattered. The WHO report on traffic safety tells us that 1.3 million
> lives are lost from road accidents and more than 50 million serious
> injuries
> are caused and this is a direct result of design action in my opinion, both
> industrial design as well as effective communication design and i am sure
> you can add design research to this list if you so wish. (0 percent of
> these
> deaths are in developing countries!!
> <http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_traffic/en/>
>
> The same can apply to the mining industry with open cast mines and the
> business telling us that there is no option to the ecological destruction
> of
> pristine forests in India and the hydro-electric business that tells us the
> displacement of people are for the larger good and in the name of
> development and all this in the face of great political opposition by a
> variety of activists.
>
> I find this politics of opposition and obstruction is the only voice that
> is
> heard today and the politics of imagination (deep design as I now call it)
> that is the design way, however is a very feeble voice indeed. As a
> community we are not placing the options in front of our politicians in
> visible ways and for this we would need to be both visionary as well as
> politically saavy, but our schools and institutions go on as if this is not
> their turf at all.
>
> We do not have a theory of public good while the good old Adam Smith
> dictate
> of private good as a base for our capitalist and market economy dictates
> the
> directions of our politics all over the world. Some are talking of
> transformation while others talk of innovation as the ultimate mantra, can
> old fashioned design play a role here? Any thoughts from the list?
>
> With warm regards
>
> M P Ranjan
> from my office at NID
> 1 July 2009 at 10.55 am IST
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Prof M P Ranjan
> Faculty of Design
> Head, Centre for Bamboo Initiatives at NID (CFBI-NID)
> Chairman, GeoVisualisation Task Group (DST, Govt. of India) (2006-2008)
> National Institute of Design
> Paldi
> Ahmedabad 380 007 India
>
> Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090
> Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
> Fax: [phone]
>
> email: ranjanmp@...
> web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp
> web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in
> blog: <http://www.design-for-india.blogspot.com>
> education blog: <http://www.design-concepts-and-concerns.blogspot.com>
> education blog: http://www.visible-information-india.blogspot.com
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jan Coker <coker@...> wrote:
>
> > Dear Ken,
> >
> > I think this kind of distraction is debilitating. It keeps the cycle of
> > doing nothing going. As designers there is a task clearly set in front of
> > us, regardless of the political to-ing and fro-ing which is only
> reflective
> > of short sighted self interest.
> >
> > We have the resposibility to use our education and skill to further the
> > ecological and social sustainability of our planet. We have personal
> choices
> > of where we draw the line on what we will collaborate in and what we
> won't.
> > No amount of rationalization can justify abrogating our own
> responsibility.
> > We have in the end to live with our own conscience; and maybe in the end
> it
> > comes down to deciding what we will personally sacrifice. What jobs we
> will
> > not do.
> >
> > As for the discussion of global changes, are they-aren't they, that
> > discussion was over long ago. Design is a creative activity which is an
> > adventure in the future. If we do it well it can add to the beauty of
> lives,
> > functionally, socially, physically. Sure its possible to make mistakes
> but
> > designer are in the position were they might employ an ethic of not only
> > knowingly doing no harm but also doing nothing unless it is clear that it
> > can better global life.
> >
> > Remember that the tobacco industry argued for the harmlessness of smoking
> > long after any doubt of its harmful consequences was dismissed; even to
> the
> > point of lying, threatening, and bullying. And the industry continues to
> > find ways to promote death by funding advertising by buying
> Hollywood/media
> > support, by buying political collusion with industry profit, completely
> > ignoring the fact that they are killing people. Not only the company does
> > this, not only people's bad choices do this but those who work in the
> > industry and aid in the secondary industries, the John and Julias are
> > personally colluding to commit murder.
> >
> > Warmest,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > Jan Coker, PhD
> > Upfront3
> > 1 /174 East Tce.
> > Adelaide, SA 5000
> > Australia
> > 0403855539
> > coker@...
> >
> > 'The source of crafts, sciences and arts is the power of reflection. Make
> > ye every effort that out of this ideal mine there may gleam forth such
> > pearls of wisdom and utterance as will promote the well-being and harmony
> of
> > all the kindreds of the earth' Baha'u'llah mid-1880s
> >
> >
> > On 29/06/2009, at 6:42 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
> >
> >  Dear Colleagues,
> >>
> >> Paul Krugman's column in today's edition of the New York Times is
> >> terrible and sobering reading. I urge you to share this with your
> >> friends --
> >>
> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html
> >>
> >> Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, is a consistent and powerful
> >> voice for sustainability as the foundation for long-term prosperity. Of
> >> course, without a livable planet, there will be no one left to prosper
> >> and nowhere left to do it.
> >
> >
> SNIP SNIP
>

[Ken Friedman-2]

Dear Ranjan and Jan,

Thanks for your notes. Two quick responses.

1) Adam Smith was first of all a moral philosopher. Smith's views have
often been distorted. Smith never preached pure self-interest. His view
was different and far more subtle. One cannot blame Smith for the
debasement of his views any more than one can blame Charles Darwin
for the doctrine that has been called "social Darwinism."

I agree with most of your note -- but I always feel compelled to speak
up to defend Adam Smith when people blame him for the economic
policies most recently associated with Bush and Cheney.

2) It is hard to see why Krugman's column is a distraction. Designers
don't work in a vacuum. We work for businesses and companies, and
these firms work in an environment created and constrained by law.
Krugman is supporting the science here, not arguing against it. And he
is calling on the politicians who make the laws to think this through.

Designers have a responsibility. But politicians pay much more attention
to a Nobel Laureate writing in the New York Times than they do to any
designer. More Australian MPs read the New York Times than read the
Design Institute of Australia magazine Artichoke. And more senior
economists in industry, finance, and government follow Krugman's
column than anything written by a designer.

To make the changes we need, every voice counts and all these ideas
add up.

Since we all want the same thing, I can't see why any of us should argue
that an influential voice calling for right action is a distraction. Krugman
is saying what you say and what I say: The science is there. Let's make
the laws that require governments and corporations to treat these
problems seriously.

Yours,

Ken


>>> Prof M P Ranjan <ranjanmp@...> 01/07/09 3:28 PM wrote: >>>

--snip--

We do not have a theory of public good while the good old Adam Smith dictate
of private good as a base for our capitalist and market economy dictates the
directions of our politics all over the world. Some are talking of
transformation while others talk of innovation as the ultimate mantra, can
old fashioned design play a role here? Any thoughts from the list?

--snip--

On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Jan Coker <coker@...> wrote:

--snip--

> I think this kind of distraction is debilitating. It keeps the cycle of
> doing nothing going. As designers there is a task clearly set in front of
> us, regardless of the political to-ing and fro-ing which is only reflective
> of short sighted self interest.

--snip--

> As for the discussion of global changes, are they-aren't they, that
> discussion was over long ago. Design is a creative activity which is an
> adventure in the future. If we do it well it can add to the beauty of lives,
> functionally, socially, physically. Sure its possible to make mistakes but
> designer are in the position were they might employ an ethic of not only
> knowingly doing no harm but also doing nothing unless it is clear that it
> can better global life.

--snip--

[Terence Love-2]

Hi Ken,

Ken wrote>
It is hard to see why Krugman's column is a distraction. Designers don't
work in a vacuum. We work for businesses and companies, and these firms work
in an environment created and constrained by law.
Krugman is supporting the science here, not arguing against it. And he is
calling on the politicians who make the laws to think this through.

I agree. Underneath Krugman's essay was a practical report on a major design
issue: the design reasoning as to why it is essential to implement the
design of improved coal powerstations, rather that wait until replacements
for coal are developed
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29easterbrook.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=
coal&st=cse)

Best wishes,

Terry

===
Dr. Terence Love, PhD, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Love Design and Research
Tel/Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
tlove@...
www.love.com.au
===



 

[Gavin Melles]

I think the message about distraction means enough endless discussion just do something
-----Original Message-----
From: Terence Love <t.love@...>
To:  <PHD-DESIGN@...>
To: Love, Terence <t.love@...>

Sent: 1/07/2009 6:56:55 PM
Subject: Re: Betraying the Planet

Hi Ken,

Ken wrote>
It is hard to see why Krugman's column is a distraction. Designers don't
work in a vacuum. We work for businesses and companies, and these firms work
in an environment created and constrained by law.
Krugman is supporting the science here, not arguing against it. And he is
calling on the politicians who make the laws to think this through.

I agree. Underneath Krugman's essay was a practical report on a major design
issue: the design reasoning as to why it is essential to implement the
design of improved coal powerstations, rather that wait until replacements
for coal are developed
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29easterbrook.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=
coal&st=cse)

Best wishes,

Terry

===
Dr. Terence Love, PhD, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Love Design and Research
Tel/Fax: [phone]
Mobile: [phone]
tlove@...
www.love.com.au
===



 

[davelab6]

2009/6/29 Ken Friedman <KenFriedman@...>:
>
> Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, is a consistent and powerful
> voice for sustainability as the foundation for long-term prosperity.

I recently watched Professor Kjell Aleklett's ~1hr lecture on Climate
Change and Peak Oil at
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cops/events/energycontroversies/peak-oil.php
where he suggests that the oil and gas simply won't be there for doing
as much damage as the IPCC et al predict - but I am leery of
governments authorising a lot of new coal power.

I have found personally that people who are skeptical of climate
change can often be swayed into reconsidering climate change related
policies by peak oil discussions.

I suggest looking up Transition Towns in your favorite media outlet as
a positive way of dealing with this.

Cheers,
Dave

[Lorenz Herfurth]

Dear Jan,

Thank you for your statement on industry and their way of pursuing  
their interest with all means possible and available. An interesting  
detail that came to my mind regarding design, social responsibility  
and the tobacco industry. Did you know, that an important German  
design price is sponsored by the tobacco industry: the Lucky Strike  
Designer Award. Known people from within the German design theory  
community are running this design venture. Design cynicism?

Kind regards

Lorenz Herfurth
MA Design Management and Policy
Lancaster University
United Kingdom




On 01.07.2009, at 05:40, Jan Coker wrote:

> Dear Ken,
>
> I think this kind of distraction is debilitating. It keeps the cycle  
> of doing nothing going. As designers there is a task clearly set in  
> front of us, regardless of the political to-ing and fro-ing which is  
> only reflective of short sighted self interest.
>
> We have the resposibility to use our education and skill to further  
> the ecological and social sustainability of our planet. We have  
> personal choices of where we draw the line on what we will  
> collaborate in and what we won't. No amount of rationalization can  
> justify abrogating our own responsibility. We have in the end to  
> live with our own conscience; and maybe in the end it comes down to  
> deciding what we will personally sacrifice. What jobs we will not do.
>
> As for the discussion of global changes, are they-aren't they, that  
> discussion was over long ago. Design is a creative activity which is  
> an adventure in the future. If we do it well it can add to the  
> beauty of lives, functionally, socially, physically. Sure its  
> possible to make mistakes but designer are in the position were they  
> might employ an ethic of not only knowingly doing no harm but also  
> doing nothing unless it is clear that it can better global life.
>
> Remember that the tobacco industry argued for the harmlessness of  
> smoking long after any doubt of its harmful consequences was  
> dismissed; even to the point of lying, threatening, and bullying.  
> And the industry continues to find ways to promote death by funding  
> advertising by buying Hollywood/media support, by buying political  
> collusion with industry profit, completely ignoring the fact that  
> they are killing people. Not only the company does this, not only  
> people's bad choices do this but those who work in the industry and  
> aid in the secondary industries, the John and Julias are personally  
> colluding to commit murder.
>
> Warmest,
>
> Jan
>
> Jan Coker, PhD
> Upfront3
> 1 /174 East Tce.
> Adelaide, SA 5000
> Australia
> 0403855539
> coker@...
>
> 'The source of crafts, sciences and arts is the power of reflection.  
> Make ye every effort that out of this ideal mine there may gleam  
> forth such pearls of wisdom and utterance as will promote the well-
> being and harmony of all the kindreds of the earth' Baha'u'llah  
> mid-1880s
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29/06/2009, at 6:42 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> Paul Krugman's column in today's edition of the New York Times is
>> terrible and sobering reading. I urge you to share this with your
>> friends --
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html
>>
>> Krugman, a Nobel Laureate in economics, is a consistent and powerful
>> voice for sustainability as the foundation for long-term  
>> prosperity. Of
>> course, without a livable planet, there will be no one left to  
>> prosper
>> and nowhere left to do it.
>>
>> What frightens me about this column is that the predictions are  
>> changing
>> even more dramatically than I had realized. Scientists at MIT are now
>> predicting a rise of as much as 9 degrees by the end of the  
>> century. I
>> was already frightened by reading what will happen with a rise of 6
>> degrees in Mark Lynas's book, Six Degrees - Our Future on a Hotter
>> Planet
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/0007209053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246266527&sr=1-1
>>
>> I'm passing this along, not to criticize one group of political
>> opportunists , but because Krugman has his fingers on the issue.
>>
>> Warm wishes,
>>
>> Ken
>>
>> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
>> Professor
>> Dean
>>
>> Swinburne Design
>> Swinburne University of Technology
>> Melbourne, Australia
>>
>> --
>>
>> Betraying the Planet
>>
>> By PAUL KRUGMAN
>>
>> Published: June 28, 2009
>>
>> So the House passed the Waxman-Markey climate-change bill. In  
>> political
>> terms, it was a remarkable achievement.
>>
>> But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came  
>> from
>> representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected  
>> the
>> bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do  
>> something
>> about greenhouse gases.
>>
>> And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help
>> thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the
>> planet.
>>
>> To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of
>> climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken  
>> by the
>> latest climate research.
>>
>> The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists
>> expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a  
>> terrifying
>> rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a  
>> rise
>> in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer  
>> be
>> considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely  
>> outcome
>> if we continue along our present course.
>>
>> Thus researchers at M.I.T., who were previously predicting a  
>> temperature
>> rise of a little more than 4 degrees by the end of this century,  
>> are now
>> predicting a rise of more than 9 degrees. Why? Global greenhouse gas
>> emissions are rising faster than expected; some mitigating factors,  
>> like
>> absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans, are turning out to be  
>> weaker
>> than hoped; and there’s growing evidence that climate change is
>> self-reinforcing — that, for example, rising temperatures will cause
>> some arctic tundra to defrost, releasing even more carbon dioxide  
>> into
>> the atmosphere.
>>
>> Temperature increases on the scale predicted by the M.I.T.  
>> researchers
>> and others would create huge disruptions in our lives and our  
>> economy.
>> As a recent authoritative U.S. government report points out, by the  
>> end
>> of this century New Hampshire may well have the climate of North
>> Carolina today, Illinois may have the climate of East Texas, and  
>> across
>> the country extreme, deadly heat waves — the kind that traditionally
>> occur only once in a generation — may become annual or biannual  
>> events.
>>
>> In other words, we’re facing a clear and present danger to our way of
>> life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify
>> failing to act?
>>
>> Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things  
>> wrong.
>> And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their  
>> dissent on
>> hard work and hard thinking — if they had carefully studied the  
>> issue,
>> consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific
>> consensus was misguided — they could at least claim to be acting
>> responsibly.
>>
>> But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didnthought hard about  
>> a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right
>> thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being
>> interested in the truth. They don’t like the political and policy
>> implications of climate change, so they’ve decided not to believe  
>> in it —
>> and they’ll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds
>> their denial.
>>
>> Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday’s debate, it was the
>> declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate  
>> change
>> is nothing but a “hoax” that has been “perpetrated out of the  
>> scientific
>> community.” I’d call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so  
>> would
>> actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to  
>> believe
>> that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal
>> consisting of thousands of scientists — a cabal so powerful that it  
>> has
>> managed to create false records on everything from global  
>> temperatures
>> to Arctic sea ice.
>>
>> Yet Mr. Broun’s declaration was met with applause.
>>
>> Given this contempt for hard science, I’m almost reluctant to mention
>> the deniers’ dishonesty on matters economic. But in addition to
>> rejecting climate science, the opponents of the climate bill made a
>> point of misrepresenting the results of studies of the bill’s  
>> economic
>> impact, which all suggest that the cost will be relatively low.
>>
>> Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn’t it
>> politics as usual?
>>
>> Yes, it is — and that’s why it’s unforgivable.
>>
>> Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed  
>> that
>> terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose
>> face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the
>> existential threat from climate change is all too real.
>>
>> Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat,  
>> placing
>> future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because  
>> it’s in
>> their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry  
>> about.
>> If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.
>>
>> --
>

[Ken Friedman-2]

Dear Gavin,

One of the challenges implicit in your comment is that we know what it is that we are supposed to do.

And then comes the next question: who is it that is supposed to do the doing?

Just this morning, I was at a meeting where the university is working its way through our response to the challenge of sustainability ... it always amazes me that there are as many steps as there are to get even a medium sized organization -- a university -- to orchestrate its efforts on these issues.

On another list, GK VanPatter wrote on this issue in relation to design schools:

"While many graduate design education programs that have embraced 'sustainability' as a theme in designing, most merely treat the theme as content (WHAT), rather than as a lens through which to engage all kinds of problems and opportunities, generating ideas and solutions at a systems level (HOW)."

This is another way of examining your comment (and Jan's). To use sustainability as a lens through which to engage all kinds of problems and opportunities, generating ideas and solutions at a systems level requires a mapping and remodeling of nearly everything we do in graduate design education, and to get there, we much map and model the undergraduate foundations on which we build graduate education. We have a working group doing just this.

What we already know is that this entails many changes both to education, and to practice, and even to the way we run our staff structures and our building. To remodel the undergraduate curriculum from conception to accrediting the new programs will take us at least three years. Getting everything in place and tuned will take five to six years. The changes to graduate will run concurrently, but they cannot run independently. From the time I put sustainability on the faculty agenda as one of our three cornerstones to the day that we achieve the goal that GK has stated so well means a time span of seven to eight years, involving everything from thinking and planning to changing, to gaining approval and accreditation at all levels of the university and the government, to acquiring and allocating resources, to implementing the program, testing it, checking it, changing what doesn't work and improving what does. Perhaps we can trim a year or two off that.

But the notion that we can "just do it" only works in footwear adds.

Now that's just a single organization -- a thousand or so academic and administrative staff, twenty thousand or so students. Consider the steps it takes to get an industry to do something -- the design industry, as exemplified through the efforts of The Designers Accord, working to reorient firms, practices, and the practices of clients.

The Designers Accord does have a fairly workable program, and this means rapid progress in some dimensions while permitting easy scalability. But it does not yet ensure results.

The "just do something" ethos was the motivating factor behind Earth Day, back in 1969 or so, and the notion that ecology festivals and individual action were all it would take. The challenge is rebuilding cities, societies, and economies around the actions required for long-term transformation.

I'm not saying do nothing. I am, in contrast, proposing that it is vital to think through and create commitment for genuine action leading to significant results.

Since this requires consensus and commitment across a wide spectrum of actors, voters, stakeholders, politicians, business leaders, shareholder bodies, banks, governments, government agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and more, I still can't see Paul Krugman's article as distraction or endless discussion.

Let's be fair here, too. We've each got to ask what we're willing to do to make things happen. I've made serious commitments to these issues -- within a range of available resources. To do more requires consensus among many other actors, and I find Krugman's article and other articles like it exactly the tool I need to create that consensus and to generate the commitment we require. In fact, it was a great help to me today in persuading a few key colleagues that sustainability was more than another word for risk management.
 
Again, I agree with Ranjan, and Jan, and with you, that we must be active. I'm simply unwilling to treat a responsible contribution to a major public forum as endless discussion. Unless, of course, you think that Prof. Krugman would do more good for the world by discussing price elasticity, foreign exchange rates, or one of the other topics on which he is well qualified to lecture and to write. My favorite, of course, would be the economics of increasing returns and Krugman's critique of Brian Arthur's work.

Look, I don't mean to seem grumpy here -- well, perhaps I DO mean to seem a little grumpy. Are you really saying that it would be better for Krugman NOT to use his column in the New York Times to further the public debate on this topic? Even though a bill has passed the House of Representatives, it has not yet passed the Senate. Until it passes the Senate, it is not law. Where do you think Senate votes come from, if voters do not demand Senatorial action, a demand that is always the product of public debate. If American voters fail to push their Senators on this bill, it will fail.

So I'd prefer to thank Paul Krugman for keeping this discussion alive, while doing what I can on the ground to do my part at one university.

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

--

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:08:08 +1000, Gavin Melles <GMelles@...> wrote:

>I think the message about distraction means enough endless discussion just do something

[sukantamajumdar]

Dear Prof. Ken,

One request...
Do you have the documents of your University project for Sustainability pusposes?
Is it possible to see them?

Thanks,

Sukanta
India


-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Friedman <KenFriedman@...>
To: PHD-DESIGN@...
Sent: Wed, Jul 1, 2009 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: Betraying the Planet



Dear Gavin,

One of the challenges implicit in your comment is that we know what it is that
we are supposed to do.

And then comes the next question: who is it that is supposed to do the doing?

Just this morning, I was at a meeting where the university is working its way
through our response to the challenge of sustainability ... it always amazes me
that there are as many steps as there are to get even a medium sized
organization -- a university -- to orchestrate its efforts on these issues.

On another list, GK VanPatter wrote on this issue in relation to design schools:

"While many graduate design education programs that have embraced
'sustainability' as a theme in designing, most merely treat the theme as content
(WHAT), rather than as a lens through which to engage all kinds of problems and
opportunities, generating ideas and solutions at a systems level (HOW)."

This is another way of examining your comment (and Jan's). To use sustainability
as a lens through which to engage all kinds of problems and opportunities,
generating ideas and solutions at a systems level requires a mapping and
remodeling of nearly everything we do in graduate design education, and to get
there, we much map and model the undergraduate foundations on which we build
graduate education. We have a working group doing just this.

What we already know is that this entails many changes both to education, and to
practice, and even to the way we run our staff structures and our building. To
remodel the undergraduate curriculum from conception to accrediting the new
programs will take us at least three years. Getting everything in place and
tuned will take five to six years. The changes to graduate will run
concurrently, but they cannot run independently. From the time I put
sustainability on the faculty agenda as one of our three cornerstones to the day
that we achieve the goal that GK has stated so well means a time span of seven
to eight years, involving everything from thinking and planning to changing, to
gainin
g approval and accreditation at all levels of the university and the
government, to acquiring and allocating resources, to implementing the program,
testing it, checking it, changing what doesn't work and improving what does.
Perhaps we can trim a year or two off that.

But the notion that we can "just do it" only works in footwear adds.

Now that's just a single organization -- a thousand or so academic and
administrative staff, twenty thousand or so students. Consider the steps it
takes to get an industry to do something -- the design industry, as exemplified
through the efforts of The Designers Accord, working to reorient firms,
practices, and the practices of clients.

The Designers Accord does have a fairly workable program, and this means rapid
progress in some dimensions while permitting easy scalability. But it does not
yet ensure results.

The "just do something" ethos was the motivating factor behind Earth Day, back
in 1969 or so, and the notion that ecology festivals and individual action were
all it would take. The challenge is rebuilding cities, societies, and economies
around the actions required for long-term transformation.

I'm not saying do nothing. I am, in contrast, proposing that it is vital to
think through and create commitment for genuine action leading to significant
results.

Since this requires consensus and commitment across a wide spectrum of actors,
voters, stakeholders, politicians, business leaders, shareholder bodies, banks,
governments, government agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and more, I
still can't see Paul Krugman's article as distraction or endless discussion.

Let's be fair here, too. We've each got to ask what we're willing to do to make
things happen. I've made serious commitments to these issues -- within a range
of available resources. To do more requires consensus among many other actors,
and I find Krugman's article and other articles like it exactly the tool I need
to create that consensus and to generate the commitment we require.
 In fact, it
was a great help to me today in persuading a few key colleagues that
sustainability was more than another word for risk management.
 
Again, I agree with Ranjan, and Jan, and with you, that we must be active. I'm
simply unwilling to treat a responsible contribution to a major public forum as
endless discussion. Unless, of course, you think that Prof. Krugman would do
more good for the world by discussing price elasticity, foreign exchange rates,
or one of the other topics on which he is well qualified to lecture and to
write. My favorite, of course, would be the economics of increasing returns and
Krugman's critique of Brian Arthur's work.

Look, I don't mean to seem grumpy here -- well, perhaps I DO mean to seem a
little grumpy. Are you really saying that it would be better for Krugman NOT to
use his column in the New York Times to further the public debate on this topic?
Even though a bill has passed the House of Representatives, it has not yet
passed the Senate. Until it passes the Senate, it is not law. Where do you think
Senate votes come from, if voters do not demand Senatorial action, a demand that
is always the product of public debate. If American voters fail to push their
Senators on this bill, it will fail.

So I'd prefer to thank Paul Krugman for keeping this discussion alive, while
doing what I can on the ground to do my part at one university.

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

--

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:08:08 +1000, Gavin Melles <GMelles@...>
wrote:

>I think the message about distraction means enough endless discussion just do
something

[Gavin Melles]

Hi ken
I cannot disagre with the principles of consensus through informing that you note. I can also appreciate the frustration behind jab and others remarks. Consider how long the media has been reporting the tragedy of Zimbabwe with no significant action taken by the world to remove a corrupt dictator. How long have we been hearing and denying climate change as a discussion not an action piece. I say this recognixing my own lack of response but cycling to work, having one car, installing rainwater tanks, planting vegetables not flowers, these things we could do. I'm a little too left to believe too much in top down systems action prefering the agglutinating force of local revolution. I hope both global and local solutions work but out my money on the second
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Friedman <KenFriedman@...>
To: Friedman, Ken <KenFriedman@...>
To:  <PHD-DESIGN@...>

Sent: 1/07/2009 9:12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Betraying the Planet

Dear Gavin,

One of the challenges implicit in your comment is that we know what it is that we are supposed to do.

And then comes the next question: who is it that is supposed to do the doing?

Just this morning, I was at a meeting where the university is working its way through our response to the challenge of sustainability ... it always amazes me that there are as many steps as there are to get even a medium sized organization -- a university -- to orchestrate its efforts on these issues.

On another list, GK VanPatter wrote on this issue in relation to design schools:

"While many graduate design education programs that have embraced 'sustainability' as a theme in designing, most merely treat the theme as content (WHAT), rather than as a lens through which to engage all kinds of problems and opportunities, generating ideas and solutions at a systems level (HOW)."

This is another way of examining your comment (and Jan's). To use sustainability as a lens through which to engage all kinds of problems and opportunities, generating ideas and solutions at a systems level requires a mapping and remodeling of nearly everything we do in graduate design education, and to get there, we much map and model the undergraduate foundations on which we build graduate education. We have a working group doing just this.

What we already know is that this entails many changes both to education, and to practice, and even to the way we run our staff structures and our building. To remodel the undergraduate curriculum from conception to accrediting the new programs will take us at least three years. Getting everything in place and tuned will take five to six years. The changes to graduate will run concurrently, but they cannot run independently. From the time I put sustainability on the faculty agenda as one of our three cornerstones to the day that we achieve the goal that GK has stated so well means a time span of seven to eight years, involving everything from thinking and planning to changing, to gaining approval and accreditation at all levels of the university and the government, to acquiring and allocating resources, to implementing the program, testing it, checking it, changing what doesn't work and improving what does. Perhaps we can trim a year or two off that.

But the notion that we can "just do it" only works in footwear adds.

Now that's just a single organization -- a thousand or so academic and administrative staff, twenty thousand or so students. Consider the steps it takes to get an industry to do something -- the design industry, as exemplified through the efforts of The Designers Accord, working to reorient firms, practices, and the practices of clients.

The Designers Accord does have a fairly workable program, and this means rapid progress in some dimensions while permitting easy scalability. But it does not yet ensure results.

The "just do something" ethos was the motivating factor behind Earth Day, back in 1969 or so, and the notion that ecology festivals and individual action were all it would take. The challenge is rebuilding cities, societies, and economies around the actions required for long-term transformation.

I'm not saying do nothing. I am, in contrast, proposing that it is vital to think through and create commitment for genuine action leading to significant results.

Since this requires consensus and commitment across a wide spectrum of actors, voters, stakeholders, politicians, business leaders, shareholder bodies, banks, governments, government agencies, intergovernmental organizations, and more, I still can't see Paul Krugman's article as distraction or endless discussion.

Let's be fair here, too. We've each got to ask what we're willing to do to make things happen. I've made serious commitments to these issues -- within a range of available resources. To do more requires consensus among many other actors, and I find Krugman's article and other articles like it exactly the tool I need to create that consensus and to generate the commitment we require. In fact, it was a great help to me today in persuading a few key colleagues that sustainability was more than another word for risk management.
 
Again, I agree with Ranjan, and Jan, and with you, that we must be active. I'm simply unwilling to treat a responsible contribution to a major public forum as endless discussion. Unless, of course, you think that Prof. Krugman would do more good for the world by discussing price elasticity, foreign exchange rates, or one of the other topics on which he is well qualified to lecture and to write. My favorite, of course, would be the economics of increasing returns and Krugman's critique of Brian Arthur's work.

Look, I don't mean to seem grumpy here -- well, perhaps I DO mean to seem a little grumpy. Are you really saying that it would be better for Krugman NOT to use his column in the New York Times to further the public debate on this topic? Even though a bill has passed the House of Representatives, it has not yet passed the Senate. Until it passes the Senate, it is not law. Where do you think Senate votes come from, if voters do not demand Senatorial action, a demand that is always the product of public debate. If American voters fail to push their Senators on this bill, it will fail.

So I'd prefer to thank Paul Krugman for keeping this discussion alive, while doing what I can on the ground to do my part at one university.

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

--

On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:08:08 +1000, Gavin Melles <GMelles@...> wrote:

>I think the message about distraction means enough endless discussion just do something