The Optimistic Scientist and the Pessimistic Politicians

This morning during its Morning Edition, NPR played a refreshing interview Steve Inskeep conducted with the Secretary of Energy, Steve Chu. Chu is a non-politician in a political position, but no one doubts that he is a very logical choice to be in charge of energy policies in this country. He won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1997 at the young age of 51 and is hence uniquely qualified to bring scientific coolness to a hot, politically driven environment that is Washington, DC.

Today's topic was Chu's view on how to fight global warming by transforming where we get our energy. Most prominent in that debate, of course, is the role of technology. With the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by the House in June, while at the same time conservative groups are organizing to take whole-page ads out in newspapers nationwide that question the very existence of global warming and climate change in the first place, the issue is becoming more and more pressing. Chu's role as the Secretary, therefore, is two-fold: to convince people that such thing exists and to do something about it while maintaining our lifestyle.

When asked by Inskeep, however, Chu is very optimistic about the future. What is the reason for his optimism? Chu states, "Scientists by their nature are very optimistic. It's very simple why. You know, we go to school, we learn about Newton, we learn about Maxwell, we learn about Einstein. And yet you want to do some science that can contribute on the shoulders of those giants. You've got to be pretty optimistic." Carrying on the task of advancing science is daunting. However, scientists have to think optimistically about what they are able to do in order to continue the work of those that have come before us. To think otherwise would be paralyzing.

Chu also gives other reasons for his optimism. For example, although we use more and more energy-driven gadgets now, energy consumption in California has actually stayed flat since the '70s due to rigorous energy efficiency standards. Therefore, he reasons that, if we apply the lesson of California to the rest of the country, we may be more than able to meet the future needs. We may even decrease energy consumption by developing the right technology and tapping into what is freely and cleanly available such wind and solar power.

Chu reiterates this unflinching optimism, even when asked the question whether or not his post in Washington, DC., has somehow dampened the optimism of a scientist. But Inskeep makes a very cogent observation about science vs. politics. He states, "science in this area, of course, is about what makes sense, what's efficient. Politics -- I don't want to automatically degrade that -- it seems to be about human nature. People tell you about their fears and their desires and their concerns."

And who can forget the folly of human fears and desires so well exhibited by Rep. Joe Barton of Texas back in April? During a hearing, Barton asked the new Secretary what he calls a "simple question": "How did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean?"

Chu is left incredulous and chuckling at first. He describes simply but eloquently the complicated mechanism of plate tectonics by which continents drifted over millions of years. But Barton will not have any of it. It seems that he does not listen to any of the words that the Secretary is saying, to put it mildly. Barton states, interrupting the Secretary: "At one time it was a lot warmer in Alaska and it wasn't a big pipe line that we created in Texas and put it under ground and shipped it up there."

Barton refuses to understand that years ago Alaska was not where it is now and, therefore, was capable of supporting the kind of life that resulted in fossil fuel and natural gas. Barton as a politician is the perfect example of the kind of human nature that Inskeep describes: the desire only to only know what he sees and to believe only what he knows. This is where his fears lie. That perhaps, because we can't see it now, we can't accept it. He refuses to listen to explanations given to account for the fact that what we see now is not what was before. This is where Barton's quest to know ends, and this is where his knowledge ends. And this, sadly, is pessimism at its core.

So here we have a perfect juxtaposition of the optimistic scientist and all the Bartons and all the conservative groups in their whole page ads in Washington, DC. Politicians have been pessimistic of the explanations science has given us for the reasons we need to do something about energy now. They are pessimistic, perhaps because they don't believe anything that science has to offer and that science is capable of giving the kind of advances we will need for meeting our energy needs. Scientists, on the other hand, keep working because, despite the ignorance that surrounds them, they have faith that science will deliver answers to our problems and make our lives easier and better through innovation and hard work. It is hard work because, as the Secretary tells us, "You've still got to come up with the goods." Nothing ever comes without hard work.

So, here is to "Dr. Chu Goes to Washington" to bring optimism and, we may only hope, change to Washington politics. Even if he can change it just a little bit, that would be huge in terms of the future of this planet and for the rest of us.