RAIN· You pays your money, and you gets your answers . . • by Lee Johnson Experts are, and have .always been, servants of power. And you. If your firm has three other contracts pending with ·one must always ask, when told a "fact" by an expert, "whose ERDA's Solar Division, you're likely to read betwec;;n the good does it serve?" lines very quickly when ~he boss of your contract manager The supposedly independent research and analysis pur- at ERDA chews him out for your report, saying it is "unchased from academic and independent "think tanks" upon democrati-c, un-American, against the American family and which much of our public policy is based is rarely unbiased. everything I stand for," and "I want you out of here (i.e._ Desire for further research concracts creates an environment ERDA) by five o'clock this afternoon." in which results not supporting the biases of those commis- There has been growing evidence of a concerted effort in sioning the work do not often see the light of day. It doesn't at least ERDA/DOE to suppress anything which 1) questions even have to be an overt memo or directive from them to the goals of corporate-industrial America, 2) suggests that • ,. ... 6 Ways to Get the "Right" Answer (But Not the Truth) •Bia.sin the defined scope of work: for example, being told to compare nuclear-and coal-electric to solar-electric, rather than to on-site solar space heat, which can provide the functional equivale'nt of electric resistance heating; or being told to compare oil and gas heating to active s0lar heating, rather th.an to cheaper passive s_olar heating and widely available wood heating; or not comparing total system costs, including transmission and distribution, of equivalent amounts of the same quality energy delivered to do the same task (see Soft Energy Paths by Amory Lovins, Ballinger, 1977). • Selection 9f researchers with known biases: U.S. future solar energy use analyzed for ERDA by G.E., Westinghouse and TRW, major nuclear power plant manufacturers and component suppliers; windpower section of Seattle City Light's Energy 1990 Study done by pro-nuclear think tank. • Internal "editing_" (self-suppression) by researcher: Solar Energy in America's Future by Stanford Research Institute for ERDA ($2 from Supt. of Documents, U.S. Gov't. Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock no. 060000-00051-4 ). , • Non-acceptance or attempted debunking of competent, well-dos;umented report which reaches conclusions not desired by contracting agency: Bonneville Power Electric Energy Conservation Study, ~y Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, ENERGY AND REALITY: A-Expand Energy Supplies When the progress of a nation ·is measured by criteria such as GNP, productivity and energy consumption, the decision makers tend to see any questioning of these measures as an assault upon our form of democracy itself. The civil rights movement, the anti-Vietnam protests, exposure of political and corporate corruption, and the resistance to centralized energy systems such as nuclear power are perceived by members of Perception A as a threat to their status quoa challenge to their ver,y legitimacy. A recent study by the Trilateral Commission discusses these issues. The following question is as~ed in the introduction: Is political democr~cy, as it exists today, a viable form of government for the industrialized countries?" The study goes on to say: At the present time, a significant challenge comes from the intellect,uals and related groups who assert their disgust with the . corruption, materialism and inefficiency of democracy. In some measure, the advanced industrial societies have spawned a stratum of value-oriented intellectuals who often devote them themselves to the derogation of leadership, the challenging of authority, and the unmasking and delegitimation of established institutions, .. . this development constitutes a challenge to democratic government which is, potentially at least, as serious as those posed in the past by the aristocratic cliques, fascist movements and communist parties. Who is being challenged? In a democraq, it is the people who are supposed to be in.control of the reins of governmentbut how can people challenge themselves? A consultant to the Commission, Samuel P. Huntington, provides the answer: .. , during the decades after World War II, the U.S. was governed by the president acting with the support and cooperation of key individuals and groups in the Executive Office, the federal bureaucracy, Congress, and the more important businesses, banks, law firms, foundations and media, which constitute the private establishment. , A pervasive suspicion of the motives and power_of political lead.~rs on the part of the public has given rise to the imposition of legal and institutional barriers which serve to prevent them from achieving the goals which the public expects them to accomplish. In the long run the leadership vacuum will be filled in one way or another; and strong institutionalized leadership is clearly preferable to personalized charismatic leadership. It is then made clear that the goals spoken of here are the same economic goals spoken of earlier. It is necessary ht!re simply to underline the extent to which the governability of democracy seems dependent upon the sustained expansion of the economy. Political democracy requires economic growth ... A challenge to the growth ethic is perceived as a challer;ige to democracy itself through this common twist of logic. It I ) l I t }·
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTc4NTAz