Energy pmp meeting August 19th 2014 Wise use of words Energy pmp meeting August 19th 2014 Richard Wilson Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics (emeritus) Harvard University

Several hundred years ago: JOHN MILTON wrote In defense of books Who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, God’s image; but he who destroys a good book, kills reason itself, kills the image of God

Books were killing people and used in sectarian arguments (Martin Luther) even now burning of the Koran is used to enflame passions and draw attention to the perpetrator

I suggest that words, if used precisely, can be defended I suggest that words, if used precisely, can be defended. But if imprecisely they can, and are, misused –often deliberately- to confuse people and win an argument In 1975 people wanted “energy conservation”. It was clear that by using these words imprecisely they did not know what they were talking about. I argue that today. Energy Efficiency is better but still sloppy In general the Courts are to decide conflicts between two parties not to set societal standards BUT I and some others object when incorrect scientific statements are made in court

Look at Daniel Kahneman’s Nobel prize IN ECONOMICS The basic paper is “the framing of decisions and the psychology of choice” (with Amos Tversky) about 1981 They proved to my satisfaction that a decision can be framed in 2 different ways with two different outcomes. I can frame Carmine’s decisions differently

FUEL conservation would be clearer FUEL conservation would be clearer. Indeed we often want to conserve fuel. But do we wish to conserve sunlight as much as we try to conserve oil?

I suggest that energy efficiency is better I suggest that energy efficiency is better. But much of what is called energy efficiency is actually energy restraint

When it comes to use of the energy it gets worse. Can it be used SAFELY? When is a power plant SAFE? Do we need absolute safety?

ExAMPLE OF 2 POSSIBLE TERRORIST ACTIONS GO TO Vatican2009.ppt

Control by emissions limits or efficiency standards or subsidy for non carbon fuels is inherently “centrally planned” Which do you trust the least? Washington Politicians, Sierra club Lawyers? Starry eyed scientists? The market place?