Showing posts with label John Hopkins University Press. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Hopkins University Press. Show all posts

Saturday, March 4, 2017

Fact and Fiction in Global Energy Policy: 15 Contentious Questions. Benjamin J. Sovacool, Marilyn A. Brown and Scott V. Valentine. Johns Hopkins University Press. 2016.



Global energy policy has become the focus of intense public debate and contention. For much of the twentieth century, energy policy was primarily about how to secure a steady supply, most of it derived from coal, oil and gas. In recent years, however, the world has woken up to the fact that our reliance on carbon-intensive fossil fuels poses a severe threat to the planet’s health. While we continue to consume ever more energy worldwide, the search is on for a radically different global energy system. The key question today is whether humanity can manage to wean itself off fossil fuels before global warming becomes an irreversible environmental catastrophe?

Anyone interested in understanding what is wrong with our current approach to energy policy and what options we have for averting the looming climate crisis is faced with a range of complex questions and dilemmas: should we try to curb investment in all fossil fuel energy sources or increase shale gas production in order to reduce the burning of coal, the most polluting of all? Is energy efficiency a worthwhile investment, and does nuclear energy offer a reliable, safe and cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels? Should we promote or outlaw geo-engineering? Should governments keep their hands off energy markets, or do we need more state intervention to accelerate the transition to low-carbon energy sources? And if greater market regulation is needed, which policy interventions are most effective?

In their book Fact and Fiction in Global Energy Policy: 15 Contentious Questions, Benjamin J. Sovacool, Marilyn A. Brown and Scott V. Valentine provide an essential guide to the global debate on how to create a more sustainable energy system. The authors are driven by a desire to bring much-needed sense and perspective to the often heated and politically charged debates about future energy choices. This is not an easy task. For, as the authors themselves point out, competing ideological frames often get in the way of rational and empirically informed discussion. But they nevertheless maintain the hope that their critical investigations into some of the most contentious issues can ‘educate and inform readers by pulling back the curtain to reveal some of the precepts underlying contention in energy policy’ (352).
Image Credit: (Craig Pennington CC BY 2.0)

The book is structured around fifteen key questions that deal with the environmental shortcomings of current energy sources, the potential for developing alternative energy technologies, the options for dealing with climate change and the implications for energy security. Each chapter follows a straightforward pattern, with the authors first setting out two opposing views to a given question and then attempting to reconcile them or offering a middle- ground perspective. By following this three-step approach – loosely modelled on the dialectic of thesis, antithesis and synthesis – the authors manage to convey a sense of the lively debate that surrounds these topics while putting forward their own distinctive interpretations. It is this combination of objective review and distinctive argumentation that makes Fact and Fiction such a rewarding and engaging read.

Among the most successful chapters are those that tackle real policy dilemmas. Chapter Five, for example, deals with the question ‘Is Shale Gas a Bridge to a Clean Energy Future?’ While shale gas production has become a booming industry in the US, its future in Europe remains uncertain due to concerns over environmental impacts and regulatory barriers. The authors first survey the pros of the new technology: shale gas is abundant and affordable; it is the cleanest of all fossil fuels; and its exploitation holds the promise of boosting employment, tax revenues and economic growth. Following this, the book then turns to examining the main counter-arguments: the process of extracting shale gas is prone to causing water pollution; it turns out to be much more expensive if the necessary environmental protection measures are included in the calculation; and it runs the risk of slowing down investment in even cleaner sources of energy, mostly renewables. In concluding, the authors make the sensible suggestion that the costs and benefits of shale gas are distributed unevenly and manifest themselves at different scales. The common ground position is thus to treat shale gas production only as a short-term solution, as a bridge towards cleaner energy sources provided it is governed by tight regulations.

Some of the less successful chapters deal with questions that address seemingly difficult dilemmas but no longer pose major challenges in contemporary policy debates. This is the case, for example, with Chapter Nine on ‘Is Mitigation or Adaptation the Best Way to Address Climate Change?’ This question may once have been a thorny issue in international climate politics. Indeed, during the 1990s, the UN climate regime strongly prioritised mitigation over adaptation, but this divide has since been toned down considerably. Cutting down greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to a warming climate are now recognised and supported as important policy goals. The common ground position that the authors advocate – ‘adaptation and mitigation should be co-optimized’ (201) – thus comes across as a bland restatement of what has become a common-sense position.

Despite this, the book has many strengths and is highly recommended to anyone who is keen to understand the most pressing issues in global energy policy. The authors manage to inject a rational tone into what is often a shrill debate, and their survey of the research and policy discussions is a real tour de force that will be of benefit not only to students but also practitioners of energy policy.

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Mr. Darcy Gets Real in the 21st Century ....The Making of Jane AustenJun 21, 2017,by Devoney Looser,Hardcover,Johns Hopkins University Press Resolve & Revelations: A Pride & Prejudice Reimagining (Pride, Prejudice, & New Adventures) Jan 11, 2017by Ney Mitch,Paperback The Abominable Mr. Darcy: A Pride and Prejudice VariationMay 23, 2016.by J Dawn King, Paperback,Joy Dawn King The Gentleman's Handbook: A Guide to Exemplary Behavior, or Rules of Life and Love for Men Who Care Paperback – December 7, 2016 by Aaron Shepard



Portrait of 'real' Mr Darcy unlikely to set 21st century hearts aflutter


Experts believe Jane Austen’s ideal Darcy would bear little comparison to the one played by Colin Firth in BBC’s 1995 series


Academics have suggested the literary heartthrob had powdered white hair, slender shoulders, a long nose and a pointy chin. Photograph: UKTV/Nick Hardcastle/PA

A dispiriting portrait of the “real” Mr Darcy, showing Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice hero as a pale, slope-shouldered, weedy character, thin of mouth and chin with his hair powdered white, has been created by a panel of experts through studying contemporary fashions and social history.

Their conclusions have been embodied in a portrait by the illustrator Nick Hardcastle, unlikely to set many 21st century hearts aflutter.

When Mr Fitzwilliam Darcy first walks into literature, at an assembly rooms dance in Meryton, Jane Austen provides remarkably few clues about his appearance. He attracts more admiring glances than his friend Mr Bingley, who is described as “good looking and gentlemanlike”. However, with a typically sardonic flourish, Austen writes: “Mr Darcy soon drew the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien, and the report which was in general circulation within five minutes after his entrance, of his having ten thousand a year.”

Casting directors have generally interpreted this as tall, dark and ruggedly handsome, personified by Colin Firth in the famous wet shirt 1995 television version. Indeed the screenwriter Andrew Davies recently revealed that Firth was forced to dye his naturally reddish brown hair a darker shade for the role.



FacebookTwitterPinterest Firth was forced to dye his naturally reddish brown hair a darker shade for the role in the 1995 drama. Photograph: Allstar/BBC/Sportsphoto Ltd

The experts, including the academic John Sutherland and the historian and author Amanda Vickery, commissioned by the Drama Channel to come up with the Darcy Austen might have envisaged, conclude that a tanned complexion, broad shoulders and muscular chest would not have been seen as attractive by Austen’s Georgians, signifying a hardworking outdoor labourer, not a gentleman of leisure. They do permit him strong muscular legs, toned by horse riding and fencing, as a desirable attribute.

The ideal for gentlemanly good looks in Austen’s day, they believe, was a smooth youthful complexion, with a small pointy chin and small mouth, under hair worn long but tied back and powdered white, as seen in many aristocratic portraits.

Vickery says of their version of the character: “As Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice in the 1790s, our Mr Darcy portrayal reflects the male physique and common features at the time. Men sported powdered hair, had narrow jaws and muscular, defined legs were considered very attractive. A stark contrast to the chiselled, dark, brooding Colin Firth portrayal we associate the character with today.”

Sutherland believes the enigma is part of Darcy’s charm: “There are only scraps of physical description of Fitzwilliam Darcy to be found in Pride and Prejudice; he is our most mysterious and desirable leading man of all time. What’s fantastic about Jane Austen’s writing is that Mr Darcy is both of the era and timeless.”

Various historical figures have been suggested as Austen’s model for Darcy, including an Irish law student Tom Lefroy – later a judge and MP – with whom she is said to have had a brief youthful romantic attachment. Others believe he was based on the first Earl of Morley, John Parker, married to a friend of the author’s. The truth may have been lost in the many letters her sister, Cassandra, burned after her death.

The research on the real Mr Darcy was commissioned by the Drama Channel to launch its Jane Austen season, which starts on Valentine’s Day.

Since you’re here …

… we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but far fewer are paying for it. And advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.

If everyone who reads our reporting, who likes it, helps to pay for it, our future would be much more secure.