Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Using fracking, the history of fuel, and the Anthropocene to reveal rules of thumb for teaching about controversial issues

Part of the 2016 GSA Short Course, #518 Teaching the Anthropocene Part 1: Controversial Issues 1
by

Don Duggan-Haas

on 2 April 2017

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Using fracking, the history of fuel, and the Anthropocene to reveal rules of thumb for teaching about controversial issues

Key Ideas
and a key question:
Hydrofracking cannot be deeply understood without understanding the broader energy system.
Our energy system is in constant flux.
All large-scale energy production has negative environmental impacts.
Which is more important? Where energy comes from or how much energy we use?
Don Duggan-Haas, Ph.D.
PRI, its Museum of the Earth, & its Cayuga Nature Center
Ithaca, NY
dad55@cornell.edu
Costs
Benefits
1/2 the CO2 emissions of coal.
1/2 the CO2 emissions of coal.
Methane leaks & is a potent GHG.
Methane burns cleaner than coal or oil.
Jobs
Boom - bust economic cycle
Or:
Complexifying the Seemingly Simple.
With support from the National Science Foundation.
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant No. 1035078.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
http://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/age_of_elec_gen.cfm
Why all the new natural gas at the turn of the century?
Almost all the really old plants that are still online are hydro.
More power came online in 2008, 2009, and 2011 from wind than from any other source.
But coal is still in the picture.
Most US nuclear plants came online between the late 1960s and early 1990s.
Most coal fired power plants are more than 30 years old.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-860 Annual Electric Generator Report , and Form EIA-860M (see Table ES3 in the March 2011 Electric Power Monthly)
Note: Data for 2010 are preliminary. Generators with online dates earlier than 1930 are predominantly hydroelectric. Data include non-retired plants existing as of year-end 2010. This chart shows the most recent (summer) capacity data for each generator. However, this number may change over time, if a generator undergoes an uprate or derate.
The Robert Moses
Power Plant at Niagara Falls came online in 1961, replacing the Schoellkopf Power Plant that collapsed into the Niagara Gorge in 1956. The Robert Moses Plant is responsible for most of this bump in the graph.
Why isn't there much in the way of new hydro?
A key piece of the reason is a lawsuit filed by states in the Northeast against Midwestern states over acid rain. The settlement led to the replacing coal generation with natural gas.
Traditional hydropower requires flooding valleys or gorges and destroys habitats for both human and wildlife habitat. Hydropower plants have been taken offline in recent decades to restore habitats.
Energy
portfolios vary substantially
across regions and across time.
Water usage & water pollution possibilities.
It's not coal.
It requires the building of infrastructure that continues reliance on fossil fuels.
Industrializes rural landscapes
All large scale energy development ndustrializes landscapes
Enron played a role too.
The Museum of the Earth provides scientific information about unconventional drilling in the Marcellus Shale.
In our outreach related to the Marcellus Shale, the Museum of the Earth will not take a position supporting or opposing drilling in the Marcellus Shale. A fundamental goal of our work is to provide evidence-based information and to build understanding of the science related to the Shale, the extraction techniques employed in gas recovery from the Shale, and associated environmental impacts. Project partners also help nurture understandings of the economic and cultural impacts of decisions related to Marcellus Shale development. We strive to do this work with as little bias as possible.

More information about our Marcellus Shale outreach efforts can be found here:
http://www.museumoftheearth.org/marcellusshale
Why did I include the poll?
Engaging relevant conceptions matters.
There are
already a lot of gas
wells in New York State.
http://andyarthur.org/fodder/energy/whatdoesnatural.html
(same link as above)
These images show the locations of Chautaugua County gas wells. The sequence begins
zoomed in on the Chautauqua
Institution. Note the scale bar
in the bottom left of each image.

These are NOT Marcellus Shale
wells (most are in the Medina
Sandstone). The images are
included here to show that
there are already many gas
wells in New York State.
Zoom out
Zoom out
Zoom out
The ways you choose to look influences what you see.
Beautiful Chautauqua!
It's the same beautiful place, we've just highlighted something in these views...
Resources for learning more of the relevant science...
(links in
purple
)
http://epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
http://www.museumoftheearth.org/outreach.php?page=92387
http://cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Pages/default.aspx
Cornell Cooperative Extension Natural Gas Resource Center
Paleontological Research Institution Marcellus Shale Outreach
U.S. EPA Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources
NYS Water Resources Institute at Cornell University
http://wri.eas.cornell.edu/
http://extension.psu.edu/naturalgas
Penn State Extension Natural Gas
NYS DEC Marcellus Shale
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/46288.html
Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program (September 2011)
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html
This presentation can be found on Science Beneath the Surface blog.
http://eia.gov
The U.S. Energy Information Administration
Many of the statistics included in this presentation come from the EIA website.
Follow the arrow below to submit comments to the DEC
The Google Earth file linked above contains additional information on the Marcellus Shale and the broader energy system.
We further recognize that we cannot fully recognize or describe our own biases. And that no one else can fully recognize or describe their own biases.
What are the two largest energy sources for electricity produced in your state?
Choose from this alphabetical list:
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1035078.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
http://www.museumoftheearth.org/outreach.php?page=92387
slickwater
horizontal high-volume hydraulic fracturing
A bit about
in tight shale
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2893
slickwater
horizontal
high-volume
hydrofracking
in tight rock

But the combination is new.
No individual piece of the
technological approach is new
Substantially impacts rural areas
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3032/pdf/FS2009-3032.pdf
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html
http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.html
The overwhelming majority of
what goes down a well is water...
Plus a lot of sand.
But, with 4 million gallons for a typical well, if a half a percent is additives, that's 20,000 gallons of other stuff.
According to the most recent estimate from the USGS, the Marcellus Shale contains about 84 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable natural gas.
http://bit.ly/MarcellusGateway
A statistic
& a question
One large nuclear plant produces as much electricity as...
3,800 large windmills
The 100.5 MW Noble Bliss Windpark (67 1.5 MW windmills)
(So 63 Noble Bliss Windparks)
...or 68 square miles of photovoltaics.
The 750 KW Solar Strand at the University of Buffalo
(8400 Solar Strands)
Which of these is worse for the environment?
The 650 MW AES Somerset Coal Power Plant in Niagara County
Almost 10 coal plants equivalent to the state's largest
(7 of these)
...which was powered largely by Appalachian coal...
See it to scale here:
http://prezi.com/pgd7z-dagvwt/the-scale-of-marcellus-shale/
Is slickwater high-volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing bad for the environment?
Yep.
Can we ask richer questions?
Is hydraulic fracturing better or worse for the environment than what we are doing now or might reasonably do in the near future to get the energy we need?
That shows some of the ways that electricity production is changing.
How we use electricity is changing in really important ways too.
2% of US electricity production goes to data centers.
90% of adults in the world are projected to have cell phones by 2014.
The ripple effects through the energy system of these changes are substantial.
The Internet has shrunken the energy use of an array of activities while increasing it in others.
I know that most people get the question wrong.
Can we make informed decisions about changes to the energy system if we don't know where we currently get our energy?
We are striving to help people switch mental gears from gut responses to more analytical approaches; from System 1 to System 2.
That gives a decent quick overview of much relevant information.
What to expect...
Then, a whirlwind overview of slickwater horizontal high volume hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale...
...all placed in the context of the larger energy system
First, some discussion of the educational challenges this work poses.
Plus a bottom line idea: We need to use a whole lot less energy.
But information isn't enough to build scientific understanding.
Sociocultural issues matter a great deal.
More information is likely to further polarize.
Controversial issues involve conflicting worldviews
If they were set up as a single strand as wide as UB's Solar Strand, it would stretch from Buffalo to Phoenix!
(But solar can go on roofs)
Should we use this kind of energy?
And...
Should we use this much energy?
Screen grabs from that Google Earth file are included within this presentation.
The light green roughly paralleling the Lake Ontario shoreline shows where the Marcellus Shale is exposed in New York State. The shale is found only south of that line.
The area of light green mostly obscured by the text balloon shows where the Utica Shale is exposed.
http://bit.ly/MarcellusKMZ
virtualfieldwork.org/downloadabledocs/MEPD/Marcellus.kmz
There's more.

This is a small(!) excerpt of a larger presentation available here:
http://bit.ly/MarcellusGateway
In July, 2012 (the most recent data available at this writing), New York produced twice as much electricity from natural gas than from any other single source.
http://www.eia.gov/beta/state/?sid=NY#tabs-4
http://www.eia.gov/
To learn more about what you need to understand to teach about the Marcellus Shale, see: http://bit.ly/MarcellusShalePCK
1/5 mile
...in a friendly way.
Without forgetting about the importance of simple.
USE A LOT LESS ENERGY.
(lightbulbs are important, but not enough).
Producing evidence-based materials that do not advocate.
What we've been doing...
Working with educators across selected communities:
K-12 Teachers
College & University
Nature Center
Museum
And public programming
Using a systems approach with a range of experts
Treating the Marcellus as one case of an emergent energy issue
One group in Elmira, a second in Binghmaton.
And we have a long history of dealing with controversial issues:
We have a long history of dealing with controversial issues:
Evolution
Climate Change
Hydrofracking and the Marcellus Shale
Of the over a 2200 New York State residents I've polled in my audiences so far, fewer than 100 have correctly identified natural gas & nuclear as the two largest energy sources for electricity generated in the state.
Rules of Thumb:
Be aware of the limits of your own worldview when communicating.
Engage relevant existing conceptions about the broader energy system
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/why-you-should-be-optimistic-about-renewables-one-chart
Two and a half large gas-fired power plants
The 2.3 GW Ravenswood Generating Station, Queens, NY.
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/63393179.jpg
Which is powered largely by HVHF gas.
Rabbit Lake Uranium Mine, Saskatchewan, Canada
Two important related questions:
But so is every way we generate energy on a large scale.
Table of Contents

Preface and Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Chapter 1. Geology of the Marcellus Shale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Chapter 2. Why the Geology Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

Chapter 3. The Technology of Shale Gas Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Chapter 4. Water and Marcellus Shale Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

Chapter 5. Beyond Water: Other Environmental Impacts of Marcellus Gas

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

Chapter 6. Life-Cycle Analysis: Shale Gas and Climate Change . . . . . . . . . 103

Chapter 7. The Marcellus Shale in a Broader Energy Context . . . . . . . . . . 123

Chapter 8. Compared to What? Risk, Uncertainty, & Hydrofracking . . . . 141

Chapter 9. Teaching About the Marcellus Shale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Chapter 10. So What? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Abbreviations and Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Figure Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .252
The 6.3 GW Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario
The facility had been operating on six of its eight reactors, at a capacity of 4.6 GW. All eight reactors are now online.
That's four times more large windmills than we have in the entire state now.
NY's largest coal-fired power plant is small compared to many other states.
More info:
http://bit.ly/MarcellusBook
And this is what 7,000 gallons looks like.
http://www.amazon.com/Intex-16-Foot-48-Inch-Discontinued-Manufacturer/dp/B000XU0IQ8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1391391655&sr=8-4&keywords=16ft+round+portable+pool
Recognize logical fallacies, both in your own arguments and in the arguments of others. If you find logical fallacies in your own arguments then, CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT!
https://bookofbadarguments.com
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Two and a half of NY's largest power plant
The 2.4 GW Robert Moses Power Plant at Niagara Falls
(one of the two Ontario Hydro Adams Plants is seen across the river)
Powered by Niagara Falls
This presentation is a complement to our books.
Energy Choices in Context
Horizontal High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing
Think about this. We'll come back to it shortly.
Table of contents
(click on it to zoom in!)
Alternative title!
...and it's fun to ask questions that people get wrong as long as you've got a polite sense of humor about it!
This section of the presentation highlights some important energy mathematics, using one very large power plant as a reference.
This is the largest currently operating nuclear power plant in the world, and it's about 150 miles from Buffalo.
Be a
model learner

Argue in a way that values learning more than winning
Persist! Both in your own learning and in the work with others.
Avoid using logical fallacies and call attention to it when others do.
What this is...
A set of selected excerpts from a much larger multimedia presentation on hydrofracking and the broader energy system.
A response to the teachable moment presented by the increased interest in where our energy comes from.
Find the larger presentation here: http://bit.ly/MarcellusGateway
Where you see this icon, there's more content.
Click to zoom in on it if time allows.
Some narration is included.
Introduction:
There's lots of interplay amongst these ideas!
(opens in separate window - exit full screen to see)
It's hard to visualize millions of gallons of water. This is what 2 million gallons looks like (flowing through a lock on the Champlain Canal). It took about 5 minutes to fill the lock. A typical Marcellus well takes about twice this much water.

Using familiar references for understanding large or small numbers is a helpful strategy called "social math."
Why show 7,000 gallons? That's the amount spilled, according to initial reports, in the 2014 Elk River chemical spill, in West Virginia.
Each yellow push pin marks a gas well.
Coal includes anthracite, bituminous coal, subbituminous coal, lignite, waste coal, and synthetic coal.

Other includes non-biogenic municipal solid waste, batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, pitch, purchased steam, sulfur, tire-derived fuels, and miscellaneous technologies.

Other Biomass includes biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agricultural byproducts, other biomass solids, other biomass liquids, and other biomass gases (including digester gases and methane).

Other Gases includes blast furnace gas, propane gas, and other manufactured and waste gases derived from fossil fuels.

Petroleum includes distillate fuel oil (all diesel and No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 fuel oils), residual fuel oil (No. 5 and No. 6 fuel oils and bunker C fuel oil), jet fuel, kerosene, petroleum coke, and waste oil.

Wood and Wood Derived Fuels includes paper pellets, railroad ties, utility poles, wood chips, bark, red liquor, sludge wood, spent sulfite liquor, and black liquor, with other wood waste solids and wood-based liquids.
Electric Power Net Generation by State (2012)
All data from the Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#consumption
US Electric Power Net Generation by Fuel (2012)
natural gas
coal
nuclear
hydro
Petroleum
other renewables
2009
See gas production data:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6390
See shale gas production data:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_enr_shalegas_dcu_sPA_a.htm
Click on any state to zoom in!
Standalone quiz:
http://bit.ly/State_e-Quiz
Abstract:
The Paleontological Research Institution has a long history of nurturing public understanding of controversial issues. PRI’s 11-year-old Museum of the Earth is built around the idea of evolution, and evolution education stretches back long before that. For more than a decade, PRI has engaged in climate change education, and, for the last several years, we have been engaged in energy education rooted in the science related to slickwater high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF). These issues share common characteristics, and common rules of thumb are derived from our extensive work on teaching controversial issues. There are, however, differences amongst these issues and amongst the approaches that should be used in building understandings that can yield informed decisions.

Controversial issues tend to be interdisciplinary in nature; complex; play out across multiple scales of time and/or space; and are made difficult to understand by cognitive biases. Climate change and evolution share the characteristic of grounding in areas of consensus science. While there is consensus that HVHF causes environmental harm there is no consensus as to whether the environmental costs associated with HVHF are lesser or greater than those associated with other ways of generating energy on the scale currently required by modern society.

Rules of thumb for teaching about controversial issues include recognizing that: while grounding in evidence is essential, a focus simply upon the related science is insufficient to build understanding; effective approaches for certain audiences may backfire to the point of deepening misconceptions and related convictions if used with other audiences; reframing questions away from the most obvious and most polarizing questions is often helpful; argument in the traditional sense (and potentially advocacy in the traditional sense) may deepen convictions more than understandings; and; attending to issues of scale with familiar examples and user-friendly analogies can deepen understanding.
Rule of Thumb #1:
Complexify the seemingly simple.
As educators (and like journalists and politicians), we are driven to simplify the seemingly complex. It’s often important, but we do it too often. The world is complex.
Move from debate to discussion.
Don’t forget the importance of the simple.
There are often ways to reframe away from false dichotomies.
While acknowledging the issue’s complexity is important, there are often simple ideas illuminated within that complexity.
Rule of Thumb #2:
Evidence matters, but evidence alone is not enough.
All of us hold beliefs for which ample conflicting evidence exists.
Learn about cognitive biases (including your own)
State evidence clearly and directly, identifying a small number of key points.
Mathematics matters.
...and how to communicate more effectively in light of them.
Too many different points cloud the issue.
Scale plays a central role in many controversial issues, and understanding really large or really small numbers brings special challenges. “Social math” (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2008) uses familiar examples to show volume, mass, or relative number.
Call out logical fallacies,
and hold people accountable for (mis)using them. There’s a taxonomy of problematic argument types. Get to know it and put it to use.
Be blunt!
Rule of Thumb #2:
Evidence matters, but evidence alone is not enough.
All of us hold beliefs for which ample conflicting evidence exists.
Learn about cognitive biases (including your own)
State evidence clearly and directly, identifying a small number of key points.
Mathematics matters.
...and how to communicate more effectively in light of them.
Too many different points cloud the issue.
Scale plays a central role in many controversial issues, and understanding really large or really small numbers brings special challenges. “Social math” (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2008) uses familiar examples to show volume, mass, or relative number.
Call out logical fallacies,
and hold people accountable for (mis)using them. There’s a taxonomy of problematic argument types. Get to know it and put it to use.
Be blunt!
Rule of Thumb #3:
Be nice (but there are limits).
Treating those who disagree as either idiots or evil people is unlikely to convince them that you’re correct.
Advocacy may deepen convictions more than understanding.
Don’t let the bastards get you down.
Evangelism turns on people who agree with you and turns off many who don’t. Being certain and being right aren’t the same thing, and they aren’t all that closely related. Put more faith in people and institutions that are pretty sure than those that are certain.
Working on nurturing public understanding of controversial issues will make people angry, and angry people say and do nasty things. Have a support system you can turn to.
Rule of Thumb #4:
Persistence matters.
Beliefs related to controversial issues are often closely tied to worldviews, and such beliefs do not change quickly or easily.
People do change their minds on things that matter.
Piling on evidence can bring beliefs to a tipping point.
Two words: gay marriage.
Working on nurturing public understanding of controversial issues will make people angry, and angry people say and do nasty things. Have a support system you can turn to.
Gay marriage.
Reflect on big changes in your own beliefs.
Chances are, it took either a long time or immersion in the issue.
Recognize logical fallacies, both in your own arguments and in the arguments of others. If you find logical fallacies in your own arguments then, CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT!
https://bookofbadarguments.com
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
Think about the nature of arguments.
Rule of Thumb #1:
Complexify the seemingly simple.
As educators (and like journalists and politicians), we are driven to simplify the seemingly complex. It’s often important, but we do it too often. The world is complex.
Move from debate to discussion.
Controversial issues are always interdisciplinary and can be more deeply understood from a systems perspective.
Don’t forget the importance of the simple.
There are often ways to reframe away from false dichotomies.
Pay attention to the tools and strategies of the most centrally-related disciplines.
While acknowledging the issue’s complexity is important, there are often simple ideas illuminated within that complexity.
Questions?
dad55@cornell.edu
How's that for complexifying?
Controversial issues are always interdisciplinary and can be more deeply understood from a systems perspective.
Pay attention to the tools and strategies of the most centrally-related disciplines.
Recognize logical fallacies, both in your own arguments and in the arguments of others. If you find logical fallacies in your own arguments then, CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT!
https://bookofbadarguments.com
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com
It's bigger cousin:
http://bit.ly/MarcellusGateway
Rule of Thumb #5:
Use one’s place in the world as a starting point
Treating those who disagree as either idiots or evil people is unlikely to convince them that you’re correct.
Engage in critical inquiry of the forces working to shape that place (geology, ecology, capital flows, law, etc.)
http://www.eia.gov/state/
One-page Summary
http://bit.ly/2014-GSA-Controversy
Know your audience.
"Nice" has different meanings with different audiences.
For the most part, people aren't lying.
MOSTLY, they believe what they are saying.
In the GSA session, the presentation ended with the previous slide. More information follows, but will not be updated. For more current information see:
http://bit.ly/MarcellusGateway
PRESENTATION ABSTRACT:

The Paleontological Research Institution has a long history of nurturing public understanding of controversial issues. PRI’s 11-year-old Museum of the Earth is built around the idea of evolution, and evolution education stretches back long before that. For more than a decade, PRI has engaged in climate change education, and, for the last several years, we have been engaged in energy education rooted in the science related to slickwater high-volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF). These issues share common characteristics, and common rules of thumb are derived from our extensive work on teaching controversial issues. There are, however, differences amongst these issues and amongst the approaches that should be used in building understandings that can yield informed decisions.

Controversial issues tend to be interdisciplinary in nature; complex; play out across multiple scales of time and/or space; and are made difficult to understand by cognitive biases. Climate change and evolution share the characteristic of grounding in areas of consensus science. While there is consensus that HVHF causes environmental harm there is no consensus as to whether the environmental costs associated with HVHF are lesser or greater than those associated with other ways of generating energy on the scale currently required by modern society.

Rules of thumb for teaching about controversial issues include recognizing that: while grounding in evidence is essential, a focus simply upon the related science is insufficient to build understanding; effective approaches for certain audiences may backfire to the point of deepening misconceptions and related convictions if used with other audiences; reframing questions away from the most obvious and most polarizing questions is often helpful; argument in the traditional sense (and potentially advocacy in the traditional sense) may deepen convictions more than understandings; and; attending to issues of scale with familiar examples and user-friendly analogies can deepen understanding.
Natural Gas
Nuclear
Hydro
Coal
Wind
27.2 trillion btu
1,261 trillion btu
If we kept the Solar Strand the same width and extended its length to match Bruce's generating capacity, we'd need to extend it from Buffalo to Juarez, Mexico!
Energy mix right now:
http://www.nyiso.com/public/markets_operations/market_data/graphs/index.jsp
Using fracking, climate change, and evolution to reveal rules of thumb for talking and teaching about controversial issues
Most recent data:
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NY#tabs-4
Use a lot less energy!
Talking about climate change without talking about energy is like talking about lung cancer without talking about smoking. We'll talk about both, with special attention to hydraulic fracturing - a.k.a., "fracking." And some attention to evolution.
Why? Fracking is controversial too, and the rules of thumb discussed here are applicable to more than just climate.
Plus, I know something about it.
One important simple idea:
And, an example of complexifying:
Making the math understandable.
See also, "Where does the gasoline go?"
http://climatechange101.blogspot.com/2012/04/where-does-gasoline-go.html
for an example of blunt evidence.
Being nasty is a poor strategy for winning people over to your point of view.
Fire & Brimstone & Fort McMurray:
Consider ways in which energy is related to the geologic time scale and the Anthropocene specifically.
Now imagine you're a New Yorker...
Current data:
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CO#tabs-4
Earth History: 4.5 billion years
An absurdly brief history of fuel.
Now.
4.5 billion years ago.
No fire.
Fire.
Us!
Agriculture, civilization and whatnot.
And the Industrial Revolution being just a little bit of that.
http://bit.ly/GSA-2016-Controversy-1
How to Teach About Controversial Issues
http://bit.ly/Fire-and-brimstone
What controversial issues do you struggle with most?
(We'll come back to this).
Strategize with your neighbors and be ready to share in four minutes.
How can we avoid repeating the difficulties we're seeing now in how adults address controversial issues in the next generation?
Full transcript