Beware of conventional wisdom

Dr. Robert M. Gresham, Contributing Editor | TLT Lubrication Fundamentals February 2014

It can save or doom a people.

 

I’M CONSTANTLY ASTOUNDED at how often the conventional wisdom of the day is proven to be seriously flawed either due to the application of social/political/ religious influences, insufficient knowledge or just flawed science.

Jarod Diamond wrote a fascinating book titled, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. Diamond explores how various actual civilizations living in totally isolated places survived, or didn’t survive, according to their culture and the choices they make regarding the resources available to them in their isolated worlds. The book illustrates the interaction of the society’s level of real (true) science, the perception/understanding by the society of that science and the political/religious/societal influences (cultural) that control the decisions the society made to control its present and future.

Diamond’s examples show that conventional wisdom, if flawed, results in failure of that society, often leading to extinction. Conversely, if the conventional wisdom is correct, the society grows and prospers. Thus, many of the concepts of sustainability that we talk about today are at the very foundation of what allows a society to survive. Of course, the crux of the matter is: Does the conventional wisdom actually know whether a given action is sustainable or not? As history shows, not necessarily!

Those of you with the patience to read my columns have heard me rail about burning our food. If not, and you’re still here, please allow me to quote myself:

“Use of corn and soybeans as fuel sources seems fraught with difficulty. First, we are using up our precious topsoil, which, like crude oil, trees, etc., is not a rapidly renewable resource to grow crops to convert to fuels—thus, ultimately we are burning our food. I have a logic problem with this one. Wouldn’t it be better to start with something (not food) that grows rapidly and is more like a weed, something like bamboo? The crops are pretty renewable, but not so much is the topsoil.

“Perhaps the bigger question is: what is the total energy balance? That is, starting with the initial plowing of the field, planting, fertilizing, harvesting, transport, processing, blending, transport and distribution to the fuel tank. Do we consume more energy than we create for the vehicle? It is not really a renewable sustainable resource, if there is a net energy loss, as Einstein teaches in his famous formula. Thus, if there is a net loss, then burning ethanol or biodiesel is not so smart in the long run, regardless of its current political correctness.”

Indeed, according to Diamond, long-term survival would be put at risk.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, we find that the push for blending ethanol in fuel arose from the OPEC crisis of the 1970s. Now all these years later, we find the EPA just recently announced (rather quietly I might add) that it is lowering the federal mandate for how much ethanol must be blended in gasoline. For years, conventional wisdom held that ethanol is a green alternative to emissions from oil and gas. But a growing body of scientific evidence is showing that producing ethanol consumes so much energy and fertilizer and requires planting so much marginal cropland that the impact on air quality at best is neutral and on water quality may be negative. Indeed, now such groups as the Environmental Working Group and the Sierra Club oppose ethanol subsidies.

To my astonishment, about 40 percent of corn production is now used for fuel. The end result is that the price of corn has increased 5-10 percent for everything from cornflakes to ground beef. Not only has the price increased, but all that corn could have been used to feed some of the starving people of the world.

Since 1978, fuel production tax credits have cost the U.S. Treasury about $40 billion. Of course, we generous consumers have paid the bill with billions in both taxes for the Treasury and at the gas pump. Interestingly, the Washington mavens didn’t predict that the market for ethanol would suffer due to the fact gasoline demand is nearing a plateau in the U.S. due to more fuel-efficient cars and trucks.

Years ago all cholesterol was considered by the conventional wisdom of the time to be bad to eat—especially in the form of eggs. It was devastating for the egg industry. Now we find there is good and bad cholesterol—and eggs have largely been exonerated.

Current conventional wisdom on global warming is starting to look a little shaky. I’ve recently read where we have not actually had a global temperature increase in about 10 years and the polar ice caps are alive, growing and doing well. Currently the Arctic ice cap is a third larger this year, and in the Antarctic the ice is wider and thicker than it has been in the least 35 years.

As author Todd Myers puts it: “The political value of climate policy is not in addressing the risk (large, small or nonexistent). It is in the political benefits that accrue to politicians who take symbolically powerful but practically meaningless positions.” That sort of resonates with me and proves that I am a true troglodyte.

So I hark to my father’s advice when considering the conventional wisdom on any topic, “Just remember, Bobby, moderation even in moderation.”

Bob Gresham is STLE’s director of professional development. You can reach him at rgresham@stle.org.