Emissions from aviation will continue to increase in the future, in contradiction of global climate policy objectives. Yet, airlines and airline organisations suggest that aviation will become climatically sustainable. This paper investigates this paradox by reviewing fuel-efficiency gains since the 1960s in comparison to aviation growth, and by linking these results to technology discourses, based on a two-tiered approach tracing technology-focused discourses over 20 years (1994-2013). Findings indicate that a wide range of solutions to growing emissions from aviation have been presented by industry, hyped in global media, and subsequently vanished to be replaced by new technology discourses. Redundant discourses often linger in the public domain, where they continue to be associated with industry aspirations of 'sustainable aviation' and 'zero-emission flight'. The paper highlights and discusses a number of technology discourses that constitute 'technology myths', and the role these 'myths' may be playing in the enduring but flawed promise of sustainable aviation. We conclude that technology myths require policy-makers to interpret and take into account technical uncertainty, which may result in inaction that continues to delay much needed progress in climate policy for aviation.
LINK
The four previous articles in this series addressed the myths and facts surrounding lipoedema. We have shown that there is no scientific evidence at all for the key statements made about lipoedema-which are published time and time again. The main result of this misunderstanding of lipoedema is a therapeutic concept that misses the mark. The patient's real problems are overlooked. The national and especially the international response to the series, which can be read in both German and English, has been immense and has exceeded all our expectations. The numerous reactions to our articles make it clear that in other countries, too, the fallacies regarding lipoedema have led to an increasing discrepancy between the experience of healthcare workers and the perspective of patients and self-help groups, based on misinformation mostly generated by the medical profession. Parts 1 to 4 in this series of articles on the myths surrounding lipoedema have made it clear that we have to radically change the view of lipoedema that has been held for decades. Changing our perspective means getting away from the idea of oedema in lipoedema- A nd hence away from the dogma that decongestion is absolutely necessary- A nd towards the actual problems faced by our patients with lipoedema. Such a paradigm shift in a disease that has been described in the same way for decades cannot be left to individuals but must be put on a much broader footing. For this reason, the lead author of this series of articles invited renowned lipoedema experts from various European countries to discussions on the subject. Experts from seven different countries took part in the two European Lipoedema Forums, with the goal of establishing a consensus. The consensus reflects the experts' shared view on the disease, having scrutinized the available literature, and having taken into account the many years of clinical practice with this particular patient group. Appropriate to the clinical complexity of lipoedema, participants from different specialties provided an interdisciplinary approach. Nearly all of the participants in the European Lipoedema Forum had already published work on lipoedema, had been involved in drawing up their national lipoedema guidelines, or were on the executive board of their respective specialty society. In this fifth and final part of our series on lipoedema, we will summarise the relevant findings of this consensus, emphasising the treatment of lipoedema as we now recommend it. As the next step, the actual consensus paper European Best Practice of Lipoedema will be issued as an international publication. Instead of looking at the treatment of oedema, the consensus paper will focus on treatment of the soft tissue pain, as well as the psychological vulnerability of patients with lipoedema. The relationship between pain perception and the patient's mental health is recognised and dealt with specifically. The consensus also addresses the problem of self-acceptance, and this plays a prominent role in the new therapeutic concept. The treatment of obesity provides a further pillar of treatment. Obesity is recognised as being the most common comorbid condition by far and an important trigger of lipoedema. Bariatric surgery should therefore also be considered for patients with lipoedema who are morbidly obese. The expert group upgraded the importance of compression therapy and appropriate physical activity, as the demonstrated anti-inflammatory effects directly improve the patients' symptoms. Patients will be provided with tools for personalised self-management in order to sustain sucessful treatment. Should conservative therapy fail to improve the symptoms, liposuction may be considered in strictly defined circumstances. The change in the view of lipoedema that we describe here brings the patients' actual symptoms to the forefront. This approach allows us to focus on more comprehensive treatment that is not only more effective but also more sustainable than focusing on the removal of non-existent oedema.
DOCUMENT
I was somewhat surprized with the fog in Groningen upon my arrival. This is notthe fog that covers the beautiful landscapes of the northern Netherlands in theevening and in the early morning. No… It is the fog that obscures the real aspectsof the earthquake problem in the region and is crystallised in the phrase “Groningen earthquakes are different”, which I have encountered numerous times whenever I raised a question of the type “But why..?”. A sentence taken out of the quiver as the absolute technical argument which mysteriously overshadows the whole earthquake discussion.Q: Why do we not use Eurocode 8 for seismic design, instead of NPR?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why do we not monitor our structures like the rest of the world does?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why does NPR, the Dutch seismic guidelines, dictate some unusual rules?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!Q: Why are the hazard levels incredibly high, even higher than most Europeanseismic countries?A: Because the Groningen earthquakes are different!and so it keeps going…This statement is very common, but on the contrary, I have not seen a single piece of research that proves it or even discusses it. In essence, it would be a difficult task to prove that the Groningen earthquakes are different. In any case it barricades a healthy technical discussion because most of the times the arguments converge to one single statement, independent of the content of the discussion. This is the reason why our first research activities were dedicated to study if the Groningen earthquakes are really different. Up until today, we have not found any major differences between the Groningen induced seismicity events and natural seismic events with similar conditions (magnitude, distance, depth, soil etc…) that would affect the structures significantly in a different way.Since my arrival in Groningen, I have been amazed to learn how differently theearthquake issue has been treated in this part of the world. There will always bedifferences among different cultures, that is understandable. I have been exposed to several earthquake engineers from different countries, and I can expect a natural variation in opinions, approaches and definitions. But the feeling in Groningen is different. I soon realized that, due to several factors, a parallel path, which I call “an augmented reality” below, was created. What I mean by an augmented reality is a view of the real-world, whose elements are augmented and modified. In our example, I refer to the engineering concepts used for solving the earthquake problem, but in an augmented and modified way. This augmented reality is covered in the fog I described above. The whole thing is made so complicated that one is often tempted to rewind the tape to the hot August days of 2012, right after the Huizinge Earthquake, and replay it to today but this time by making the correct steps. We would wake up to a different Groningen today. I was instructed to keep the text as well as the inauguration speech as simple aspossible, and preferably, as non-technical as it goes. I thus listed the most common myths and fallacies I have faced since I arrived in Groningen. In this book and in the presentation, I may seem to take a critical view. This is because I try to tell a different part of the story, without repeating things that have already been said several times before. I think this is the very reason why my research group would like to make an effort in helping to solve the problem by providing different views. This book is one of such efforts.The quote given at the beginning of this book reads “How quick are we to learn: that is, to imitate what others have done or thought before. And how slow are we to understand: that is, to see the deeper connections.” is from Frits Zernike, the Nobel winning professor from the University of Groningen, who gave his name to the campus I work at. Applying this quotation to our problem would mean that we should learn from the seismic countries by imitating them, by using the existing state-of-the-art earthquake engineering knowledge, and by forgetting the dogma of “the Groningen earthquakes are different” at least for a while. We should then pass to the next level of looking deeperinto the Groningen earthquake problem for a better understanding, and alsodiscover the potential differences.
DOCUMENT
