ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Brookings Institution”

Alyssa

After ‘Terra Nova’s Cancellation Does Science Fiction Have to Be Effects-Heavy?

By Alyssa Rosenberg on Mar 6, 2012 at 11:07 am

I think that, in the wake of Fox’s decision to cancel Terra Nova, its once-promising but ultimately dull science fiction show about people fleeing a polluted planet to reset humanity’s past, James Poniewozik is right that the failure of the show will diminish the chances of networks taking a chance on purely sci-fi show in the future:

The networks do still occasionally do science fiction, of course; Fringe is still hanging on on Fox, for instance. But since Lost, and the many failures to re-create its success, they’ve tended to focus on small-scale, real-world shows with little sci-fi twists (Person of Interest, Alcatraz) or fantasy (Once Upon a Time, Grimm). The epic-scale, effects-intensive sci-fi show has always been a tough sell on the networks, and to its credit, Terra Nova was trying a brand of sci-fi we hadn’t seen a lot on TV. Now big sci-fi will be an even tougher sell.

This is unfortunate. But it raises what I think is an important question both for the networks and for those of us who would like to see a lot more quality science fiction shows on them: can we think more creatively about communicating that the stories we’re telling are set in the future without using a lot, or any, special effects?

Obviously, the answer ought to be yes. The Handmaid’s Tale, one of the most chilling dystopias in literary memory, requires some mass-produced costumes, but most of the work of communicating that we’re in a very different place with very different values is done through language and the norms that govern the interactions between characters. Children of Men has some effects work of the shooting-things-and-blowing-things-up variety, but most of the way we understand that things are dreadful is, once again, done through costuming, through the news footage that we see aired on television broadcasts the characters watch, through their demeanor and what gets them excited.

In other words, doing world-building due diligence up front could eliminate costly effects work down the line. Language is definitely something that evolves, and evolves rapidly, and is a clear and entirely free way to signal that you’re in a different place. The substitution of “frack” for “fuck” in Battlestar Galactica may have seemed goofy at first, but the term has definitively entered the lexicon, geek and otherwise (I imagine it’s one of the reasons “fracking” for “hydraulic fracturing” sounds persuasively negative, as well as nice and crackly). Ditto for graphic design: the gorgeous orange and white butterfly flag iconography at the heart of Kings, the red logos and typography in Ralph Fiennes’ slightly futuristic adaptation of Coriolanus, or the cut-off corners on the paper in Battlestar were all cheap ways to visually cue that we’re not in the present, at least as we know it. And while etiquette and behavior may seem like dorky considerations, they’re also a terrific way of communicating where power lies, and how intense the division between classes and castes is. Writing a guide to character interaction, whether in terms of address, physical contact, or relative physical positioning might seem silly up front, but it could also create a coherent sense of being in a vastly different setting.

Cool toys and the reshaping of our environment are some of what will make our future look and feel very different. But many of the changes will be seated within ourselves, and our attitudes. We can make science fiction that’s somewhere in between Person of Interest and Terra Nova, and that’s more genuinely interested in exploring possible futures than either one of those shows.

Climate Progress

Brookings: Green Jobs Are Real, Good, And Growing

By Brad Johnson on Jul 13, 2011 at 12:18 pm

Reaffirming earlier work by the Center for American Progress, the Brookings Institution finds that green jobs are real jobs, green jobs are good jobs, and green jobs are growing jobs. According to a new report by the Brookings Institution and the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice, the U.S. “clean economy sector” is large — 2.7 million Americans — and made up of a base of traditional waste management, pollution remediation, mass transit, and other environmentally friendly jobs with emerging clean-tech sectors growing on top. That means that the green economy is already larger than the fossil fuel sector. As reported by Time’s Bryan Walsh, the report has a number of important findings:

– About 26 percent of clean economy jobs are in manufacturing, and the value of exports, on a per-job basis, is twice that of a typical American job.

– Median wages are 13 percent higher than the economy average.

– The South has the most clean economy jobs, while the West has the most jobs per capita.

– The clean energy sector in particular grew by 8.3 percent between 2003 and 2010, nearly twice as fast as the overall economy.

However, the green economy — necessary not only to restore American manufacturing but also to maintain healthy air, water, and a livable planet — is under attack. As much of the base of green jobs are in the public sector, austerity cutbacks to local, state, and federal government jobs hit the green economy especially hard. Furthermore, the Tea Party members of Congress are driving hard to slash or even eliminate funding, rules, and incentives for clean energy research and development, pollution control, mass transit, and advanced manufacturing.

Security

In AIPAC Speech, Cantor Falsely Claims Arabs And Palestinians Refuse To Accept Israel As A Jewish State

By Eli Clifton on May 24, 2011 at 1:35 pm

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) told an audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday that Palestinian culture is “infused with resentment and hatred” and that this culture “underlies the Palestinians’ and the broader Arab world’s refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state.” Watch it:

But polling data from the last year suggests quite the opposite and should cast serious doubts on the factual basis for Cantor’s broad generalizations about Palestinians and the Arab world.

49 percent of Palestinians supported the recognition of a Jewish state while 48 percent would oppose such a move, according to a poll released at the end of 2010 by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah.

Further contradicting Cantor’s broad characterizations of the Arab world’s refusal to accept Israel’s right to exist, results from the 2010 Brookings and Zogby poll [pdf] on Arab public opinion found that 86 percent of the Arab world would accept peace with Israel along 1967 lines (an increase of 13 percent over the 2009 poll). Only 12 percent of respondents believed that, in the case of a return to 1967 borders, “Arabs should continue to fight.”

Cantor’s factually challenged comments about Arab and Palestinian views of the peace process were warmly received by the AIPAC crowd which applauded his characterization. But the facts simply don’t support his assertions. An examination of the polling data on Arabs and Palestinians could raise serious questions about Cantor’s intellectual honesty in presenting a provably false narrative which promotes negative stereotypes about Arabs and Palestinians.

Climate Progress

Brookings: Fears That Cap And Trade Will Hurt Farmers Are Baseless

By Brad Johnson on Jun 9, 2009 at 3:20 pm

A new economic study reveals that concerns a cap on global warming pollution could hurt American agriculture are unfounded. As the Waxman-Markey green economy legislation (H.R. 2454) moves toward passage in the House of Representatives, the farm lobby and rural officials have questioned the bill’s costs to farmers. Last week, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), the ranking member of the House Committee on Agriculture, cried that farmers are “a prime target for a national energy tax“:

From higher energy costs to lost jobs to higher food prices, cap-and-trade promises to cap our incomes, our livelihoods, and our standard of living, while it trades away American jobs and opportunities. . . . Whether it’s the fuel in the tractor, the fertilizer for the crops or the delivery of food to the grocery store, agriculture uses a great deal of energy throughout production. On average, 65 percent of farmers’ variable input costs are fuel, electricity, fertilizer, and chemicals. Even a small increase in the operating costs for our producers will hurt American agriculture.

Yesterday, the Brookings Institute released the topline results of an economic analysis of cap-and-trade systems, with sectoral impacts. This study models the worst-case economic scenario for cap-and-trade programs, modeling the impact of an inflexible system that does not include offsets, incentives for renewable energy development, or other cost-control measures. Even without the inclusion of an offset program to allow the agriculture sector to benefit from carbon market, their analysis found the impact on agriculture to be minimal:


Cap And Trade: Effect On Agriculture Sector (No Offsets)
Chart compiled by the Wonk Room from Brookings Institute data. The “Obama” and “Waxman-Markey” models do not include banking and borrowing of pollution allowances, unlike the actual Waxman-Markey legislation. The “hotelling” models include banking and borrowing, but no models include agricultural offsets.

Not only will the transition to a green economy not hurt America’s farmers, but it will save their livelihoods from the increasing threat of climate disruption, which impact the Brookings study did not model. In reality, the only sectors that face measurable pressure from a cap on carbon pollution are the coal and oil industries, who have enjoyed extreme profits at the expense of the rest of the economy — and yet have failed to make any real investments in clean energy.

Update

At Climate Progress, Joe Romm describes the “hit job” on climate legislation by The Washington Times that “abuses” this Brookings study.

Yglesias

Internet Triumphalism

By Matthew Yglesias on Aug 20, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Tim Lee writes in defense of internet triumphalism. When I started out blogging in early 2002, normal people didn’t pay any attention to blogs and the ‘sphere was full of internet triumphalism. I considered myself an internet triumphalism skeptic. Over time, though, I’m more and more a triumphalist. Let me give you an example that has nothing to do with the stuff Tim was talking about. Consider this sentence, that you might read in a newspaper:

According to a new Brookings Institution study by William H. Frey and Ruy Teixeira, one reason the states of the intermountain west are now increasingly “in play” politically is “the rapid population growth among two key democraphic segments — Hispanics and white college graduates — and the concomitant decline of the white working class.

Of course, I would never write a sentence like that on a blog. Instead I might write:

According to a new Brookings Institution study by William H. Frey and Ruy Teixeira, one reason the states of the intermountain west are now increasingly “in play” politically is “the rapid population growth among two key democraphic segments — Hispanics and white college graduates — and the concomitant decline of the white working class.”

To me, the internet version with the link to the actual text of the study has added a ton of value. And of course even if you’re stuck with the link-less print version, you can probably look up the actual text of the study on the internet. But without the internet, all you’ll get is this vague summary. It’s a simple thing we take for granted, but I think the ability to actually dig deeper into issues you read about and find interesting.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up