I admit that I await each issue of Intelligent Life Magazine from The Economist with excitement, if not bated breath. The spine for the last quarter reads “Knowledge is Pleasure” – which it certainly is sometimes, but as I read the magazine I realised that sometimes it clearly isn’t. Knowledge can bring pain and fear and if it is the sense that we make of information (see my previous blog), knowledge certainly includes mistakes. So how can knowledge be owned or traded, and how indeed can a price be put on it?

“We are all African now” sings the headline. I hadn’t really cared before, on the basis that we are all human, but it’s nice to have something to ram down the throats of those who use ideas of difference as excuses for their behaviour. I haven’t had the courage to find out how people from that continent feel about this new revelation. I suspect that some at least were rather hoping that they could separate themselves from a bunch of rather grumpy resource-consuming monsters – well, tough luck everyone, we are all in this together. So, a question for those interested in the concept of knowledge is “Will this knowledge change political or social behaviour?” In behaviour change models, knowledge is a fundamental part of the process. Yet again, we hit the problem of defining knowledge so that everyone understands it – rather a chicken-and-egg situation.

Further in, the magazine asks “Is Google killing general knowledge?” Oh no, back to that definition of knowledge involving memory recall! Finally (for me) came the article, “Time to get personal” about CO₂ emissions and personal energy use. It is centred on Professor MacKay’s book Sustainable Energy – without hot air (downloadable free – all 383 pages – or available in print), is getting rave reviews and is full of interesting and useful information. But the sense readers make of the information – or the knowledge they have after reading it – can go badly wrong.

In essence, the book seeks to set out correct numbers for the calculation of carbon footprints. It’s a welcome addition to our understanding, especially as it’s easy to read with the numbers presented with pictures, diagrams, cartoons, etc. However, the number of people who have commented to me they don’t have to unplug their phone recharger when not in use (because the amount saved in one day is used up in one second of car driving) is depressingly high. No – DO BOTH!

This is not a book of excuses for doing nothing to reduce energy consumption in your daily life. As Professor MacKay points out, big changes help and so policies and activities must change, but every little helps as well. The gleeful phone messages I have from friends saying “Hey, have you read [...] So, now we can leave our TV on standby, use plastic bags…” are all wrong.

But, wait a minute, that’s their knowledge, it’s the sense they make of the information – although I am pretty sure Professor MacKay would react with horror to those messages.

So, how can something so easily wrong or right be an economic factor, subject to market forces? Do polluters pay for creating ‘bad’ knowledge? Well, sometimes. Does supply and demand affect knowledge? How does it get a price? But first, it needs defining!