Time to reflect on 2007 and all that happened. It seems political events are once again headlines. Unrest, killings, war, famine, genocide, and oil. Maybe a line here and there about the climate change and global warming. But very little really about what is really happening to us. The dwindling resources and ecological disasters that underly the unrest and the wars and the games people play. The real events.
As we drove by scores and scores of new housing developments on both sides of the border yesterday, I couldn't help but wondering who will buy all these houses. Apparently 30% or so of the current housing, that is the market affected by the subprime crisis, is investment properties and second homes. That "market" is already over in the sense that these house were bought before the crisis hit, and paid for by banks, that will now have to either foreclose them or take losses. It does not include all the new construction we saw. That construction got caught in the maelstrom when trouble hit. And there is plenty of it and very few buyers. For sale and Price reduced signs are everywhere.
Not to mention that most areas we travel to are lacking or short on water already. No worries for the Jack in the Box next to our hotel though, where the sprinklers were irrigating the roadway yesterday. Waste is everywhere.
When it comes to construction, Mexico is starting to look like Irvine. Housing tracts that look every bit as great as the ones that make up orange county are now coming up along Tijuana and Rosarito beaches. Homes everywhere, from the deserts around Palm Springs, the Coachella Valley, to the playas of Baja. Do people realize that the baby boomers are aging and that there are fewer people to replace them ? And especially, fewer people with money to buy such expensive stuff. The US most likely will not stop growing due to immigration and fertile immigrant families. But growth will slow down and the newcomers don't have the money that the baby boomers did.
Lest you worry about slowing growth, be assured there is not of it enough to mitigate the climate effects though. But enough to make turmoil and cause a serious economic downturn. Which will help somewhat with the climate issues ironically enough.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
observations near the border
We spent an interesting day today. First we drove through Irvine, CA, supposedly the safest city in the country. It isn't much of a city however, more like an endless sprawl of suburbia. One tract of housing after another, with a few business districts in between and a few malls. The latter two can be recognized by the enormous parking lots that surround them. The whole area is so non-descript, it could be anywhere. You can find neighborhoods like it in Pleasanton, Walnut Creek, Sacramento, and all over the LA basin I am sure. Cookie cutter luxury would be the word for it. Neighborhoods that are very pedestrian or bike-unfriendly. Only suited for cars, preferably big suburban SUV type cars.
And shortly afterwards we drove through Mexico, a different kind of sprawl here, mostly the result of poverty and neglect. Equally unsustainable really, although living in Irvine is probably more pleasant. Being in Mexico felt like being in a prison camp. We drove several roads that ran parallel to the border, a kind of no-man's land with high voltage lighting, lookout towers and other features you associate with concentration camps. The road went up and down a lot and so one had great vistas of a line drawn in the sand, with a fence next to it. On the right was Mexico, with housing and roads leaning against the border. On the left was a cleared zone, a kind of DMZ, or a no-man's land reminiscent of the space between the trenches in world war I.
And to top it all of, we spend one hour standing in a line waiting to cross the border to paradise. With us were hundreds of other cars, all moving at a snails pace in 7 parallel lanes that stretched for nearly a mile. All full of oversized vehicles, spewing out greenhouse gases. The amount of pollution generated for doing nothing was just staggering. All these cars with their engines running, their air conditioners or heaters blowing, all sitting nearly frozen on the road, waiting for the homeland security folks to do their thing. And what is that thing you ask ? They look in the car, they look at your papers and they say, go or welcome home. Or they pull the car aside for a closer look. It is senseless pollution on a grand scale.
And shortly afterwards we drove through Mexico, a different kind of sprawl here, mostly the result of poverty and neglect. Equally unsustainable really, although living in Irvine is probably more pleasant. Being in Mexico felt like being in a prison camp. We drove several roads that ran parallel to the border, a kind of no-man's land with high voltage lighting, lookout towers and other features you associate with concentration camps. The road went up and down a lot and so one had great vistas of a line drawn in the sand, with a fence next to it. On the right was Mexico, with housing and roads leaning against the border. On the left was a cleared zone, a kind of DMZ, or a no-man's land reminiscent of the space between the trenches in world war I.
And to top it all of, we spend one hour standing in a line waiting to cross the border to paradise. With us were hundreds of other cars, all moving at a snails pace in 7 parallel lanes that stretched for nearly a mile. All full of oversized vehicles, spewing out greenhouse gases. The amount of pollution generated for doing nothing was just staggering. All these cars with their engines running, their air conditioners or heaters blowing, all sitting nearly frozen on the road, waiting for the homeland security folks to do their thing. And what is that thing you ask ? They look in the car, they look at your papers and they say, go or welcome home. Or they pull the car aside for a closer look. It is senseless pollution on a grand scale.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
collapse continued
Humans do play a role in the collapse of their societies, but the stage is clearly set by geography, climate, weather, resources, and other factors. These factors determine how likely it is humans will be able to establish a settlement and maintain the viability of that settlement.
What seems to be happening then is a succession of boom and bust cycles, where humans become very successful and then overrun the resources, resulting a dramatic rollback, possibly followed by a new cycle. Some environments do not sustain many cycles, but others are very resilient. Many also offer alternative options. That was the case for Iceland for example. When one resource was destroyed, another (fish) was present and ready to be taken advantage of. The same cannot be said for people living on remote islands like Easter, where few alternatives did exist.
But it seems quite clear that humans behave very much like any other species and that they go on exploiting and mining and overusing their resources right up until disaster hits. It is like driving into a wall at 100 mph without ever hitting the brake or attempting to swerve. To the contrary, it seems that species accelerate when the wall is near, and thereby speed up disaster. And that is a point Diamond makes very well.
To be continued
What seems to be happening then is a succession of boom and bust cycles, where humans become very successful and then overrun the resources, resulting a dramatic rollback, possibly followed by a new cycle. Some environments do not sustain many cycles, but others are very resilient. Many also offer alternative options. That was the case for Iceland for example. When one resource was destroyed, another (fish) was present and ready to be taken advantage of. The same cannot be said for people living on remote islands like Easter, where few alternatives did exist.
But it seems quite clear that humans behave very much like any other species and that they go on exploiting and mining and overusing their resources right up until disaster hits. It is like driving into a wall at 100 mph without ever hitting the brake or attempting to swerve. To the contrary, it seems that species accelerate when the wall is near, and thereby speed up disaster. And that is a point Diamond makes very well.
To be continued
Friday, December 28, 2007
collapse
Recently, the New York Times published an editorial on "A Question of Blame When Societies Fall." In it the author discusses theories of Jared Diamond, put forth in his popular books, "Guns, Germs, and Steel," and "Collapse." The focus is especially on the latter work, which is understandable as it is a tale of destruction and loss and invariably brings up the question who is to blame. The first book, about how societies become powerful, also met with controversy but since it is more upbeat, much less so.
What is novel about Guns, etc. is that the prime movers of success appear to be accidents of geography, presence of raw materials, ease to grow crops, a hospitable climate, accessible trade routes and shapes of continents and their coastlines. People do not like such notions and human history books only mention these items in passing. Nobody wants to acknowledge that their success was due to being at the right place, at the right time. Surely individual choices must matter? What about the Yankee spirit?
But in general, since Guns, etc. is a tale of success, it is much less bothersome to read. And especially for us, since we are the ones who are successful.
When it comes to Collapse though, the roles are reversed in more ways than one. Here we have the tale of how societies failed. And although the book does mention some partial successes -after all there is no way to tell whether these will hold- the main focus is on failure. And unlike the first book, in Collapse, Diamond does seem to point a finger at humans. Perhaps he did so for no other reason than to attempt to convince us to be careful so we don't end up where some of our ancestors did. But pointing a finger is dangerous and it is likely to anger people, especially those whose forefathers were part of the collapse. And there is no shortage of these either.
And so a criticism like the one that ends the article, where the authors ask why Tikal, Chichen Itza, etc. are seen as signs of failure for the Mayans, but Stonehenge is not seen as a sign of failure for the British, are to be expected. The criticism is misplaced though. And there are several reasons.
One is that Diamond lost track of his story and in attempting to warn humans, gave them back the role that he had denied them -rightfully so- in Guns, etc. What is very easy to see in the stories about Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, and to some extent Iceland and Japan, is that geography, climate, resources, etc. play the key roles. The Icelanders and Japanese only survived because another resource was nearby and available, i.e. fish. But now that fish is running out, where will they go? Today, Japan is unable to feed more than 1/3 of its population and its food security ranks lowest among first world nations.
Humans do play a role in the demise of societies of course, but it is overall, average human behavior that matters, not individual choices. Another recent NYT article about the brain clearly illustrates this matter. For decades now neuroscientists have focused on single neurons. Led by advances in technology and by reductionism, many people have spent their lifetimes studying individual nerve cells. And surprise, surprise, they found them to be very complex. Add to that that the "single neuron guys" have been much more successful than the people studying the system as a whole.
So, in spite of all the medical evidence to the contrary, the single neuron people are now putting forth theories about the brain that rely on the magical abilities of individual cells. This by the way is a flattering notion for readers. Imagine having a brain that has billions of wonder cells. Does this not make you feel good?
But as any physicist would tell you, transistors are very complex too. We do not yet fully understand everything about them. Yet a transistor in a given circuit -such as a radio or a computer- plays a very simple role and one that is easily understood and that utilizes but a very small part of its "potential" as a computing device.
And the same is true for the brain. Single cells play a small role here. A role that is easily taken over by other cells should the first one die -and they do. The brain is an organized whole and our mental abilities operate at that level. The contribution of an individual cell is nearly immaterial at that level.
And the same applies to an individual human in a society. No matter how complex and gifted that person is, there is always someone else or a collection of others that can and do take over. The path they follow will not be identical, but except in truly rare cases, it won't matter. Because a society, like a brain has complex control mechanisms to deal with such events. Societies do not fall apart when one individual dies. And while some may accelerate or slow the demise, the individual contributions are puny compared to the other forces at work.
To be continued.
What is novel about Guns, etc. is that the prime movers of success appear to be accidents of geography, presence of raw materials, ease to grow crops, a hospitable climate, accessible trade routes and shapes of continents and their coastlines. People do not like such notions and human history books only mention these items in passing. Nobody wants to acknowledge that their success was due to being at the right place, at the right time. Surely individual choices must matter? What about the Yankee spirit?
But in general, since Guns, etc. is a tale of success, it is much less bothersome to read. And especially for us, since we are the ones who are successful.
When it comes to Collapse though, the roles are reversed in more ways than one. Here we have the tale of how societies failed. And although the book does mention some partial successes -after all there is no way to tell whether these will hold- the main focus is on failure. And unlike the first book, in Collapse, Diamond does seem to point a finger at humans. Perhaps he did so for no other reason than to attempt to convince us to be careful so we don't end up where some of our ancestors did. But pointing a finger is dangerous and it is likely to anger people, especially those whose forefathers were part of the collapse. And there is no shortage of these either.
And so a criticism like the one that ends the article, where the authors ask why Tikal, Chichen Itza, etc. are seen as signs of failure for the Mayans, but Stonehenge is not seen as a sign of failure for the British, are to be expected. The criticism is misplaced though. And there are several reasons.
One is that Diamond lost track of his story and in attempting to warn humans, gave them back the role that he had denied them -rightfully so- in Guns, etc. What is very easy to see in the stories about Easter Island, the Greenland Norse, and to some extent Iceland and Japan, is that geography, climate, resources, etc. play the key roles. The Icelanders and Japanese only survived because another resource was nearby and available, i.e. fish. But now that fish is running out, where will they go? Today, Japan is unable to feed more than 1/3 of its population and its food security ranks lowest among first world nations.
Humans do play a role in the demise of societies of course, but it is overall, average human behavior that matters, not individual choices. Another recent NYT article about the brain clearly illustrates this matter. For decades now neuroscientists have focused on single neurons. Led by advances in technology and by reductionism, many people have spent their lifetimes studying individual nerve cells. And surprise, surprise, they found them to be very complex. Add to that that the "single neuron guys" have been much more successful than the people studying the system as a whole.
So, in spite of all the medical evidence to the contrary, the single neuron people are now putting forth theories about the brain that rely on the magical abilities of individual cells. This by the way is a flattering notion for readers. Imagine having a brain that has billions of wonder cells. Does this not make you feel good?
But as any physicist would tell you, transistors are very complex too. We do not yet fully understand everything about them. Yet a transistor in a given circuit -such as a radio or a computer- plays a very simple role and one that is easily understood and that utilizes but a very small part of its "potential" as a computing device.
And the same is true for the brain. Single cells play a small role here. A role that is easily taken over by other cells should the first one die -and they do. The brain is an organized whole and our mental abilities operate at that level. The contribution of an individual cell is nearly immaterial at that level.
And the same applies to an individual human in a society. No matter how complex and gifted that person is, there is always someone else or a collection of others that can and do take over. The path they follow will not be identical, but except in truly rare cases, it won't matter. Because a society, like a brain has complex control mechanisms to deal with such events. Societies do not fall apart when one individual dies. And while some may accelerate or slow the demise, the individual contributions are puny compared to the other forces at work.
To be continued.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
energy tips
I found some useful tips in "How to Fix Your Life in 2008," in today's Wall Street Journal. The energy section is particularly interesting. One thing they recommend is to go to the energystar website and see how your energy bill stacks up against similar homes across the country. You can find it at www.energystar.gov under Home Energy Yardstick. I just completed my audit for 2006 and found that we are in the bottom 1%. That means we are better than 99% of homes. I am happy to say that our 2007 energy bills are much lower.
To give you some background, we do live in an above average sized home in California. It definitely qualifies as a luxury home. We are not some hermits living in the desert. We do have and use the latest and greatest appliances including a home theater system with widescreen TV -no plasma though-, gaming consoles, several computers -that are used daily and nearly round the clock-, high speed internet access, and the like. And no, I do not feel like we had to cut back or restrict ourselves in 2007. And we still have a ways to go as most of our light bulbs are the conventional incandescent type. Not because we do not like CFL's, but why replace a perfectly good bulb? When it burns out we will replace it, but for now things are fine.
We do not have solar panels, wind mills, or any other energy producing device. We buy all our power from the utility and we pay regular prices for it. Apart from electricity our home uses natural gas to cook, to heat water and for the furnace. All other appliances are electric. In our area 2006 was a year with 2932 heating degree days and 1019 cooling degree days. You can find out more about that on energy star, but suffice it to say, a regular year.
Our key improvements over the last two years have been in removing all appliances that work in standby mode. You know these boxes that are plugged in and use electricity even when they are "off." Removing these is as simple as putting them on a powerstrip and turning the powerstrip off. It is actually easier than using the individual off buttons -even with remote- that do not turn things off. Our whole home theater system is on such a strip. When we are done using it, I get up and flip the switch, simple. When I need it I flip the switch again and all the boxes light up and are ready to go. We did the same for many kitchen appliances. We no longer have fifteen clocks that all read a different time and that all need to be reset several times a year (where we live the power goes out at least 5 times a year).
But most importantly we turn things off when we don't need them. Although the WSJ does not mention this trick, I believe it is the number one energy saving method, and the easiest one too. Turn things off. It isn't hard.
There are no extra lights here to brighten the sky, and even the always-on internet box goes off when it is not in use for more than 10 minutes (say during lunch). That too is easy. The computers sleep when they are idle for 5 minutes and their sleep modes are very efficient. They spin down the disk and turn off the displays. Both reboot very quickly and I never feel I have to wait. But our key improvement for 2007 has been to retire the clothes dryer. A huge savings and our clothes look better than before. Nothing like sun and wind to dry clothes. It is the cheapest solar power you can get. The $5.00 clothesline has already paid for itself several times over. It has the best return on investment so far this year. Even though my stocks did quite well, they did not come close.
To give you some background, we do live in an above average sized home in California. It definitely qualifies as a luxury home. We are not some hermits living in the desert. We do have and use the latest and greatest appliances including a home theater system with widescreen TV -no plasma though-, gaming consoles, several computers -that are used daily and nearly round the clock-, high speed internet access, and the like. And no, I do not feel like we had to cut back or restrict ourselves in 2007. And we still have a ways to go as most of our light bulbs are the conventional incandescent type. Not because we do not like CFL's, but why replace a perfectly good bulb? When it burns out we will replace it, but for now things are fine.
We do not have solar panels, wind mills, or any other energy producing device. We buy all our power from the utility and we pay regular prices for it. Apart from electricity our home uses natural gas to cook, to heat water and for the furnace. All other appliances are electric. In our area 2006 was a year with 2932 heating degree days and 1019 cooling degree days. You can find out more about that on energy star, but suffice it to say, a regular year.
Our key improvements over the last two years have been in removing all appliances that work in standby mode. You know these boxes that are plugged in and use electricity even when they are "off." Removing these is as simple as putting them on a powerstrip and turning the powerstrip off. It is actually easier than using the individual off buttons -even with remote- that do not turn things off. Our whole home theater system is on such a strip. When we are done using it, I get up and flip the switch, simple. When I need it I flip the switch again and all the boxes light up and are ready to go. We did the same for many kitchen appliances. We no longer have fifteen clocks that all read a different time and that all need to be reset several times a year (where we live the power goes out at least 5 times a year).
But most importantly we turn things off when we don't need them. Although the WSJ does not mention this trick, I believe it is the number one energy saving method, and the easiest one too. Turn things off. It isn't hard.
There are no extra lights here to brighten the sky, and even the always-on internet box goes off when it is not in use for more than 10 minutes (say during lunch). That too is easy. The computers sleep when they are idle for 5 minutes and their sleep modes are very efficient. They spin down the disk and turn off the displays. Both reboot very quickly and I never feel I have to wait. But our key improvement for 2007 has been to retire the clothes dryer. A huge savings and our clothes look better than before. Nothing like sun and wind to dry clothes. It is the cheapest solar power you can get. The $5.00 clothesline has already paid for itself several times over. It has the best return on investment so far this year. Even though my stocks did quite well, they did not come close.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
too successful
Our main problem isn't pollution, global warming, or resource depletion. Our main problem is that we are too successful. Some would say it is a good problem to have. But it is a problem nonetheless. There are too many humans on the planet and too many are added each and every day. These humans also live too long and use way too many resources during their stay. We are becoming fat and rowdy guests who are raiding the fridge and the pantry and leaving our garbage piled up in the living room. It seems we have overstayed our welcome.
There are things we could do to improve the situation. These things may not totally solve our long term problems, but they could surely buy us a lot of extra time. And they might even keep our impact below a critical level so it remains sustainable for a while to come. We could consume less and leave less trash around. We could be friendlier to the other inhabitants, and we could reduce our numbers. But all that takes long term management and international scope and both of these have eluded us consistently. For all our bragging about superior intelligence, experience shows that human behavior is driven by instincts as basic and as generic as those of any other species around.
Humans don't like words like instinct applied to them. Because instinct evokes images of automatic and non-intelligent behavior. Behavior that persists even when it is obviously harmful and will lead to premature death. But that is exactly the type of behavior we display each and every day. Since we are in the midst of it, it is not easy to see. But it does become apparent when we observe others. Unfortunately, we are not different, even though we'd like to think so. It is quite easy for humans to sit around and debate matters intelligently. Solve the big problems in the world. But as soon as those same people walk out the door, and into their eight cylinder, 5,000 pound SUV, you can see where the rubber hits the road.
Intelligence is easily suspended in our everyday lives. It helps us to solve problems when we get lost, or when we need to build shelter. But before such projects get of the ground, they are already cluttered up with tons of unnecessary garbage that serves no purpose other than to impress the neighbors, show status, flatter our egos, and lure mates.
Such behaviors are good and fine when there are two or three billion people on the planet. But if six billion try to do the same, things get problematic. And the truth is that those six are all outdoing the former three. It is a double whammy. And soon we will have nine billion, who will all try to outdo us. Obviously this cannot go on forever. The trouble is that rather than stopping it now and doing something smart, most would prefer to escalate even further and then crash headlong into the wall.
Every time we have a savings and loan crisis, a stock market bubble, a subprime problem, etc. you can see this scenario repeated. Each and every time people can clearly see where it is headed. But each and every time it ends the same way: with a hard crash. Nobody ever steps in to stop it. And the participants are all too happy to drive of the cliff at 100 mph. So much for intelligence.
There are things we could do to improve the situation. These things may not totally solve our long term problems, but they could surely buy us a lot of extra time. And they might even keep our impact below a critical level so it remains sustainable for a while to come. We could consume less and leave less trash around. We could be friendlier to the other inhabitants, and we could reduce our numbers. But all that takes long term management and international scope and both of these have eluded us consistently. For all our bragging about superior intelligence, experience shows that human behavior is driven by instincts as basic and as generic as those of any other species around.
Humans don't like words like instinct applied to them. Because instinct evokes images of automatic and non-intelligent behavior. Behavior that persists even when it is obviously harmful and will lead to premature death. But that is exactly the type of behavior we display each and every day. Since we are in the midst of it, it is not easy to see. But it does become apparent when we observe others. Unfortunately, we are not different, even though we'd like to think so. It is quite easy for humans to sit around and debate matters intelligently. Solve the big problems in the world. But as soon as those same people walk out the door, and into their eight cylinder, 5,000 pound SUV, you can see where the rubber hits the road.
Intelligence is easily suspended in our everyday lives. It helps us to solve problems when we get lost, or when we need to build shelter. But before such projects get of the ground, they are already cluttered up with tons of unnecessary garbage that serves no purpose other than to impress the neighbors, show status, flatter our egos, and lure mates.
Such behaviors are good and fine when there are two or three billion people on the planet. But if six billion try to do the same, things get problematic. And the truth is that those six are all outdoing the former three. It is a double whammy. And soon we will have nine billion, who will all try to outdo us. Obviously this cannot go on forever. The trouble is that rather than stopping it now and doing something smart, most would prefer to escalate even further and then crash headlong into the wall.
Every time we have a savings and loan crisis, a stock market bubble, a subprime problem, etc. you can see this scenario repeated. Each and every time people can clearly see where it is headed. But each and every time it ends the same way: with a hard crash. Nobody ever steps in to stop it. And the participants are all too happy to drive of the cliff at 100 mph. So much for intelligence.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
hangover
Some statistics that may interest you. The average American spends $620 on holiday gifts. Quite a bit of it goes unused, gets returned to the store, perishes in the refrigerator, or sits around in the attic or basement. Some clever people will take your gift and wrap it up again to send it off to their relatives or distant friends. But much of it will follow the wrapping paper into the wastebasket. Americans generate an excess five million tons of garbage during the holiday season. Surely not all of it is packaging, even in this nation of wrap-crazies.
And that should not surprise anyone. After all, what do you give to people who already have everything or can easily buy everything they may like ? You'd have to really spend several thousands of dollars per recipient to buy something special. And that is beyond reach. So on we go, buying useless and unappreciated gifts to "save" the economy. Ever since 9-11 buying stuff that you don't need has become a patriotic duty.
That wasn't true fifty years ago, but things have changed. What hasn't changed are our habits. And that is why many people turned to gift cards. The most popular holiday item according to ABC news is the gift card. And it is a trend retailers love. Because the unspent money on the gift card amounts to nothing more than a donation to the retailer. After two years retailers can use the small amounts that everyone invariably leaves on their cards. Come January 1st that will no longer be true in California, where retailers will have to pay cash for these small left-overs.
The waste did not go unnoticed either. Officials in many cities are trying to do something about it. In the Seattle area, www. wastefreeholidays.com recommends people purchase discounted tickets and gift certificates for concerts, plays, sporting events, recreation and museums. They call it "Give Experiences Instead of Stuff." And that is a good idea for those who can't part with tradition and feel the need to spend. Apart from not generating waste, experiences leave better and longer lasting memories. If you really want to give something to your sports or rock fan friend, consider buying hard to get tickets instead of that commemorative poster or baseball hat.
But even better would be to stop wasteful spending altogether. Good luck trying to explain that to someone.
And that should not surprise anyone. After all, what do you give to people who already have everything or can easily buy everything they may like ? You'd have to really spend several thousands of dollars per recipient to buy something special. And that is beyond reach. So on we go, buying useless and unappreciated gifts to "save" the economy. Ever since 9-11 buying stuff that you don't need has become a patriotic duty.
That wasn't true fifty years ago, but things have changed. What hasn't changed are our habits. And that is why many people turned to gift cards. The most popular holiday item according to ABC news is the gift card. And it is a trend retailers love. Because the unspent money on the gift card amounts to nothing more than a donation to the retailer. After two years retailers can use the small amounts that everyone invariably leaves on their cards. Come January 1st that will no longer be true in California, where retailers will have to pay cash for these small left-overs.
The waste did not go unnoticed either. Officials in many cities are trying to do something about it. In the Seattle area, www. wastefreeholidays.com recommends people purchase discounted tickets and gift certificates for concerts, plays, sporting events, recreation and museums. They call it "Give Experiences Instead of Stuff." And that is a good idea for those who can't part with tradition and feel the need to spend. Apart from not generating waste, experiences leave better and longer lasting memories. If you really want to give something to your sports or rock fan friend, consider buying hard to get tickets instead of that commemorative poster or baseball hat.
But even better would be to stop wasteful spending altogether. Good luck trying to explain that to someone.
Monday, December 24, 2007
christmas paper
Well, it wasn't easy but I finally convinced everyone to skip the holiday cards and the wrapping paper. It is amazing how hard it is to change people's habits. It is not really something you want to fight over, but if you don't try, it simply won' t happen.
It is very difficult to change behaviors when it comes to feel-good stuff like holiday cards and shiny wrap. But this year we are using pdf files for our holiday letters and jpgs for the pictures, and emailing them to our friends. You could argue that the internet and computers are just as polluting and use more energy, and that is certainly true, but why double up ? And why cut down extra trees? Isn't it enough that we cut down christmas trees already?
We are using computers daily. Why not take out a few minutes to send well wishes and save tons of paper, stamps, and cardboard? Our energy use is quite modest as is. We rarely get an electric bill that is over $30 a month.
As for the wrapping paper, given that everything you buy is already triple wrapped and boxed as is, there is really little need for additional wastage here. But once again this is one area where people are loath to give up on their habits and do things differently. Don't you want to hide what you are giving until that magic moment? The truth is that most people know well in advance what they are getting and the magic is largely in the eye of the beholder. The surprise factor is minimal to begin with. Mostly we are deluding ourselves when we think we can surprise people. And in most cases, surprises are no good and elicit nothing but wry smiles and after holiday returns. People really do not like surprises all that much.
And who says you can't keep things hidden until you give them to the recipient? Hiding the whole thing is much better anyways as it prevents spoilers like size estimates, weighing packages, and shaking them.
Whatever you do, have a good holiday and try to conserve energy and paper. It is hard but I am sure you can do it too.
It is very difficult to change behaviors when it comes to feel-good stuff like holiday cards and shiny wrap. But this year we are using pdf files for our holiday letters and jpgs for the pictures, and emailing them to our friends. You could argue that the internet and computers are just as polluting and use more energy, and that is certainly true, but why double up ? And why cut down extra trees? Isn't it enough that we cut down christmas trees already?
We are using computers daily. Why not take out a few minutes to send well wishes and save tons of paper, stamps, and cardboard? Our energy use is quite modest as is. We rarely get an electric bill that is over $30 a month.
As for the wrapping paper, given that everything you buy is already triple wrapped and boxed as is, there is really little need for additional wastage here. But once again this is one area where people are loath to give up on their habits and do things differently. Don't you want to hide what you are giving until that magic moment? The truth is that most people know well in advance what they are getting and the magic is largely in the eye of the beholder. The surprise factor is minimal to begin with. Mostly we are deluding ourselves when we think we can surprise people. And in most cases, surprises are no good and elicit nothing but wry smiles and after holiday returns. People really do not like surprises all that much.
And who says you can't keep things hidden until you give them to the recipient? Hiding the whole thing is much better anyways as it prevents spoilers like size estimates, weighing packages, and shaking them.
Whatever you do, have a good holiday and try to conserve energy and paper. It is hard but I am sure you can do it too.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
italian fever
In September of 2007, the Italian Ministry of Health confirmed 160 cases of chikungunya, a tropical disease related to dengue fever in the Ravenna region of Northern Italy. According to experts, the outbreak was the world's first outside the tropics. The apparent cause is the successful colonization of regions in Northern Italy by mosquitos that were once limited to the tropics. Experts called the phenomenon "worrying without being alarming."
I guess it is not alarming because there were few deaths. But as many Caribbean travelers know dengue fever is a rather devastating disease with lingering health problems. Due to some strange immunological phenomena it can recur and recurrences are often worse the second and third time around. Chikungunya is no different and symptoms can persist for several weeks with lingering arthritic after-effects that can last for years. As with many tropical diseases, there is no vaccine and no effective cure.
And don't look to the pharma industry to solve this problem. For years, pharmaceutical companies have ignored tropical diseases because the patients are not rich enough to support the type of blockbuster drugs that the industry needs to please its investors. Better to focus on yet another pill for heartburn. It will take decades to ramp up research into tropical diseases. But don't count on medicine. Medicine has not been very effective at controlling tropical diseases. The tropics are not an area where humans thrive. The only exceptions being island chains where infections can be controlled.
I bring this up because incidents like these are going to happen more frequently as the climate changes. Migration of plants and animals have been documented for nearly a decade now, but so far few cases of illness have been seen. That is likely to change over the next five to ten years. The migration of plant species is not limited to scientific studies anymore. Nurseries in the Northern parts of the East Coast are now selling plants that would not have survived there twenty years ago.
And with those plants and animals come pests that could really change our way of life. Because these pests do not just affect us directly. They can cause indirect damage that is life-threatening by affecting our food supplies. Widespread famine and disease may result from such incursions. Think about that when you fill up your SUV for your trip to the gym.
I guess it is not alarming because there were few deaths. But as many Caribbean travelers know dengue fever is a rather devastating disease with lingering health problems. Due to some strange immunological phenomena it can recur and recurrences are often worse the second and third time around. Chikungunya is no different and symptoms can persist for several weeks with lingering arthritic after-effects that can last for years. As with many tropical diseases, there is no vaccine and no effective cure.
And don't look to the pharma industry to solve this problem. For years, pharmaceutical companies have ignored tropical diseases because the patients are not rich enough to support the type of blockbuster drugs that the industry needs to please its investors. Better to focus on yet another pill for heartburn. It will take decades to ramp up research into tropical diseases. But don't count on medicine. Medicine has not been very effective at controlling tropical diseases. The tropics are not an area where humans thrive. The only exceptions being island chains where infections can be controlled.
I bring this up because incidents like these are going to happen more frequently as the climate changes. Migration of plants and animals have been documented for nearly a decade now, but so far few cases of illness have been seen. That is likely to change over the next five to ten years. The migration of plant species is not limited to scientific studies anymore. Nurseries in the Northern parts of the East Coast are now selling plants that would not have survived there twenty years ago.
And with those plants and animals come pests that could really change our way of life. Because these pests do not just affect us directly. They can cause indirect damage that is life-threatening by affecting our food supplies. Widespread famine and disease may result from such incursions. Think about that when you fill up your SUV for your trip to the gym.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
the nuclear option
For many environmentalists the most dreaded side-effect from all the attention paid to global warming is the re-emergence of nuclear power. The longer the debate goes on the more inevitable the nuclear option will become. Nuclear is our only option if we want to maintain our "standard of living." An MIT website states it as follows:" An interdisciplinary MIT faculty group decided to study the future of nuclear power because of a belief that this technology is an important option for the United States and the world to meet future energy needs without emitting carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants."
It is interesting to me how people always talk about our energy "needs" as if we could not possibly survive by using less. And I have to admit that there is some immediate truth to it. Like a stock market bubble, deflating our over-consumption of energy would cause much hardship and pain, and a prolonged recovery period. But in the end we would be better off. However, the longer we wait the less effective it will be and the more painful too. Immediate is where it ends though, as we can certainly survive and thrive using a lot less energy than we do now. And it would make our chances of survival much better.
Realistically speaking I do not count on voluntary reductions. The only way to reduce energy consumption is to regulate and tax it. Much as I hate taxes, I believe that the only sane thing to do would be to raise the price of gas to at least $5 a gallon and go up from there. The tax money could be used to fund alternative energy research. Or better still, universal health care. A much more modest proposal along those lines was recently defeated in California elections. Five dollars a gallon is a very small price to pay for wasting energy. Given the true cost, $5 is a real bargain.
Many countries in Europe have more expensive gas than that and their standard of living is not that different from ours. Standard of living is a bit deceptive as it measures how much money one can spend. But spending money does not always make people happier, and much spending is driven by addictive behavior. There is little doubt that in many European countries the quality of life is much better for the average citizen. It is true that these citizens do not have as many gadgets as we do, but gadgets tend to make people lazy and fat. Gadgets also alienate people from one another.
But once again, I don't see Americans going for higher gas prices. Not at a time when so many are becoming insanely rich pushing our energy addiction. Why worry about heroin if you have gasoline? It appears to be a much better drug. And so we are ultimately left with the nuclear option.
Contrary to what you may think I am not opposed to nuclear. I believe it works very well. France derives nearly 75% of its electricity from nuclear power and there are few, if any, real problems. In many ways nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuels. And it has extra flexibility. We could power ships with it for example and remove a very dirty source of emissions in the process. As for safety, it seems clear that nuclear is as safe, if not safer than many other technologies. No doubt accidents will happen, and the scale of these accidents may be bigger, but with a lower frequency of incidents, the end results would be similar.
Ironically enough, the US set back nuclear power by dropping bombs on Japan at the end of World War II. Escalating the cold war did not help either. And so nobody should be very surprised that nuclear has become a synonym for scary. It was designed to be that way from the very start.
If you are strongly opposed to nuclear power there is something you can do. Pay $5 per gallon for your gas. Just put away the difference between what you pay and $5 and donate it to alternative energy sources. Convince all your neighbors and friends to do the same. Turn off your lights and drive less. Because that is the only way to stop "it" from happening. Demonstrations and other civil disobedience won't do it.
It is interesting to me how people always talk about our energy "needs" as if we could not possibly survive by using less. And I have to admit that there is some immediate truth to it. Like a stock market bubble, deflating our over-consumption of energy would cause much hardship and pain, and a prolonged recovery period. But in the end we would be better off. However, the longer we wait the less effective it will be and the more painful too. Immediate is where it ends though, as we can certainly survive and thrive using a lot less energy than we do now. And it would make our chances of survival much better.
Realistically speaking I do not count on voluntary reductions. The only way to reduce energy consumption is to regulate and tax it. Much as I hate taxes, I believe that the only sane thing to do would be to raise the price of gas to at least $5 a gallon and go up from there. The tax money could be used to fund alternative energy research. Or better still, universal health care. A much more modest proposal along those lines was recently defeated in California elections. Five dollars a gallon is a very small price to pay for wasting energy. Given the true cost, $5 is a real bargain.
Many countries in Europe have more expensive gas than that and their standard of living is not that different from ours. Standard of living is a bit deceptive as it measures how much money one can spend. But spending money does not always make people happier, and much spending is driven by addictive behavior. There is little doubt that in many European countries the quality of life is much better for the average citizen. It is true that these citizens do not have as many gadgets as we do, but gadgets tend to make people lazy and fat. Gadgets also alienate people from one another.
But once again, I don't see Americans going for higher gas prices. Not at a time when so many are becoming insanely rich pushing our energy addiction. Why worry about heroin if you have gasoline? It appears to be a much better drug. And so we are ultimately left with the nuclear option.
Contrary to what you may think I am not opposed to nuclear. I believe it works very well. France derives nearly 75% of its electricity from nuclear power and there are few, if any, real problems. In many ways nuclear is cleaner than fossil fuels. And it has extra flexibility. We could power ships with it for example and remove a very dirty source of emissions in the process. As for safety, it seems clear that nuclear is as safe, if not safer than many other technologies. No doubt accidents will happen, and the scale of these accidents may be bigger, but with a lower frequency of incidents, the end results would be similar.
Ironically enough, the US set back nuclear power by dropping bombs on Japan at the end of World War II. Escalating the cold war did not help either. And so nobody should be very surprised that nuclear has become a synonym for scary. It was designed to be that way from the very start.
If you are strongly opposed to nuclear power there is something you can do. Pay $5 per gallon for your gas. Just put away the difference between what you pay and $5 and donate it to alternative energy sources. Convince all your neighbors and friends to do the same. Turn off your lights and drive less. Because that is the only way to stop "it" from happening. Demonstrations and other civil disobedience won't do it.
Friday, December 21, 2007
join the locavores
A new movement took shape in San Francisco a few years ago. Concerned about food miles, a group labeling themselves "culinary adventurers" started making an effort to eat only foods grown or harvested within a 100 mile radius from the City. This at a time when the average food item in the US travels 1,200 miles before consumption. Cutting out 1,100 miles can have a significant impact on greenhouse gases. Because it isn't just the distance that matters. All during transit, many food items are refrigerated or even frozen, and all that adds a considerable burden to the environment.
Not all that long ago, 100 miles was a serious distance to go gather food. These days, the reverse is true. Some would call that progress. If it is, we will have to go back and regress, because it is not sustainable. This type of progress takes too much energy. Putting in 10 calories of fuel for every calorie you harvest may work when the planet has only a billion or so people. But it won't work once there are 10 billion.
These days an idea like eating locally grown food is so revolutionary that the locavores only attempted to sustain it for an entire month. Similar movements were started in the UK, Canada, and Western Europe. The San Francisco group began in summer, an auspicious idea. They were so successful that they extended their initial endeavor into September. Now they have been going strong for nearly three years. And a new word is in the dictionary: the locavore.
Eating "local" food is rather easy in California, as the state is a key food producer and one that produces a very large variety of items. Much of it is grown within the 100 mile radius too. The agricultural lands of the Central Valley are quite near and Sacramento is only about 85 miles away. Eating local during or close to the harvest season also made things a lot easier. But it is always good to start easy.
The real challenge comes in winter of course, when appealing fruits and vegetables from the Southern Hemisphere are splashed all over supermarket shelves. Yet that is the time when things really matter. No fresh food travels longer than fruit and vegetables from Chili in winter. And cherries from Chili for Christmas have become a great hit in the UK according to the BBC.
Eating local foods only is a great way to make a difference and reshape our economy into a more sustainable pattern. Sure, it takes some sacrifices and sometimes you have to forgo some instant gratification, but in the long run, it is healthier and better too. Locally grown food that is in season just tastes better than those watered down cherries and peaches from Chili.
Here is a great New Year's resolution. Try to eat local food only for an entire month. You will have to change your diet and it will take some effort and maybe even some hassle. Winter is a tough time in many parts of the country. But that is what New Years Resolutions are all about. Try something that is challenging. If you live up North, take a look at the Scottish local food recipes on the BBC website.
But there are rewards. You will rediscover food if you do. If you eat peaches year round, they don't taste special anymore. You forget about the taste and just gobble them up. This is not just fiction. There is a marked decay in taste in food. Consumers shop with their eyes and supermarkets know it. They push appearance and size of fruits over taste. And consumers go along. Fruits that used to have intense tastes and smells are now pushed out by oversized balls bloated with water. But with perfect skin.
Eating such food makes you fat. If you wait however, you will forgo immediate gratification. But the reward will be worth it. Nothing tastes better than fruits in season. And if you have to wait a long time for it, it will taste even better.
Not all that long ago, 100 miles was a serious distance to go gather food. These days, the reverse is true. Some would call that progress. If it is, we will have to go back and regress, because it is not sustainable. This type of progress takes too much energy. Putting in 10 calories of fuel for every calorie you harvest may work when the planet has only a billion or so people. But it won't work once there are 10 billion.
These days an idea like eating locally grown food is so revolutionary that the locavores only attempted to sustain it for an entire month. Similar movements were started in the UK, Canada, and Western Europe. The San Francisco group began in summer, an auspicious idea. They were so successful that they extended their initial endeavor into September. Now they have been going strong for nearly three years. And a new word is in the dictionary: the locavore.
Eating "local" food is rather easy in California, as the state is a key food producer and one that produces a very large variety of items. Much of it is grown within the 100 mile radius too. The agricultural lands of the Central Valley are quite near and Sacramento is only about 85 miles away. Eating local during or close to the harvest season also made things a lot easier. But it is always good to start easy.
The real challenge comes in winter of course, when appealing fruits and vegetables from the Southern Hemisphere are splashed all over supermarket shelves. Yet that is the time when things really matter. No fresh food travels longer than fruit and vegetables from Chili in winter. And cherries from Chili for Christmas have become a great hit in the UK according to the BBC.
Eating local foods only is a great way to make a difference and reshape our economy into a more sustainable pattern. Sure, it takes some sacrifices and sometimes you have to forgo some instant gratification, but in the long run, it is healthier and better too. Locally grown food that is in season just tastes better than those watered down cherries and peaches from Chili.
Here is a great New Year's resolution. Try to eat local food only for an entire month. You will have to change your diet and it will take some effort and maybe even some hassle. Winter is a tough time in many parts of the country. But that is what New Years Resolutions are all about. Try something that is challenging. If you live up North, take a look at the Scottish local food recipes on the BBC website.
But there are rewards. You will rediscover food if you do. If you eat peaches year round, they don't taste special anymore. You forget about the taste and just gobble them up. This is not just fiction. There is a marked decay in taste in food. Consumers shop with their eyes and supermarkets know it. They push appearance and size of fruits over taste. And consumers go along. Fruits that used to have intense tastes and smells are now pushed out by oversized balls bloated with water. But with perfect skin.
Eating such food makes you fat. If you wait however, you will forgo immediate gratification. But the reward will be worth it. Nothing tastes better than fruits in season. And if you have to wait a long time for it, it will taste even better.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
'T is the season to be wasteful
People's desire to light up the night sky is never as strong as it is in mid-winter. All modern religions originating in the Northern Hemisphere have incorporated ancient solstice rituals into festivals of light. And so we have the Hanukkah candle lighting, the Persian Sadeh and Yalda festivals, the Hindi Diwali festival of lights, and the ubiquitous Christmas lights. To say nothing of the recent revivals of winter solstice celebrations.
But even in the midst of all this joy, we feel the need to outdo the neighbors. Once again the drive to show how cool we really are is alive and well. So much so that many cities and neighborhood associations are starting to step in and put an end to the posturing contest. Today's Wall Street Journal has an article entitled "Neighbors Clash Over Christmas Lawn Decorations" that highlights the problem. It appears some of the people featured in the article were inspired by the rather boring comedy Deck the Halls, where Danny DeVito attempts to make his tacky home visible from space. How does 50,000 lights sound to you?
But what is quite disturbing are some numbers cited in the article. In 2006, Americans spent $16B of their "discretionary" dollars on seasonal decorations, up almost 10% from 2 years earlier. And very few of these items are just static. Nearly all require energy to set up and run. Inflatable yard decorations, many of them well over 8 feet tall are the latest craze, with people spending nearly half a billion dollars on this segment alone. Many of those require constant inflation and nearly all are lit up round the clock to boot.
At the same time these consumers are fuming about rising energy costs. Given that the lighting craze mostly affects middle class neighborhoods, the ones that are said to be feeling the pain, one has to wonder how real this pain is. Are people feeling the pinch when it comes to adding another 10,000 lights?
It is quite obvious that Americans retain a profoundly wasteful attitude towards energy use and that their proclamations of wanting to fix global warming are lacking credibility.
The winter holidays are a true celebration of overconsumption and excess. Holiday spending is close to $450 billion. Fully one fifth of retail industry sales occur during the holiday season according to the National Retail Foundation. $450 billion is three times as much money as the nation spends on prescription drugs each year. And it is almost twice as much as the total annual charitable giving to all causes, except for disaster relief.
The total US economic and military assistance to the entire world -much of it in the form of military intervention and loans by the way- totaled $40B last year. That is only 10% of what consumers will spend on gifts and trinkets this holiday season. The true aid stands at $19B and it barely exceeds the $16B in seasonal decorations that we buy. And here are some more interesting numbers.
In 2006, we spent $1.2 billion dollars on "real" christmas trees and another $631 million on "fake" trees according to the National Christmas Tree Association. Those fake trees are petroleum products by the way. And most come from China too, adding a fair dose of air pollution along the way. The real trees only travel from Canada so they are relatively clean in comparison.
We spent more on Christmas trees last year than we did on foreign aid to Afghanistan. And no countries other than Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan received more than $1 billion in aid. Only one poor country, Ethiopia, received more in aid than we spend on fake Christmas trees each year.
But even in the midst of all this joy, we feel the need to outdo the neighbors. Once again the drive to show how cool we really are is alive and well. So much so that many cities and neighborhood associations are starting to step in and put an end to the posturing contest. Today's Wall Street Journal has an article entitled "Neighbors Clash Over Christmas Lawn Decorations" that highlights the problem. It appears some of the people featured in the article were inspired by the rather boring comedy Deck the Halls, where Danny DeVito attempts to make his tacky home visible from space. How does 50,000 lights sound to you?
But what is quite disturbing are some numbers cited in the article. In 2006, Americans spent $16B of their "discretionary" dollars on seasonal decorations, up almost 10% from 2 years earlier. And very few of these items are just static. Nearly all require energy to set up and run. Inflatable yard decorations, many of them well over 8 feet tall are the latest craze, with people spending nearly half a billion dollars on this segment alone. Many of those require constant inflation and nearly all are lit up round the clock to boot.
At the same time these consumers are fuming about rising energy costs. Given that the lighting craze mostly affects middle class neighborhoods, the ones that are said to be feeling the pain, one has to wonder how real this pain is. Are people feeling the pinch when it comes to adding another 10,000 lights?
It is quite obvious that Americans retain a profoundly wasteful attitude towards energy use and that their proclamations of wanting to fix global warming are lacking credibility.
The winter holidays are a true celebration of overconsumption and excess. Holiday spending is close to $450 billion. Fully one fifth of retail industry sales occur during the holiday season according to the National Retail Foundation. $450 billion is three times as much money as the nation spends on prescription drugs each year. And it is almost twice as much as the total annual charitable giving to all causes, except for disaster relief.
The total US economic and military assistance to the entire world -much of it in the form of military intervention and loans by the way- totaled $40B last year. That is only 10% of what consumers will spend on gifts and trinkets this holiday season. The true aid stands at $19B and it barely exceeds the $16B in seasonal decorations that we buy. And here are some more interesting numbers.
In 2006, we spent $1.2 billion dollars on "real" christmas trees and another $631 million on "fake" trees according to the National Christmas Tree Association. Those fake trees are petroleum products by the way. And most come from China too, adding a fair dose of air pollution along the way. The real trees only travel from Canada so they are relatively clean in comparison.
We spent more on Christmas trees last year than we did on foreign aid to Afghanistan. And no countries other than Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan received more than $1 billion in aid. Only one poor country, Ethiopia, received more in aid than we spend on fake Christmas trees each year.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
the fuel efficiency hoax
You can tell the primaries are near. Congress and the President are in lockstep about increasing biofuel use and getting better mileage standards for cars. The first item will delight Iowa farmers, while the second will appeal to California voters. Both states have early and crucial races and every dollar invested here is sure to bear fruit to aspiring candidates and their party.
This morning in a ceremony at the Dept. of Energy, the president signed a bill that will require automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an average of 35 mpg by 2020. Ethanol use will be ramped up to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Bush said the bill will "address our vulnerabilities and dependency on foreign oil." He said we will be "a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure." The new requirements are also expected to save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. And therein lies the problem. Every time something gets cheaper, people use more of it. And that is bad news indeed.
A report by the World Resources Institute undermines the claim that boosting fuel efficiency standards for cars is a critical step to curb global warming. The author of the report was quoted as saying "Total emissions from this part of the transport sector are dependent on how many people drive, what they drive, and how they drive." The report blames a booming population that is ever more reliant on cars, and real-world driving conditions and poor maintenance that undercut all efficiency gains. The report argues for lighter cars and driving less. That sounds like common sense to me.
By the way, there is good evidence to support these claims. Since the early 1980's fuel efficiency for both cars and airplanes has increased dramatically, but overall CO2 emissions have grown by 25% in the US alone. People have more than made up for all the gains by buying larger cars and driving more. Fat chance reducing emissions in a hummer-crazy nation !
Unfortunately the only thing that reduces CO2 emissions under real life conditions is higher gas prices. Whenever gas prices go up and supplies run low, people drive less. They also car-pool more. A report by Lawrence Livermore National Lab found that the density of traffic over the Altamont pass is inversely proportional to gas prices. The higher the price of gas, the less traffic there is. And that makes sense to me.
But raising gas prices is a death-on-arrival strategy for any politician. Even keeping gas prices high would be considered a crime in this nation. Already the public is fuming at the high price of gas even though we pay far less than other nations. Nations whose real standard of living is as good or better than ours. Think what you may but there isn't much happiness sitting in traffic jams for over an hour a day.
And every time gas prices go higher, worries about terrorism and homeland security surface. It is not for nothing that oil barons like Bush are seen as strong on national security. Surely, prices are high because evil individuals are interrupting our gas supply. Or worse still, they are using OUR gas.
Of course one could try to convince people to drive less, or to buy a sensible car instead of an overweight SUV, but good luck with that. Even though everyone claims they want to save the planet, don't count on it when it comes to buying a vehicle. At that time the primary urges of the mating dance take precedence and our aspiring environmentalists are just as likely to drive out the door with an oversized, overloaded, gas guzzling vehicle that gives them a commanding view of the road and impresses their neighbors. Not some sensible "girlie" car, as our friend Arnold would say.
Those who are guilt ridden and those who want to appear cutting edge and "in", may even shell out the extra money to get a "Hybrid" badge on their monster machine. But who are they fooling ?
The reality is that we choose to be dependent on foreign oil. We only import about half of what we use. And we surely waste more than half of what we buy by hauling around an unnecessary 2,000 pounds of shiny metal, trim, leather, cupholders, stereo equipment, GPS's, and the like. Not to mention our grossly overweight and out-of-shape bodies.
This morning in a ceremony at the Dept. of Energy, the president signed a bill that will require automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an average of 35 mpg by 2020. Ethanol use will be ramped up to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Bush said the bill will "address our vulnerabilities and dependency on foreign oil." He said we will be "a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure." The new requirements are also expected to save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year in fuel costs. And therein lies the problem. Every time something gets cheaper, people use more of it. And that is bad news indeed.
A report by the World Resources Institute undermines the claim that boosting fuel efficiency standards for cars is a critical step to curb global warming. The author of the report was quoted as saying "Total emissions from this part of the transport sector are dependent on how many people drive, what they drive, and how they drive." The report blames a booming population that is ever more reliant on cars, and real-world driving conditions and poor maintenance that undercut all efficiency gains. The report argues for lighter cars and driving less. That sounds like common sense to me.
By the way, there is good evidence to support these claims. Since the early 1980's fuel efficiency for both cars and airplanes has increased dramatically, but overall CO2 emissions have grown by 25% in the US alone. People have more than made up for all the gains by buying larger cars and driving more. Fat chance reducing emissions in a hummer-crazy nation !
Unfortunately the only thing that reduces CO2 emissions under real life conditions is higher gas prices. Whenever gas prices go up and supplies run low, people drive less. They also car-pool more. A report by Lawrence Livermore National Lab found that the density of traffic over the Altamont pass is inversely proportional to gas prices. The higher the price of gas, the less traffic there is. And that makes sense to me.
But raising gas prices is a death-on-arrival strategy for any politician. Even keeping gas prices high would be considered a crime in this nation. Already the public is fuming at the high price of gas even though we pay far less than other nations. Nations whose real standard of living is as good or better than ours. Think what you may but there isn't much happiness sitting in traffic jams for over an hour a day.
And every time gas prices go higher, worries about terrorism and homeland security surface. It is not for nothing that oil barons like Bush are seen as strong on national security. Surely, prices are high because evil individuals are interrupting our gas supply. Or worse still, they are using OUR gas.
Of course one could try to convince people to drive less, or to buy a sensible car instead of an overweight SUV, but good luck with that. Even though everyone claims they want to save the planet, don't count on it when it comes to buying a vehicle. At that time the primary urges of the mating dance take precedence and our aspiring environmentalists are just as likely to drive out the door with an oversized, overloaded, gas guzzling vehicle that gives them a commanding view of the road and impresses their neighbors. Not some sensible "girlie" car, as our friend Arnold would say.
Those who are guilt ridden and those who want to appear cutting edge and "in", may even shell out the extra money to get a "Hybrid" badge on their monster machine. But who are they fooling ?
The reality is that we choose to be dependent on foreign oil. We only import about half of what we use. And we surely waste more than half of what we buy by hauling around an unnecessary 2,000 pounds of shiny metal, trim, leather, cupholders, stereo equipment, GPS's, and the like. Not to mention our grossly overweight and out-of-shape bodies.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
the biofuel hoax
The new remedy for global warming may achieve its goal in an unexpected fashion. Let's be nice and assume the problem is due to shortsightedness. Although some not so favorably inclined may argue it was the hidden intent of its promoters all along. Mass starvation is the inevitable outcome. And that is sure to reduce the impact of humanity on the environment in a dramatic way. Furthermore, mass starvation is the only way the biofuel craze can deliver on its promises. And in case you think this is just another pessimistic doomsday prediction, it is already happening.
Food prices around the world are skyrocketing. While that may make Americans grumpy and cause them to cut their discretionary (read wasteful) spending just a bit, the same cannot be said for people who are poor to begin with. They actually starve to death. If not directly through lack of protein or calories, then indirectly through wasting with increased susceptibility to disease. In some cases, wars and genocide due to competition for scarce resources will accelerate the process.
The new bill in Congress is about to make things a lot worse. But then again, it is intensely pleasing to the Iowa farmer and we are about to enter an election year. It also sounds really good. We are reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Given that we probably waste half the oil we buy and that we only import half, the easy solution would be to consume less. If we all drove sensible cars, and drove less our energy dependence would cease to exist. But the issue of mideast oil is more "complex" than that. Not only do we want it, we also want to prevent others from getting it. And what better way to do that than to use it ourselves? But, let's go back to biofuels for now.
The new bill would increase the mandate for renewable fuels to a striking 36 billion gallons by 2022. Some would be made from waste or byproducts of corn. But nearly half or fifteen billion gallons will be made from edible corn. That is sure to accomplish two things: one, farmers will grow more corn and two, corn prices will skyrocket. Both are already happening. It will just get worse. Corn prices doubled in the last few years. And so did the price of other food items.
Rising corn prices are a very serious problem for several reasons. First, corn is used ubiquitously in food. From corn meal, corn muffins, high-fructose corn syrup, to corn fed beef and poultry raised on corn. There are thousands of food and feed products that are derived from corn. Second, food prices in the US set the tone for food prices elsewhere. That is because the US is a major trader in food. It both exports and imports huge quantities of food and feed, and its demands and prices have global implications. Trends in the US affect what farmers around the world grow.
And last but not least, growing food in the modern world is an energy-losing proposition. It currently takes 4-10 calories of fossil fuel energy to grow one calorie of food. If that sounds confusing, let's put it this way: we need to put in more energy than we get out. When it comes to feeding humans you could make a plausible argument to defend this practice. But when you are trying to grow fuel and you use more fuel than you get out, something is amiss.
That energy we put in is in the form of petroleum-derived pesticides and fertilizers. But it is also in oil-driven irrigation, spraying, farm equipment, harvesting, transport, and processing. For a highly processed item such as ketchup, the energy put in may be close to 100 to 1. For ethanol production it is around 4-to-1. But even 4-to-1 is bad. Very bad. If you paid me $4 for every $1 I give you back, what would you think ? No system working on such principle can persist for very long. And when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases, you better forget it. More greenhouse gases are produced than are saved. The net is a big loss. A fourfold loss at best !
And when it comes to agricultural land, we are already close to break-even. By 2025 we will need all the land we have to feed our own people. The new biofuel bill will only expedite this outcome. And that means that not only will we lose our $40 billion in export revenues, but the world will lose a source of food. And most Western industrialized countries already import part of their needed food. Japan imports over half, and the UK imports nearly 30%. Surely they will not go starving without a fight. The whole biofuel hoax is doing nothing more than wasting more energy and setting us up for a big fight with developing nations such as India and China.
Food prices around the world are skyrocketing. While that may make Americans grumpy and cause them to cut their discretionary (read wasteful) spending just a bit, the same cannot be said for people who are poor to begin with. They actually starve to death. If not directly through lack of protein or calories, then indirectly through wasting with increased susceptibility to disease. In some cases, wars and genocide due to competition for scarce resources will accelerate the process.
The new bill in Congress is about to make things a lot worse. But then again, it is intensely pleasing to the Iowa farmer and we are about to enter an election year. It also sounds really good. We are reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Given that we probably waste half the oil we buy and that we only import half, the easy solution would be to consume less. If we all drove sensible cars, and drove less our energy dependence would cease to exist. But the issue of mideast oil is more "complex" than that. Not only do we want it, we also want to prevent others from getting it. And what better way to do that than to use it ourselves? But, let's go back to biofuels for now.
The new bill would increase the mandate for renewable fuels to a striking 36 billion gallons by 2022. Some would be made from waste or byproducts of corn. But nearly half or fifteen billion gallons will be made from edible corn. That is sure to accomplish two things: one, farmers will grow more corn and two, corn prices will skyrocket. Both are already happening. It will just get worse. Corn prices doubled in the last few years. And so did the price of other food items.
Rising corn prices are a very serious problem for several reasons. First, corn is used ubiquitously in food. From corn meal, corn muffins, high-fructose corn syrup, to corn fed beef and poultry raised on corn. There are thousands of food and feed products that are derived from corn. Second, food prices in the US set the tone for food prices elsewhere. That is because the US is a major trader in food. It both exports and imports huge quantities of food and feed, and its demands and prices have global implications. Trends in the US affect what farmers around the world grow.
And last but not least, growing food in the modern world is an energy-losing proposition. It currently takes 4-10 calories of fossil fuel energy to grow one calorie of food. If that sounds confusing, let's put it this way: we need to put in more energy than we get out. When it comes to feeding humans you could make a plausible argument to defend this practice. But when you are trying to grow fuel and you use more fuel than you get out, something is amiss.
That energy we put in is in the form of petroleum-derived pesticides and fertilizers. But it is also in oil-driven irrigation, spraying, farm equipment, harvesting, transport, and processing. For a highly processed item such as ketchup, the energy put in may be close to 100 to 1. For ethanol production it is around 4-to-1. But even 4-to-1 is bad. Very bad. If you paid me $4 for every $1 I give you back, what would you think ? No system working on such principle can persist for very long. And when it comes to reducing greenhouse gases, you better forget it. More greenhouse gases are produced than are saved. The net is a big loss. A fourfold loss at best !
And when it comes to agricultural land, we are already close to break-even. By 2025 we will need all the land we have to feed our own people. The new biofuel bill will only expedite this outcome. And that means that not only will we lose our $40 billion in export revenues, but the world will lose a source of food. And most Western industrialized countries already import part of their needed food. Japan imports over half, and the UK imports nearly 30%. Surely they will not go starving without a fight. The whole biofuel hoax is doing nothing more than wasting more energy and setting us up for a big fight with developing nations such as India and China.
Monday, December 17, 2007
bird flu
You probably forgot about the bird flu. There is little visible evidence of it, especially here. It is no longer front page news, so why bother? Shouldn't we worry about the subprime meltdown and the stagnating economy? Just like it is hard to think about dire consequences of global warming during an ice-storm, it is hard to think about bird flu when there are no cases. These things may be invisible but they have not gone away. Both are increasingly likely as the population expands and becomes more mobile. And the "economy" plays a key role in the spread of both.
The US economy is driven by consumer spending. Fully two thirds of it depends on unnecessary and wasteful spending. Economists call this type of waste discretionary spending. It just sounds better. Discretionary spending spits out millions of metric tons of CO2 each year. It slowly accumulates, largely unnoticed. But it may turn our beloved planet into another Venus before long.
Discretionary spending in the US is crucial not just for US retailers, but for the millions of Chinese, Taiwanese, and other Asian widget manufacturers. It relies on global trade and shipping of goods. And since the great plague of 1499, we all know that such trade carries unwanted stowaways. But discretionary spending also feeds an even more efficient method to spread disease: airline travel. That next flight could be far more damaging than the ones that hit the world trade center.
Flying is not just bad for the environment, it will be the enabler and main conduit for a global pandemic. And when it comes to pandemics, all experts agree it is no longer a matter of "if," but "when." Sooner or later, a killer respiratory virus will emerge. It could be a variant of the current H5N1 that is quietly chugging along in bird stocks. But it need not be. H5N1 has almost all the needed properties, except one: it does not transmit efficiently from one person to another. You could say, so what, if you don't have that you are like a car without wheels. True, but while the car will never develop wheels to solve its problem, viruses do mutate and acquire new traits. And they do so very rapidly.
Ironically enough, one problem could "solve" another. Or at least delay it significantly. Because, unlike wars, diseases do kill large numbers of people. And unlike endemic flu, epidemics and pandemics kill the younger, more vigorous ones. The ones with the best consumptive and reproductive potential. The ones who can mount a serious immune response. Because, unlike what you may think, it is the immune response that kills in these cases.
What is especially bothersome is that a second killer wave due to bacterial super-infection could also re-appear. Bacterial super-infection played a big role in the flu of 1918, when no antibiotics were available. Even though we now have antibiotics, our over-exploitation of them has caused widespread resistance. We are quickly heading back to a pre-antibiotic condition.
Because, once again, we over-indulged ourselves. Driven mostly by the desire to make a quick profit, antibiotics were over-prescribed. And they weren't just over-prescribed to humans. Soon enough people discovered they could grow more and bigger cattle if they mixed antibiotics into the feed. But guess what? The bugs did not disappear, they just mutated and became resistant. It is called evolution. You may not believe in it, but you can see it every time you read a headline about MRSA, or "flesh-eating" strep.
But why worry? These are isolated cases happening in immune suppressed people, and they do not spread. So, it is a small price to pay for some extra beef. Or is it ? These superbugs don't matter much until you get a full blown pandemic. Only then are conditions ripe for the perfect storm. And only then is it time to pay the piper.
The US economy is driven by consumer spending. Fully two thirds of it depends on unnecessary and wasteful spending. Economists call this type of waste discretionary spending. It just sounds better. Discretionary spending spits out millions of metric tons of CO2 each year. It slowly accumulates, largely unnoticed. But it may turn our beloved planet into another Venus before long.
Discretionary spending in the US is crucial not just for US retailers, but for the millions of Chinese, Taiwanese, and other Asian widget manufacturers. It relies on global trade and shipping of goods. And since the great plague of 1499, we all know that such trade carries unwanted stowaways. But discretionary spending also feeds an even more efficient method to spread disease: airline travel. That next flight could be far more damaging than the ones that hit the world trade center.
Flying is not just bad for the environment, it will be the enabler and main conduit for a global pandemic. And when it comes to pandemics, all experts agree it is no longer a matter of "if," but "when." Sooner or later, a killer respiratory virus will emerge. It could be a variant of the current H5N1 that is quietly chugging along in bird stocks. But it need not be. H5N1 has almost all the needed properties, except one: it does not transmit efficiently from one person to another. You could say, so what, if you don't have that you are like a car without wheels. True, but while the car will never develop wheels to solve its problem, viruses do mutate and acquire new traits. And they do so very rapidly.
Ironically enough, one problem could "solve" another. Or at least delay it significantly. Because, unlike wars, diseases do kill large numbers of people. And unlike endemic flu, epidemics and pandemics kill the younger, more vigorous ones. The ones with the best consumptive and reproductive potential. The ones who can mount a serious immune response. Because, unlike what you may think, it is the immune response that kills in these cases.
What is especially bothersome is that a second killer wave due to bacterial super-infection could also re-appear. Bacterial super-infection played a big role in the flu of 1918, when no antibiotics were available. Even though we now have antibiotics, our over-exploitation of them has caused widespread resistance. We are quickly heading back to a pre-antibiotic condition.
Because, once again, we over-indulged ourselves. Driven mostly by the desire to make a quick profit, antibiotics were over-prescribed. And they weren't just over-prescribed to humans. Soon enough people discovered they could grow more and bigger cattle if they mixed antibiotics into the feed. But guess what? The bugs did not disappear, they just mutated and became resistant. It is called evolution. You may not believe in it, but you can see it every time you read a headline about MRSA, or "flesh-eating" strep.
But why worry? These are isolated cases happening in immune suppressed people, and they do not spread. So, it is a small price to pay for some extra beef. Or is it ? These superbugs don't matter much until you get a full blown pandemic. Only then are conditions ripe for the perfect storm. And only then is it time to pay the piper.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
carbon economy
In 1997, US carbon emissions stood at 1480 metric tons per year. Of that total 480 million tons was caused by transportation alone. Transportation is something we as consumers can easily influence. Our everyday behavior can make a big dent here as was shown by a pronounced dip in emission at the end of the 1970's and early 80's. That is when the first energy crisis hit. During that time gas was expensive and it was sometimes hard to get. And it had a direct impact on our behavior. Carbon emissions dropped by almost 25%. Since 1983, and despite new clean technology, carbon emissions in the US have risen 25%. We are back to square one.
There are three easy things you can do to affect emissions from transportation. One, you can drive less. Two, you can buy locally grown food. Both of these are good for your health too. And they would go a long way to cure the obesity epidemic everyone is talking about.
Three, you can buy American goods. That is the patriotic thing to do.
There are also things you can do that look good but amount to nothing. These are often highlighted in commercials, because they all involve buying new things. And the most visible is to buy an oversized hybrid. If you are doing it to look good and impress the neighbors, go ahead and get that hybrid SUV or hybrid luxury sedan. If you are environmentally conscious, don't bother. You'd be better of buying a small car.
The remaining 1,000 million metric tons are only partly and indirectly under our control. About half is due to industrial emissions and it will probably take tough legislation to change things here. That means don't hold your breath. Much of the industrial output goes to other countries, especially developing nations that have a nearly endless appetite for durable goods. But to pay for those goods they need hard currency and that they get through exporting cheap consumer items that we eagerly pick up. Every Chinese gadget and toy you buy directly supports this machine. But it is hard to resist cheap shiny trinkets.
The final 520 million metric tons are split between residential at 300 million, and commercial at 220. Residential is theoretically easy to influence. In practice though it is deeply imbedded in habits and changing habits is a tough thing to do. That is what New Year's resolutions are all about and we all know what that means.
Additionally, we have also cast our habits in stone, or at least in buildings that we are stuck with for a life-time. These buildings, or houses are by all measures over-sized and wasteful, but unlike vehicles, they are much harder to change out. Houses last a long time.
So we need to resort to the following. Lower the thermostats. Turn off the lights and appliances when you don't use them. Unplug those that have stand-by modes. Don't buy new items with stand-by modes. PG&E in California is running a campaign to get rid off stand-by modes. It is a smart idea.
Try to live without battery operated gadgets. You really do not need a GPS to drive around your neighborhood, and the few times you go somewhere else, take a map. You won't have to listen to that annoying voice either.
Limit the use of unnecessary items such as hair dryers, space heaters, and especially clothes dryers. Use solar energy or -in winter- hang your clothes in a heated garage, basement or utility room. Your clothes will look better and last longer too. This is the cheapest form of solar energy. No upfront costs other than a laundry line, and immediate substantial payback. This could save you hundreds of dollars each year.
If you still think we humans are too puny to affect the global environment, consider this. Of the 1,480 million metric tons of CO2 we produce each and every year, only about 1/3 can be reabsorbed by ALL the forests in the US. The remaining 2/3's enter the atmosphere and stay there. You can say we rely on forests elsewhere to capture the excess. But so does everyone else. And the result is obvious. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising steadily in the last 50 years. It is time to do something about it before it is too late.
There are three easy things you can do to affect emissions from transportation. One, you can drive less. Two, you can buy locally grown food. Both of these are good for your health too. And they would go a long way to cure the obesity epidemic everyone is talking about.
Three, you can buy American goods. That is the patriotic thing to do.
There are also things you can do that look good but amount to nothing. These are often highlighted in commercials, because they all involve buying new things. And the most visible is to buy an oversized hybrid. If you are doing it to look good and impress the neighbors, go ahead and get that hybrid SUV or hybrid luxury sedan. If you are environmentally conscious, don't bother. You'd be better of buying a small car.
The remaining 1,000 million metric tons are only partly and indirectly under our control. About half is due to industrial emissions and it will probably take tough legislation to change things here. That means don't hold your breath. Much of the industrial output goes to other countries, especially developing nations that have a nearly endless appetite for durable goods. But to pay for those goods they need hard currency and that they get through exporting cheap consumer items that we eagerly pick up. Every Chinese gadget and toy you buy directly supports this machine. But it is hard to resist cheap shiny trinkets.
The final 520 million metric tons are split between residential at 300 million, and commercial at 220. Residential is theoretically easy to influence. In practice though it is deeply imbedded in habits and changing habits is a tough thing to do. That is what New Year's resolutions are all about and we all know what that means.
Additionally, we have also cast our habits in stone, or at least in buildings that we are stuck with for a life-time. These buildings, or houses are by all measures over-sized and wasteful, but unlike vehicles, they are much harder to change out. Houses last a long time.
So we need to resort to the following. Lower the thermostats. Turn off the lights and appliances when you don't use them. Unplug those that have stand-by modes. Don't buy new items with stand-by modes. PG&E in California is running a campaign to get rid off stand-by modes. It is a smart idea.
Try to live without battery operated gadgets. You really do not need a GPS to drive around your neighborhood, and the few times you go somewhere else, take a map. You won't have to listen to that annoying voice either.
Limit the use of unnecessary items such as hair dryers, space heaters, and especially clothes dryers. Use solar energy or -in winter- hang your clothes in a heated garage, basement or utility room. Your clothes will look better and last longer too. This is the cheapest form of solar energy. No upfront costs other than a laundry line, and immediate substantial payback. This could save you hundreds of dollars each year.
If you still think we humans are too puny to affect the global environment, consider this. Of the 1,480 million metric tons of CO2 we produce each and every year, only about 1/3 can be reabsorbed by ALL the forests in the US. The remaining 2/3's enter the atmosphere and stay there. You can say we rely on forests elsewhere to capture the excess. But so does everyone else. And the result is obvious. Carbon dioxide levels have been rising steadily in the last 50 years. It is time to do something about it before it is too late.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
more useful numbers
While the international community holds climate change meetings to decide when to have more meetings, you should know there is something you can do about climate change. Climate change is in our hands. If we don't consume the problem will get better. You may shrug at passing up cheaper oil. You may argue that it is a dumb idea to conserve since you are letting your neighbor get away with more cheap oil, but what is your neighbor really doing with that cheap oil? Buying another hummer? How many hummers does one need to convince everyone what a tough man you are -or think you are? And how many rooms can you add to your house before you get lost in it?
In the previous post I showed how we generate one pound of CO2 for every mile driven. It is an estimate. You use less if you drive a sensible car, but much more if you drive a pickup truck, an overweight luxury sedan, or an SUV. Even if that luxury sedan or SUV is a hybrid. Please don't fall for that kind of stuff. Hybrid means very little for a 5,000 pound car. As for the very rich, what can I say? Showing off is their way of life so there is little hope for them.
You add a pound of CO2 for every mile you drive, so you may wonder how long it takes for that CO2 to be reabsorbed? The numbers should give you further pause. CO2 is absorbed by several means but plants are a key means. And plants are easy to visualize. Just like we converted all different energy sources, electricity, gas, oil, coal, wood, to CO2, we can convert absorption to numbers of trees. An average tree absorbs 1,100 kg or 2,425 pounds of CO2 in 100 years. Yes you read it right, in a 100 years. Or 100 trees for one year. Averages work better here because any one tree's absorption varies a lot. Young and very old trees are less efficient, and in winter trees are resting and absorb very little CO2. But it is the averages that matter.
The average tree can take up 24.25 pounds a year. Let's make it 25 for ease of calculation. That means that if you drive 25 miles a day, it will take 365 trees to absorb that CO2 in one day. 365 trees is more than 1.25 acres of trees at average spacing. The mean commute distance in the US is 32 miles round trip. That would take about 467 trees, or about two acres of trees to offset. That is right, your daily commute needs two acres of trees to offset the CO2 produced.
There are varying estimates as to how many Americans drive each and every day, but according to ABC news there are 220 million of us driving that distance. Let's make it 200 million since a few share the ride. That would translate into 400 million acres of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by our cars alone. According to the USDA the US has 503 million acres of forested land. You need to read USDA definitions carefully, because they include some lands as forest-use that are not really covered in trees. In any case, another 100 million here or there isn't going to make much difference, especially since the USDA earmarks quite a bit of these forests for "use," meaning harvesting of trees. That is right, they want to cut them down, sell them, and eventually burn them.
So not only are we topping out on trees needed for absorption, we are planning to remove a substantial number of those and releasing their carbon back to the atmosphere.
One thing you quickly notice when you read all these reports is how everyone earmarks everything for their own special uses. It is like using money over and over again. It is something my kids are very fond of. They want to use that $20 they got from grandma to buy ice-cream. And then they want to use it again to go to a movie. And then again to buy toys. It seems our government thinks the same way. Maybe it is time to get some adult supervision in Washington.
In the previous post I showed how we generate one pound of CO2 for every mile driven. It is an estimate. You use less if you drive a sensible car, but much more if you drive a pickup truck, an overweight luxury sedan, or an SUV. Even if that luxury sedan or SUV is a hybrid. Please don't fall for that kind of stuff. Hybrid means very little for a 5,000 pound car. As for the very rich, what can I say? Showing off is their way of life so there is little hope for them.
You add a pound of CO2 for every mile you drive, so you may wonder how long it takes for that CO2 to be reabsorbed? The numbers should give you further pause. CO2 is absorbed by several means but plants are a key means. And plants are easy to visualize. Just like we converted all different energy sources, electricity, gas, oil, coal, wood, to CO2, we can convert absorption to numbers of trees. An average tree absorbs 1,100 kg or 2,425 pounds of CO2 in 100 years. Yes you read it right, in a 100 years. Or 100 trees for one year. Averages work better here because any one tree's absorption varies a lot. Young and very old trees are less efficient, and in winter trees are resting and absorb very little CO2. But it is the averages that matter.
The average tree can take up 24.25 pounds a year. Let's make it 25 for ease of calculation. That means that if you drive 25 miles a day, it will take 365 trees to absorb that CO2 in one day. 365 trees is more than 1.25 acres of trees at average spacing. The mean commute distance in the US is 32 miles round trip. That would take about 467 trees, or about two acres of trees to offset. That is right, your daily commute needs two acres of trees to offset the CO2 produced.
There are varying estimates as to how many Americans drive each and every day, but according to ABC news there are 220 million of us driving that distance. Let's make it 200 million since a few share the ride. That would translate into 400 million acres of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide produced by our cars alone. According to the USDA the US has 503 million acres of forested land. You need to read USDA definitions carefully, because they include some lands as forest-use that are not really covered in trees. In any case, another 100 million here or there isn't going to make much difference, especially since the USDA earmarks quite a bit of these forests for "use," meaning harvesting of trees. That is right, they want to cut them down, sell them, and eventually burn them.
So not only are we topping out on trees needed for absorption, we are planning to remove a substantial number of those and releasing their carbon back to the atmosphere.
One thing you quickly notice when you read all these reports is how everyone earmarks everything for their own special uses. It is like using money over and over again. It is something my kids are very fond of. They want to use that $20 they got from grandma to buy ice-cream. And then they want to use it again to go to a movie. And then again to buy toys. It seems our government thinks the same way. Maybe it is time to get some adult supervision in Washington.
Friday, December 14, 2007
numbers you should know
Do you want to have some idea about your carbon footprint? You can look at your energy bills but most people do not have all those in one place. Furthermore there are often many sources of energy that we use and all are billed by different parties. And to make it even more complicated, all are expressed in different units that are often quite confusing.
There are numerous online calculators that can estimate your energy use and your CO2 production, but after you try one of these you wonder, what do I do now ? Or maybe you just don't care. But just in case, here are some practical guidelines based on common averages. If you keep these in mind you can really watch what you do day to day. And that can make a difference.
Electricity it turns out is one of the easiest to remember. It is expressed in kWh or kilowatt-hours. A kilo watt is 1,000 watts and a kWh is anything using 1,000W that stays on for a full hour. Nearly all electrical devices have stickers with power ratings expressed in W. It will read something like 120V, 60Hz, and 100W. The W is the important number.
And here is an easy rule of thumb that is both handy and reasonably accurate. Every 100W device that stays on for 24 hours uses 2.4 kWh. If it stays on all year that will cost you about $100 per year. On average it will also produce 1,100 pounds of CO2 per year -more if you have dirty coal-based electricity and less if your power company uses solar or wind.
100W = 1,100 pounds/year
or
$1 spent on electric = 11 pounds
Every gallon of gas for your car produces 20 pounds of CO2 and if you have a 15 gallon tank, that is 300 pounds per fill-up. If you gas up once a week that will total 15,600 pounds of CO2 per year. That is equivalent to nearly 1500W of electric power or an electric space heater or hair dryer running 24h per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
If your car gets 20 mpg -the average US passenger car gets 21.5 mpg- then you produce one pound of CO2 for every mile you drive. The average passenger car in the US, driven for the average distance produces 11,500 pounds. The "average" light truck produces 16,000 pounds.
CAR = 1 pound/mile
Natural gas is usually expressed in Therms on your bill. A therm is 100,000 Btu. Burning a therm of natural gas produces roughly 12 pounds of CO2. If you use 0.5 therm per day you will spit out almost 2,200 pounds of CO2 per year. 0.5 therms per day is common for households with a water heater and a gas range.
WATER HEATER = 2,000 pounds/year
Propane is just a bit dirtier than natural gas. It produces 14 pounds of CO2 per therm. So for the same amount of heating you would be producing 2,555 pounds of CO2. Fuel oil is even dirtier. It produces 16 pounds per therm. For equivalent heating, fuel oil produces almost 3,000 pounds of CO2.
But the worst offenders are the cozy, heart-warming fire-places burning wood. Or barbecues using charcoal. Wood produces 3,814 pounds of CO2 per short ton (2,000 pounds). That is 22.2 pounds per therm. That is just slightly better than coal at 22.7 pounds per therm. Burning municipal solid waste is slightly less dirty at about 19 pounds per therm.
WOOD = 1.9 pounds per pound
(if you wonder how 1 pound can produce 1.9 pounds, don't forget that you add oxygen from the air when you burn something. Oxygen is heavier than carbon)
These guidelines only express CO2 produced, not total pollution. Apart from CO2, burning fossil fuels also produce other pollutants. Some of these are gaseous and others are particles. And once again, coal and wood are some of the dirtiest fuels you can use.
Some might argue that wood is better because you are just releasing carbon that was captured from the atmosphere recently, not carbon that was stored millions of years ago. The same argument is often used for other ethanol and other biofuels. This is a feel-good argument that is largely irrelevant however. What matters is how much absolute CO2 we produce, not how efficient we are.
There are numerous online calculators that can estimate your energy use and your CO2 production, but after you try one of these you wonder, what do I do now ? Or maybe you just don't care. But just in case, here are some practical guidelines based on common averages. If you keep these in mind you can really watch what you do day to day. And that can make a difference.
Electricity it turns out is one of the easiest to remember. It is expressed in kWh or kilowatt-hours. A kilo watt is 1,000 watts and a kWh is anything using 1,000W that stays on for a full hour. Nearly all electrical devices have stickers with power ratings expressed in W. It will read something like 120V, 60Hz, and 100W. The W is the important number.
And here is an easy rule of thumb that is both handy and reasonably accurate. Every 100W device that stays on for 24 hours uses 2.4 kWh. If it stays on all year that will cost you about $100 per year. On average it will also produce 1,100 pounds of CO2 per year -more if you have dirty coal-based electricity and less if your power company uses solar or wind.
100W = 1,100 pounds/year
or
$1 spent on electric = 11 pounds
Every gallon of gas for your car produces 20 pounds of CO2 and if you have a 15 gallon tank, that is 300 pounds per fill-up. If you gas up once a week that will total 15,600 pounds of CO2 per year. That is equivalent to nearly 1500W of electric power or an electric space heater or hair dryer running 24h per day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
If your car gets 20 mpg -the average US passenger car gets 21.5 mpg- then you produce one pound of CO2 for every mile you drive. The average passenger car in the US, driven for the average distance produces 11,500 pounds. The "average" light truck produces 16,000 pounds.
CAR = 1 pound/mile
Natural gas is usually expressed in Therms on your bill. A therm is 100,000 Btu. Burning a therm of natural gas produces roughly 12 pounds of CO2. If you use 0.5 therm per day you will spit out almost 2,200 pounds of CO2 per year. 0.5 therms per day is common for households with a water heater and a gas range.
WATER HEATER = 2,000 pounds/year
Propane is just a bit dirtier than natural gas. It produces 14 pounds of CO2 per therm. So for the same amount of heating you would be producing 2,555 pounds of CO2. Fuel oil is even dirtier. It produces 16 pounds per therm. For equivalent heating, fuel oil produces almost 3,000 pounds of CO2.
But the worst offenders are the cozy, heart-warming fire-places burning wood. Or barbecues using charcoal. Wood produces 3,814 pounds of CO2 per short ton (2,000 pounds). That is 22.2 pounds per therm. That is just slightly better than coal at 22.7 pounds per therm. Burning municipal solid waste is slightly less dirty at about 19 pounds per therm.
WOOD = 1.9 pounds per pound
(if you wonder how 1 pound can produce 1.9 pounds, don't forget that you add oxygen from the air when you burn something. Oxygen is heavier than carbon)
These guidelines only express CO2 produced, not total pollution. Apart from CO2, burning fossil fuels also produce other pollutants. Some of these are gaseous and others are particles. And once again, coal and wood are some of the dirtiest fuels you can use.
Some might argue that wood is better because you are just releasing carbon that was captured from the atmosphere recently, not carbon that was stored millions of years ago. The same argument is often used for other ethanol and other biofuels. This is a feel-good argument that is largely irrelevant however. What matters is how much absolute CO2 we produce, not how efficient we are.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
high definition energy guzzling
Several important news stories appeared in the last few days. Yesterday I saw a news report on California's new emission rules where many people voiced support for tougher legislation while standing in front of big SUV's and pickup trucks. I kept thinking the reporter should say, look around buddy. If you drove a smaller, more sensible and more practical vehicle, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But at least the consumer wanted to do something. The big car makers and their unions do not.
And then the Wall Street Journal, in an article about Saudi oil use, confirmed what we all know. Higher prices mean less consumption. Our Saudi friends, having the cheapest energy on the planet, are wasting it like there is no tomorrow. The saudis consume more than 32 barrels of oil per person per year. 60% of it goes to always-on air conditioning.
We "only" consume 25 per person per year. But there are 300 million of us versus only 24 of them. Yet they have grown from under 8 million to 24 in 30 years. And apparently there is no end in sight. Scary stuff!
But let's forget the Saudi's for a while and focus on the holiday spirit. That spirit is bringing another energy hog into our lives this Christmas. The monster HDTV. And how did we get there? Once again a familiar scenario played out. First people moved to replace old energy inefficient CRT's with newer LCD monitors. That was the good move. We went from 100W down to about 25W. It did not last long.
The move to LCD was not really fueled by energy efficiency, but more by bulk, heat, noise, etc. The energy savings were a bonus. Until someone started thinking, why not make the screens bigger and bring a movie theater into our house? We have this oversized house in any case, and all these rooms we hardly use, let's get a viewing room. And there you go. We replaced or are about to replace an item that consumed about 100W of energy with an item that uses in excess of 500W. That is what a large plasma screen uses. LCD's are a bit better and projection TV's better still, but even those exceed 100W rather handily. But HD doesn't stop there.
To view HD programs we need a box. Be it a cable box or a satellite box, take a look at the back. Chances are it too uses more than 100W up from 25W for earlier versions. Especially if it includes at DVR or TiVo. And that box stays on all day and all night. You can hear the disk spinning when it is off. So, whether on or "off" it consumes about the same amount of power. You may have noticed that off is acquiring a whole new meaning. It does not mean off like it used to. It means "ready to pounce the instant you need me." 100W around the clock is 2.4kW per day, versus 25W at 5 hours, or 125Wh. A 19-fold jump.
And what would an HDTV be without some form of audio amplification and surround sound? And there goes another 500W easily. And these devices too prefer to be on the ready. Ever touch one of these amps when they are off? Like radioactive materials, they are hot at all times of the day or night. Their consumption may drop a bit, but once again you are adding 19 extra hours of burn.
All this excess costs money of course. Every round the clock 100W you add costs you roughly $100 per year. And it adds on average about 1,100 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Let's do a little back of the envelope calculation here. Say you replace your old 28 inch box with cable with a new 60 inch plasma with HD receiver and surround sound with subwoofer. Here are some rough numbers, assuming your TV stays on for 5 hours a day as is apparently the average use.
Your old set and box used about 625 Wh per day or about 228 kWh per year. At 12c per kWh that is $27 per year. And at 1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh that is 305 pounds of CO2.
Your new setup probably uses as much as 1,250W for the big screen, HD box, amplifier and subwoofer. That is 6.25kWh per day or ten times as much. The yearly cost is now $270 per year and you are emitting 3,050 lbs of CO2 to "enjoy" it.
But in reality the costs are MUCH higher. If your setup is in sleep mode or standby mode, the costs could be hundreds of dollars more. The cable box alone could cost you $120 per year, because DVR boxes use almost as much energy when they are off as they do when they are on. Instrument companies could save money by removing the switches because these really do not matter.
The real costs are more like $350 or about $1 a day. And that probably makes you laugh. What is $1 a day after all? Surely you deserve this much entertainment? Unfortunately it all adds up. To say nothing of pollution. Your home theater is now producing almost half as much CO2 as an average passenger car. Or a third as much as a light pickup truck.
And then the Wall Street Journal, in an article about Saudi oil use, confirmed what we all know. Higher prices mean less consumption. Our Saudi friends, having the cheapest energy on the planet, are wasting it like there is no tomorrow. The saudis consume more than 32 barrels of oil per person per year. 60% of it goes to always-on air conditioning.
We "only" consume 25 per person per year. But there are 300 million of us versus only 24 of them. Yet they have grown from under 8 million to 24 in 30 years. And apparently there is no end in sight. Scary stuff!
But let's forget the Saudi's for a while and focus on the holiday spirit. That spirit is bringing another energy hog into our lives this Christmas. The monster HDTV. And how did we get there? Once again a familiar scenario played out. First people moved to replace old energy inefficient CRT's with newer LCD monitors. That was the good move. We went from 100W down to about 25W. It did not last long.
The move to LCD was not really fueled by energy efficiency, but more by bulk, heat, noise, etc. The energy savings were a bonus. Until someone started thinking, why not make the screens bigger and bring a movie theater into our house? We have this oversized house in any case, and all these rooms we hardly use, let's get a viewing room. And there you go. We replaced or are about to replace an item that consumed about 100W of energy with an item that uses in excess of 500W. That is what a large plasma screen uses. LCD's are a bit better and projection TV's better still, but even those exceed 100W rather handily. But HD doesn't stop there.
To view HD programs we need a box. Be it a cable box or a satellite box, take a look at the back. Chances are it too uses more than 100W up from 25W for earlier versions. Especially if it includes at DVR or TiVo. And that box stays on all day and all night. You can hear the disk spinning when it is off. So, whether on or "off" it consumes about the same amount of power. You may have noticed that off is acquiring a whole new meaning. It does not mean off like it used to. It means "ready to pounce the instant you need me." 100W around the clock is 2.4kW per day, versus 25W at 5 hours, or 125Wh. A 19-fold jump.
And what would an HDTV be without some form of audio amplification and surround sound? And there goes another 500W easily. And these devices too prefer to be on the ready. Ever touch one of these amps when they are off? Like radioactive materials, they are hot at all times of the day or night. Their consumption may drop a bit, but once again you are adding 19 extra hours of burn.
All this excess costs money of course. Every round the clock 100W you add costs you roughly $100 per year. And it adds on average about 1,100 pounds of CO2 to the atmosphere.
Let's do a little back of the envelope calculation here. Say you replace your old 28 inch box with cable with a new 60 inch plasma with HD receiver and surround sound with subwoofer. Here are some rough numbers, assuming your TV stays on for 5 hours a day as is apparently the average use.
Your old set and box used about 625 Wh per day or about 228 kWh per year. At 12c per kWh that is $27 per year. And at 1.34 lbs of CO2 per kWh that is 305 pounds of CO2.
Your new setup probably uses as much as 1,250W for the big screen, HD box, amplifier and subwoofer. That is 6.25kWh per day or ten times as much. The yearly cost is now $270 per year and you are emitting 3,050 lbs of CO2 to "enjoy" it.
But in reality the costs are MUCH higher. If your setup is in sleep mode or standby mode, the costs could be hundreds of dollars more. The cable box alone could cost you $120 per year, because DVR boxes use almost as much energy when they are off as they do when they are on. Instrument companies could save money by removing the switches because these really do not matter.
The real costs are more like $350 or about $1 a day. And that probably makes you laugh. What is $1 a day after all? Surely you deserve this much entertainment? Unfortunately it all adds up. To say nothing of pollution. Your home theater is now producing almost half as much CO2 as an average passenger car. Or a third as much as a light pickup truck.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
arguing about climate
Recent data show that the Arctic Ice is melting faster than previously thought. If the current trend persists the Arctic could be free of ice in summer as soon as 2013, or some five and a half years from now. The previous estimate wasn't much better in the scheme of things, putting the first occurrence in 2040, but it makes a difference. That difference is 27 years, hardly worth mentioning, yet it may turn out to be quite pivotal for a number of reasons.
First off, 27 years is a long time for humans, and it is well beyond the attention span of a nation like the US. Second, and perhaps quite a bit more important for most decision makers of today, 27 years is outside their window of interest. The majority of these people are baby boomers pushing 60 and 27 years is longer than their remaining life-expectancy. Six years is not. Thirdly, and this is the most critical, it appears that our predictions are off and that trends are accelerating. That means we may be further along our heating curve than we previously thought.
When the Arctic Ice melts it is predicted to set in motion another serious acceleration of trends. The ice normally reflects up to 80% of the sunlight striking it, and when it is not there, much additional heat gets absorbed. In this case, the replacement of shiny ice with nearly black sea water that absorbs better than 90% is about as bad as it gets. You can rest assured that this will be the topic of much debate. And if by some statistical fluctuation, the melt does not materialize in 2013, the naysayers may gain an important political victory.
Unfortunately, climate change is but one symptom of a much larger problem. And that problem is the rapidly growing world population. And the even more rapidly growing appetite of that population to live a grand life. And given our advanced technology and the vast reserves of accessible energy, that population is free to increase its largely irrational and wasteful consumption. Such consumption is usually called the standard of living. It sounds much better and quite a bit more encouraging to raise your standard of living than to be wasteful and irresponsible.
First off, 27 years is a long time for humans, and it is well beyond the attention span of a nation like the US. Second, and perhaps quite a bit more important for most decision makers of today, 27 years is outside their window of interest. The majority of these people are baby boomers pushing 60 and 27 years is longer than their remaining life-expectancy. Six years is not. Thirdly, and this is the most critical, it appears that our predictions are off and that trends are accelerating. That means we may be further along our heating curve than we previously thought.
When the Arctic Ice melts it is predicted to set in motion another serious acceleration of trends. The ice normally reflects up to 80% of the sunlight striking it, and when it is not there, much additional heat gets absorbed. In this case, the replacement of shiny ice with nearly black sea water that absorbs better than 90% is about as bad as it gets. You can rest assured that this will be the topic of much debate. And if by some statistical fluctuation, the melt does not materialize in 2013, the naysayers may gain an important political victory.
Unfortunately, climate change is but one symptom of a much larger problem. And that problem is the rapidly growing world population. And the even more rapidly growing appetite of that population to live a grand life. And given our advanced technology and the vast reserves of accessible energy, that population is free to increase its largely irrational and wasteful consumption. Such consumption is usually called the standard of living. It sounds much better and quite a bit more encouraging to raise your standard of living than to be wasteful and irresponsible.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
the trouble with evolution
Evolution is one of the most misunderstood concepts in science. Even biologists often get it wrong. Part of the blame goes to the word itself: evolution. It evokes images of moving ahead, getting better, optimization. It lends itself well to a world view that is very prevalent and reassuring. So reassuring that all major religions have adopted it. It is a view where humans stand on top of everything else as the most "evolved" species. Although the religions put us there by the act of creation and not by some act of speciation. But that is besides the point. It is the view of us on top that matters. And it is wrong of course, very wrong.
The second problem is the idea that evolution somehow stops when a new species develops. While many would disagree with this statement, it is clear that they subscribe to it. For example, they will not flinch at explaining human behavior in terms of caveman ecology. You have heard such statements before. Whenever people explain our behavior they say, this evolved because our ancestors blah blah blah. And that is silly.
Why ? Because in doing so they act as if humans, once established, became static items. It is very much the view of creationism that many scientists try to battle. Man was created and voila, here we are, to stay the same forever. And the same applies to monkeys, cats, dogs, etc. Once these develop they are forever stuck with their inheritance. Until either the end of time, or the birth of an even better species. For humans that species is often called superman. The static view is wrong too.
We are evolving every day of course, and the more of us there are the faster we evolve. Human evolution is speeding up, not slowing down. That by the way was the "shocking" conclusion of a recently published study. A study that went into PNAS, a prestigious journal. Probably because people were so amazed at these findings. But why? It is entirely logical and expected. The more humans there are, the more opportunities there are for us to change. Because every individual is a role of the dice. Every new one is different, and every one has the chance to express a new mutation, a new rearrangement, a new insertion or deletion. And every one can be the beginning of a new branch.
Let's set the record straight for a minute. Biological organisms change. They change all the time. What is so amazing is not that different species develop, but the fact that species stay species for a while. I.e. it is not the change but the fact that things stay constant enough that is remarkable. And we can only stay similar because strong forces keep us there.
Most of the changes are irrelevant and many are detrimental, but a fair number are beneficial. Not beneficial in the sense of making progress or getting better, but beneficial because they allows us to temporarily outwit the parasites. Competition is what drives evolution and competition is ever present. The microbes change and so we have to change to outwit them. That change is not directional. It goes back and forth. We change an important protein and it makes us immune to attack. But then the microbe changes or we become susceptible to new ones that can now take advantage of us, and so we have to change again. After a while we may end up where we were before. We run around in circles a lot.
This happens at all levels but it is controlled at all levels too. Controlled in a sense that changes at a lower level may not make much of difference at the next level up. One reason is that we consist of robust circuits. Robust or immune to change that is. And that part is important too. Otherwise we would never see a multi-cellular organism. But occasionally changes break through levels. These are most always detrimental. It is just the law of large numbers here.
Everything on the planet evolves all the time. All living species today are as evolved as we are by definition. You may think the tigers outlived their welcome, and that may well be possible. We are destroying their habitats and they may not recover. But we are destroying our own habitat at an even faster rate. But then again, everything alive is dying by definition. It just matters how quickly.
There are limits to what species can do, and so they invariably go extinct after some time. One way to go extinct quickly is to fully exploit your niche. Use it all up or pollute it out of existence. That is what we are doing right now. Our problem is that we are too successful. We are so good at exploiting our niche that we will outrun ourselves. At some point conditions will change abruptly and like a big aircraft carrier, we won't be able to turn around quickly enough.
The unfortunate fact for us as individuals is that our aircraft carrier is totally bloated. It is bloated with waste and overindulgence. And that makes it much more vulnerable and a lot more likely to crash much sooner than it would have to.
The second problem is the idea that evolution somehow stops when a new species develops. While many would disagree with this statement, it is clear that they subscribe to it. For example, they will not flinch at explaining human behavior in terms of caveman ecology. You have heard such statements before. Whenever people explain our behavior they say, this evolved because our ancestors blah blah blah. And that is silly.
Why ? Because in doing so they act as if humans, once established, became static items. It is very much the view of creationism that many scientists try to battle. Man was created and voila, here we are, to stay the same forever. And the same applies to monkeys, cats, dogs, etc. Once these develop they are forever stuck with their inheritance. Until either the end of time, or the birth of an even better species. For humans that species is often called superman. The static view is wrong too.
We are evolving every day of course, and the more of us there are the faster we evolve. Human evolution is speeding up, not slowing down. That by the way was the "shocking" conclusion of a recently published study. A study that went into PNAS, a prestigious journal. Probably because people were so amazed at these findings. But why? It is entirely logical and expected. The more humans there are, the more opportunities there are for us to change. Because every individual is a role of the dice. Every new one is different, and every one has the chance to express a new mutation, a new rearrangement, a new insertion or deletion. And every one can be the beginning of a new branch.
Let's set the record straight for a minute. Biological organisms change. They change all the time. What is so amazing is not that different species develop, but the fact that species stay species for a while. I.e. it is not the change but the fact that things stay constant enough that is remarkable. And we can only stay similar because strong forces keep us there.
Most of the changes are irrelevant and many are detrimental, but a fair number are beneficial. Not beneficial in the sense of making progress or getting better, but beneficial because they allows us to temporarily outwit the parasites. Competition is what drives evolution and competition is ever present. The microbes change and so we have to change to outwit them. That change is not directional. It goes back and forth. We change an important protein and it makes us immune to attack. But then the microbe changes or we become susceptible to new ones that can now take advantage of us, and so we have to change again. After a while we may end up where we were before. We run around in circles a lot.
This happens at all levels but it is controlled at all levels too. Controlled in a sense that changes at a lower level may not make much of difference at the next level up. One reason is that we consist of robust circuits. Robust or immune to change that is. And that part is important too. Otherwise we would never see a multi-cellular organism. But occasionally changes break through levels. These are most always detrimental. It is just the law of large numbers here.
Everything on the planet evolves all the time. All living species today are as evolved as we are by definition. You may think the tigers outlived their welcome, and that may well be possible. We are destroying their habitats and they may not recover. But we are destroying our own habitat at an even faster rate. But then again, everything alive is dying by definition. It just matters how quickly.
There are limits to what species can do, and so they invariably go extinct after some time. One way to go extinct quickly is to fully exploit your niche. Use it all up or pollute it out of existence. That is what we are doing right now. Our problem is that we are too successful. We are so good at exploiting our niche that we will outrun ourselves. At some point conditions will change abruptly and like a big aircraft carrier, we won't be able to turn around quickly enough.
The unfortunate fact for us as individuals is that our aircraft carrier is totally bloated. It is bloated with waste and overindulgence. And that makes it much more vulnerable and a lot more likely to crash much sooner than it would have to.
Monday, December 10, 2007
scary stuff
ExxonMobil is running ads entitled Energy Security. These ads are meant to convince us that we should be open minded when it comes to energy. Open minded in this context means we need to "keep our doors open." We need to get energy from more places. Places like Iraq. We also need to "Increase access to energy resources in our own backyard." That is corporate lingo for drilling in the Alaska Wilderness, if you didn't know. And no matter how you feel about that, it is not the really scary part. Sooner or later we will do it in any case.
The evil government -the government is always evil as you know, even though we voted it in place- is preventing access to 31 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 105 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. All of it in our backyard. And why would our government do such evil deeds ? It must be infiltrated by left-wing environmental terrorists. Or maybe aliens from outer space who are engineering our demise. Or maybe the U.N.? Or maybe they are all in it together?
Because according to ExxonMobil, with "the advanced technologies of today," we could recover all this oil and gas without damaging the environment. If you believe that you also believe in Santa Claus. But even if we managed to recover it without damage to the environment, we couldn't really use it, read burn it, without damaging the environment. But then again, regardless how you feel about that, it is not all that scary. Because that too will eventually happen.
No, it is the reassuring part of the ad that is scary. The part where ExxonMobil tries to convince us of the value of its approach. The part that reads, "Put another way, that much oil equates to over 8 years of current US crude oil imports." If eight years impresses you -as no doubt it is meant to do - think of it this way. If your doctor told you you have only eight more years to live, how would you feel ? Eight years is peanuts really. It is a blip. If eight years is all we have, we may as well forget it.
But wait, the ad is an ad, and so it engages in some subtle massaging and distortion of the facts. That is only 8 years of imports, not 8 years of use. We import only half of what we use. So four years is more like it, give or take a few months. And at present rates too, never mind the inevitable growth that ExxonMobil is preparing to "serve."
It is truly scary that we have less than five years worth of oil in our backyard. And that we feel the urgent need to exploit it now to fuel over oversized vehicles, and heat our oversized homes and otherwise waste it in excess.
It would be rather trivial for America to cut its energy use in half. And we wouldn't even have to take drastic measures. We would not even have to buy anything new or develop new "cutting-edge" technologies. All that is needed is for us to drive less, heat and cool less, and in general be sensible about life. And that doesn't mean we couldn't splurge every once in a while. But right now we are splurging each and every minute of every day. And it doesn't even bring us any enjoyment. Quite the opposite really. All we get is endless traffic delays, road rage, obesity, high blood pressure and the like.
We are this grossly overweight giant, who keeps eating and eating for no reason other than to consume more. And we all know what happens to such giants: their life-expectancy is dramatically reduced. Here is to your health, America !
The evil government -the government is always evil as you know, even though we voted it in place- is preventing access to 31 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 105 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. All of it in our backyard. And why would our government do such evil deeds ? It must be infiltrated by left-wing environmental terrorists. Or maybe aliens from outer space who are engineering our demise. Or maybe the U.N.? Or maybe they are all in it together?
Because according to ExxonMobil, with "the advanced technologies of today," we could recover all this oil and gas without damaging the environment. If you believe that you also believe in Santa Claus. But even if we managed to recover it without damage to the environment, we couldn't really use it, read burn it, without damaging the environment. But then again, regardless how you feel about that, it is not all that scary. Because that too will eventually happen.
No, it is the reassuring part of the ad that is scary. The part where ExxonMobil tries to convince us of the value of its approach. The part that reads, "Put another way, that much oil equates to over 8 years of current US crude oil imports." If eight years impresses you -as no doubt it is meant to do - think of it this way. If your doctor told you you have only eight more years to live, how would you feel ? Eight years is peanuts really. It is a blip. If eight years is all we have, we may as well forget it.
But wait, the ad is an ad, and so it engages in some subtle massaging and distortion of the facts. That is only 8 years of imports, not 8 years of use. We import only half of what we use. So four years is more like it, give or take a few months. And at present rates too, never mind the inevitable growth that ExxonMobil is preparing to "serve."
It is truly scary that we have less than five years worth of oil in our backyard. And that we feel the urgent need to exploit it now to fuel over oversized vehicles, and heat our oversized homes and otherwise waste it in excess.
It would be rather trivial for America to cut its energy use in half. And we wouldn't even have to take drastic measures. We would not even have to buy anything new or develop new "cutting-edge" technologies. All that is needed is for us to drive less, heat and cool less, and in general be sensible about life. And that doesn't mean we couldn't splurge every once in a while. But right now we are splurging each and every minute of every day. And it doesn't even bring us any enjoyment. Quite the opposite really. All we get is endless traffic delays, road rage, obesity, high blood pressure and the like.
We are this grossly overweight giant, who keeps eating and eating for no reason other than to consume more. And we all know what happens to such giants: their life-expectancy is dramatically reduced. Here is to your health, America !
Sunday, December 9, 2007
collision course
We are on a collision course with China. Yet nobody is taking any corrective action. Quite to the contrary. We keep on pouring money into China in the hopes of making a quick buck. And so far that has been a highly successful strategy. At least for those lucky enough to have an inside track. But sadly enough, we are once again funding something that we will have to deal with later on in a rather unpleasant way. Only this time it could be quite serious.
The trouble is that China is not some small middle Eastern country, or a banana republic. It is a formidable empire, whose strength is intensifying daily. It occupies a vast area that is only slightly smaller than the US, and it has well over 1.3 billion people. Its population is also younger than ours. The Chinese government can easily mobilize these people to do what ever it desires to do. And the Chinese won't flinch for a mere 3,000 casualties like we do. It won't even make headlines over there.
Although China has vast natural resources, and especially dirty coal, it needs to import many necessary items. And by increasing its standard of living it is putting undue stress on global supplies of basic materials. And that means there will be less to go around for everyone. Given what we currently know, there are not enough readily accessible resources on the planet to bring everyone up to our standard of living. Every significant step China, or India, takes will mean a step back for us.
That will not go over well. But we won't be able to bully the Chinese around like we do with Iran, Libya, Iraq, or any Latin American country that does not toe the line. Quite the opposite. The Chinese are already throwing their weight around and we are cautiously avoiding confrontation. Not because we are afraid of them (at least not yet) but because we do not want to antagonize what our businesses see as their best future growth market. Ironically enough we are locked in with the Chinese here.
From a US (or any Western) corporation's perspective, China represents a tremendous growth opportunity. And it is one of the very few left. China is where we can open millions of Starbucks, or sell millions of cars, or cellphones, or computers. Because the Chinese market is vast and it has huge unmet needs. Here, the words "unmet needs" refer to whatever the Chinese would need to come up to our standard of living. And perhaps most importantly, the Chinese consumers increasingly have the cash to buy these goodies.
But delivering the goodies will mean shortages in basic materials. And those shortages will drive up prices of everything else. But we will no longer be able to bully the supplier into giving us things for free (or nearly free). Already oil is in short supply and that drives up oil prices. We can move into the Middle East and secure our claim, but that has proven rather pricey, and so far we have seen little payback.
We also responded by looking into ethanol and that has driven up food prices everywhere. Especially in poor countries that can ill afford to pay for food. Poor countries that have lots of young adults, who are also out of work. Young adults that can quickly be converted into terrorism.
Chances are none of that has had any -or only a very minor- effect on you and me. But you can see where we are going. And it is only a matter of time before it does.
The trouble is that China is not some small middle Eastern country, or a banana republic. It is a formidable empire, whose strength is intensifying daily. It occupies a vast area that is only slightly smaller than the US, and it has well over 1.3 billion people. Its population is also younger than ours. The Chinese government can easily mobilize these people to do what ever it desires to do. And the Chinese won't flinch for a mere 3,000 casualties like we do. It won't even make headlines over there.
Although China has vast natural resources, and especially dirty coal, it needs to import many necessary items. And by increasing its standard of living it is putting undue stress on global supplies of basic materials. And that means there will be less to go around for everyone. Given what we currently know, there are not enough readily accessible resources on the planet to bring everyone up to our standard of living. Every significant step China, or India, takes will mean a step back for us.
That will not go over well. But we won't be able to bully the Chinese around like we do with Iran, Libya, Iraq, or any Latin American country that does not toe the line. Quite the opposite. The Chinese are already throwing their weight around and we are cautiously avoiding confrontation. Not because we are afraid of them (at least not yet) but because we do not want to antagonize what our businesses see as their best future growth market. Ironically enough we are locked in with the Chinese here.
From a US (or any Western) corporation's perspective, China represents a tremendous growth opportunity. And it is one of the very few left. China is where we can open millions of Starbucks, or sell millions of cars, or cellphones, or computers. Because the Chinese market is vast and it has huge unmet needs. Here, the words "unmet needs" refer to whatever the Chinese would need to come up to our standard of living. And perhaps most importantly, the Chinese consumers increasingly have the cash to buy these goodies.
But delivering the goodies will mean shortages in basic materials. And those shortages will drive up prices of everything else. But we will no longer be able to bully the supplier into giving us things for free (or nearly free). Already oil is in short supply and that drives up oil prices. We can move into the Middle East and secure our claim, but that has proven rather pricey, and so far we have seen little payback.
We also responded by looking into ethanol and that has driven up food prices everywhere. Especially in poor countries that can ill afford to pay for food. Poor countries that have lots of young adults, who are also out of work. Young adults that can quickly be converted into terrorism.
Chances are none of that has had any -or only a very minor- effect on you and me. But you can see where we are going. And it is only a matter of time before it does.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
consumer economy
Here is how the US economy works. Consumer spending accounts for seventy percent of it. Housing, health care, education, travel, restaurants and other services totaled $4.6 trillion last year. Yes, you read that right, trillion. That is a million million or a one with 12 zeros. A mere $3.6 trillion went into food, gasoline, clothing, electronics, cars, and other goods.
To keep this economic engine running, we need more consumers and more spending per consumer. The US population is growing at less than 1% a year according to the latest estimate. The exact number given by the CIA is 0.894%. There are now 301 million people here with a median age of 36.6 years. The birth rate is 14.2 per 1,000 and the net immigration 3.1 per 1,000. That means we are adding 5.19 million individuals per year. We lose 2.5 million per year. From an economic perspective this rate of growth is worrisome.
So we need to resort to the second option: spend more per consumer. And there are two good ways to do that. One is to make sure things don't last all that long and the second is called fashion. Make it so consumers will want to ditch their old stuff for fear of looking out of date. A corollary option is to add new must-have features. The latter is extensively practiced by car manufacturers who have turned cars into driving living rooms with complementary office.
Common sense would tell you that most manufacturers will quickly combine both methods. They make goods that are not meant to last so they probably skimp on quality too. Why bother if consumers will dump items within a year or two anyways. And besides, it helps profit margins. Let's take a look.
First, what do you do with durable items such as housing ? You can get some "help" from natural disasters, and the US has its fair share of those, but unless global warming really delivers on its wildest predictions, natural disasters alone won't cut it. Fortunately, the country has a high housing turnover rate. Unlike other societies, Americans are constantly on the move. They may buy their homes but they rarely stay in them longer than renters do. That is why adjustable mortgages with a short fixed interest period are so popular. Most people figure they will move before the rate adjusts. Since they rarely pay down more than a few percent of their mortgage, they are in effect renters. And government subsided renters to boot, because they get a tax break on their payments.
And every time people move, they are highly susceptible to home improvements. Most upgrade as well, that is they buy ever bigger homes and so they need to buy more goodies to fill these homes. In 2004, the market for home improvements was $271 billion according to the Home Improvement Research Institute of Tampa, Florida. It was growing at better than 6% a year at the time. Housing turnover correlates with sales of furniture, appliances, home electronics, and other home related goodies. And these have been growing rapidly too. That is what worries economists when they look at the subprime crisis. Because we have overspent a bit of late.
We need not dwell too much on cars and electronics. Everyone knows these items rarely last more than a few years. High tech is especially beneficial. With its built-in obsolescence it is an economist's dream. As for food, the trend of eating out continues in full swing. Take a look at the obesity numbers here as obesity is strongly correlated with eating out.
Health care spending is another winner and one where the US clearly excels. In 2005, it rose nearly 7% to $2 trillion, or $6,700 per person. It now represents 16% of the gross domestic product and is expected to rise to $4 trillion or 20% of GDP by 2015. Although an aging population is often blamed, a fair chunk of it goes to elective procedures. It is fashion driven. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons reports that Americans spent $15.4 billion on plastic surgery fees, facility fees, and anesthesia fees in 2006. That is almost 10% as much as the total prescription drug market.
And what may surprise you even more is that Americans spent nearly as much on pet foods, services, and medicines. And those markets are growing even faster than human healthcare. Elective procedures for pets are now commonplace in some areas of the country. And while most of it is out of pocket, pet insurance grew at 25% last year. Some employers are starting to offer pet insurance as a benefit. That while the number of uninsured Americans is at an all time high of 46.6 million.
Education is another area where Americans like to send their cash. In 2002, the US government spent $732 billion on education, directly and indirectly. That averages to nearly $7,000 for every student in elementary and secondary education. To say nothing of private money. The US joins Denmark, Iceland and South Korea in spending nearly 7% of its GDP on education.
When it comes to both healthcare and education, many would agree that despite all the money we spend, we do not seem to get very good value for it. Nearly everyone would agree our education system is lacking. When it comes to healthcare though, opinions are more divided and there is a strong feeling that we are the best in the World. Objective measures tell otherwise.
As indicated before, common sense will tell you that high turnover leads to mediocre quality. Unfortunately, it also leads to high waste and pollution. This is the price we all pay to keep our economic engine alive and well.
To keep this economic engine running, we need more consumers and more spending per consumer. The US population is growing at less than 1% a year according to the latest estimate. The exact number given by the CIA is 0.894%. There are now 301 million people here with a median age of 36.6 years. The birth rate is 14.2 per 1,000 and the net immigration 3.1 per 1,000. That means we are adding 5.19 million individuals per year. We lose 2.5 million per year. From an economic perspective this rate of growth is worrisome.
So we need to resort to the second option: spend more per consumer. And there are two good ways to do that. One is to make sure things don't last all that long and the second is called fashion. Make it so consumers will want to ditch their old stuff for fear of looking out of date. A corollary option is to add new must-have features. The latter is extensively practiced by car manufacturers who have turned cars into driving living rooms with complementary office.
Common sense would tell you that most manufacturers will quickly combine both methods. They make goods that are not meant to last so they probably skimp on quality too. Why bother if consumers will dump items within a year or two anyways. And besides, it helps profit margins. Let's take a look.
First, what do you do with durable items such as housing ? You can get some "help" from natural disasters, and the US has its fair share of those, but unless global warming really delivers on its wildest predictions, natural disasters alone won't cut it. Fortunately, the country has a high housing turnover rate. Unlike other societies, Americans are constantly on the move. They may buy their homes but they rarely stay in them longer than renters do. That is why adjustable mortgages with a short fixed interest period are so popular. Most people figure they will move before the rate adjusts. Since they rarely pay down more than a few percent of their mortgage, they are in effect renters. And government subsided renters to boot, because they get a tax break on their payments.
And every time people move, they are highly susceptible to home improvements. Most upgrade as well, that is they buy ever bigger homes and so they need to buy more goodies to fill these homes. In 2004, the market for home improvements was $271 billion according to the Home Improvement Research Institute of Tampa, Florida. It was growing at better than 6% a year at the time. Housing turnover correlates with sales of furniture, appliances, home electronics, and other home related goodies. And these have been growing rapidly too. That is what worries economists when they look at the subprime crisis. Because we have overspent a bit of late.
We need not dwell too much on cars and electronics. Everyone knows these items rarely last more than a few years. High tech is especially beneficial. With its built-in obsolescence it is an economist's dream. As for food, the trend of eating out continues in full swing. Take a look at the obesity numbers here as obesity is strongly correlated with eating out.
Health care spending is another winner and one where the US clearly excels. In 2005, it rose nearly 7% to $2 trillion, or $6,700 per person. It now represents 16% of the gross domestic product and is expected to rise to $4 trillion or 20% of GDP by 2015. Although an aging population is often blamed, a fair chunk of it goes to elective procedures. It is fashion driven. The American Society of Plastic Surgeons reports that Americans spent $15.4 billion on plastic surgery fees, facility fees, and anesthesia fees in 2006. That is almost 10% as much as the total prescription drug market.
And what may surprise you even more is that Americans spent nearly as much on pet foods, services, and medicines. And those markets are growing even faster than human healthcare. Elective procedures for pets are now commonplace in some areas of the country. And while most of it is out of pocket, pet insurance grew at 25% last year. Some employers are starting to offer pet insurance as a benefit. That while the number of uninsured Americans is at an all time high of 46.6 million.
Education is another area where Americans like to send their cash. In 2002, the US government spent $732 billion on education, directly and indirectly. That averages to nearly $7,000 for every student in elementary and secondary education. To say nothing of private money. The US joins Denmark, Iceland and South Korea in spending nearly 7% of its GDP on education.
When it comes to both healthcare and education, many would agree that despite all the money we spend, we do not seem to get very good value for it. Nearly everyone would agree our education system is lacking. When it comes to healthcare though, opinions are more divided and there is a strong feeling that we are the best in the World. Objective measures tell otherwise.
As indicated before, common sense will tell you that high turnover leads to mediocre quality. Unfortunately, it also leads to high waste and pollution. This is the price we all pay to keep our economic engine alive and well.
Friday, December 7, 2007
vanishing trees
Only 8.8% of the planet's land surface remains covered in dense forest according to the latest study employing advanced satellite imaging. Less than 20% of the original forests remain in large tracts of undisturbed forest. More than 3/4 of those are in three countries, Russia, Canada, and Brazil. When it comes to biodiversity, intact tracts are more important than the same numbers of trees in small patches. That is because many animals and plants require large tracts to survive. Fragmentation, even as simple as cutting a few roads through the forest, is the main factor threatening plants and animals with extinction.
Forest devastation is especially pronounced in easily accessible and inhabitable regions. Temperate broadleaf forests are down to less than 4% of what they were a few centuries ago. Boreal forests in Russia, Canada, and Alaska are among the best preserved mainly because they are the hardest to reach and exploit. Not so with tropical forests. While these are still substantial today, they are shrinking incredibly fast. One estimate says tropical forests will last less than 50 years if present trends continue. One and a half acres disappear every second. Along with 137 species per day.
Just fourteen countries control over 90% of the world's remaining intact forest landscapes. Apart from Russia, Canada, and Brazil, nearly all of these are poor countries with weak or puppet governments that are easily persuaded to wreck havoc with resources in return for some hard cash. And the pressure is very high. Big multi-national corporations control the forest trade. Conservation is not on their agenda. Their CEOs are more worried about their oversized pay and retirement packages and the daily fluctuations of the stock price than about some patch of forest in a far away land.
But there would be no business without demand. Many areas are wiped out to make room for agriculture and cattle farming, read cheap fast food hamburgers. Others are removed to facilitate mining and drilling operations. Yet others are stripped for their exotic hardwoods used to decorate overstuffed McMansions. It is ironic to see how many people grossly overextended themselves to spruce up their homes and buy gadgets they could ill afford using cheap mortgages. Many of these are now about to lose their homes in foreclosures.
But the trouble is a world wide phenomenon. The new economies of China of India are bottomless pits that swallow everything whole. China for example, cuts down 25 million trees a year just for disposable chopsticks in restaurants. The country uses 45 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks each and every year. In the 1980s China became the second largest importer of forest products in the world. Earlier it exported wood but now it is so far down on its own resources that importing is easier.
Russia is its main supplier now, followed by Malaysia. Nearly 40% comes from Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other South East Asian nations. 40% of imports are hardwood logs and another 25% are conifer logs. And what does China do with all this wood? It manufactures items for rich countries.
China exports wood products to the US, Japan, Hongkong and South Korea. Nearly all exports are processed wood. A large share is veneers and plywood, but the majority is items such as door, frames, carving products, wood toys and tools, etc. China's export trade is slightly larger than its imports but both have grown from less than $1B in the nineties to over $7B today. And there is no end in sight. As long as people insist on building more and larger homes, demand will continue. For another 50 years or so that is. Because then, there won't be anything left.
Forest devastation is especially pronounced in easily accessible and inhabitable regions. Temperate broadleaf forests are down to less than 4% of what they were a few centuries ago. Boreal forests in Russia, Canada, and Alaska are among the best preserved mainly because they are the hardest to reach and exploit. Not so with tropical forests. While these are still substantial today, they are shrinking incredibly fast. One estimate says tropical forests will last less than 50 years if present trends continue. One and a half acres disappear every second. Along with 137 species per day.
Just fourteen countries control over 90% of the world's remaining intact forest landscapes. Apart from Russia, Canada, and Brazil, nearly all of these are poor countries with weak or puppet governments that are easily persuaded to wreck havoc with resources in return for some hard cash. And the pressure is very high. Big multi-national corporations control the forest trade. Conservation is not on their agenda. Their CEOs are more worried about their oversized pay and retirement packages and the daily fluctuations of the stock price than about some patch of forest in a far away land.
But there would be no business without demand. Many areas are wiped out to make room for agriculture and cattle farming, read cheap fast food hamburgers. Others are removed to facilitate mining and drilling operations. Yet others are stripped for their exotic hardwoods used to decorate overstuffed McMansions. It is ironic to see how many people grossly overextended themselves to spruce up their homes and buy gadgets they could ill afford using cheap mortgages. Many of these are now about to lose their homes in foreclosures.
But the trouble is a world wide phenomenon. The new economies of China of India are bottomless pits that swallow everything whole. China for example, cuts down 25 million trees a year just for disposable chopsticks in restaurants. The country uses 45 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks each and every year. In the 1980s China became the second largest importer of forest products in the world. Earlier it exported wood but now it is so far down on its own resources that importing is easier.
Russia is its main supplier now, followed by Malaysia. Nearly 40% comes from Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia, and other South East Asian nations. 40% of imports are hardwood logs and another 25% are conifer logs. And what does China do with all this wood? It manufactures items for rich countries.
China exports wood products to the US, Japan, Hongkong and South Korea. Nearly all exports are processed wood. A large share is veneers and plywood, but the majority is items such as door, frames, carving products, wood toys and tools, etc. China's export trade is slightly larger than its imports but both have grown from less than $1B in the nineties to over $7B today. And there is no end in sight. As long as people insist on building more and larger homes, demand will continue. For another 50 years or so that is. Because then, there won't be anything left.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
boom and bust
One thing tourists like to do is visit the great monuments of the past. Many see these as accomplishments of human ingenuity and intelligence. The view is especially popular in the West, where history is written in terms of individual achievement. The protagonists of history are exceptional heroes who built large empires and created great wealth. We tend to believe that these empires were the result of a personal vision, a sign of greatness in one or at most a few particularly gifted individuals.
And when it comes to the obvious question as to why these civilizations disappeared we have an easy answer. They were overrun by other even greater men (nearly all are men) who built new and bigger empires. We call this progress. Like the US overtaking "old" Europe, the previous empire. And why did this happen? Because Europe somehow lost its nerve. They no longer have "the Right Stuff." Europeans are set in traditional ways that are no match for Yankee ingenuity and creativity. The Europeans are weak we think, they have succumbed to socialism and other degenerate doctrines. They no longer matter all that much. Progress has passed them by.
(Ironically enough this idea of poisoning is also a popular theory of demise. Countless people have tried to prove that lead poisoning did the Romans in. On a more abstract level, some see decadence, or poisoning of the mind, as the real culprit undermining the empire.)
What is surprisingly absent in this view is the dominant player, i.e. nature. But why is it that we should ignore the most obvious actor? It is not that we do not know about nature, climate, and natural resources. But we see nature as the thing that needs to be conquered. It is the clay that needs to be molded. Greatness is achieved by imposing our rule on nature and subjugating it. That is what our monuments are all about. They are witness to our conquests, our victories over the wild. The supremacy of the mind over matter.
We marvel at the pyramids of Egypt, the Acropolis, the temples of Angkor Wat, the Mayan cities of Tikal, the statues of Easter Island. These are so impressive to us that we often resort to supernatural explanations for their creation. We discuss the mysteries of pyramids, the lost knowledge of Alexandria, the enigma of Easter Island, the secrets of Angkor Wat and Machu Picchu. But the mystery is in the eye of the beholder. We believe it mysterious because we assume that people were more primitive back then. Because in our linear view of history, not only do we get more successful at each step, we also get smarter and more technologically advanced. We evolve. And in our view evolution is linear and ever upward. It may be interrupted, but we never go back.
It never really occurs to us that we may have taken many steps backwards. That we may have lost knowledge. That we may be endlessly repeating the mistakes of the past. That we run around in circles. It never occurs to us that these monuments are more a testimony to failure than to success. That they are like the ghost towns of the West. They show how people were living it up and in the process polluted their environment and outgrew their resources.
The monuments are evidence of massive ecological disasters, in many cases precipitated or encouraged by the very people we think of as heroes. But unlike the dusty ghost towns in the West, these enduring monuments point to civilizations that often survived and thrived for centuries. They were well thought out and well planned. They survived many setbacks and disasters. They had ample time to prepare for the worst and find technological solutions to their problems. And there was no lack of trying. There is plenty of evidence of technological breakthroughs. Some so ingenious we still have not figured out how they worked. But despite all that, these civilizations failed.
This is resource failure on a very grand scale. But it will be nothing compared to our present experiment. Resource depletion and failure on a planetary scale.
And when it comes to the obvious question as to why these civilizations disappeared we have an easy answer. They were overrun by other even greater men (nearly all are men) who built new and bigger empires. We call this progress. Like the US overtaking "old" Europe, the previous empire. And why did this happen? Because Europe somehow lost its nerve. They no longer have "the Right Stuff." Europeans are set in traditional ways that are no match for Yankee ingenuity and creativity. The Europeans are weak we think, they have succumbed to socialism and other degenerate doctrines. They no longer matter all that much. Progress has passed them by.
(Ironically enough this idea of poisoning is also a popular theory of demise. Countless people have tried to prove that lead poisoning did the Romans in. On a more abstract level, some see decadence, or poisoning of the mind, as the real culprit undermining the empire.)
What is surprisingly absent in this view is the dominant player, i.e. nature. But why is it that we should ignore the most obvious actor? It is not that we do not know about nature, climate, and natural resources. But we see nature as the thing that needs to be conquered. It is the clay that needs to be molded. Greatness is achieved by imposing our rule on nature and subjugating it. That is what our monuments are all about. They are witness to our conquests, our victories over the wild. The supremacy of the mind over matter.
We marvel at the pyramids of Egypt, the Acropolis, the temples of Angkor Wat, the Mayan cities of Tikal, the statues of Easter Island. These are so impressive to us that we often resort to supernatural explanations for their creation. We discuss the mysteries of pyramids, the lost knowledge of Alexandria, the enigma of Easter Island, the secrets of Angkor Wat and Machu Picchu. But the mystery is in the eye of the beholder. We believe it mysterious because we assume that people were more primitive back then. Because in our linear view of history, not only do we get more successful at each step, we also get smarter and more technologically advanced. We evolve. And in our view evolution is linear and ever upward. It may be interrupted, but we never go back.
It never really occurs to us that we may have taken many steps backwards. That we may have lost knowledge. That we may be endlessly repeating the mistakes of the past. That we run around in circles. It never occurs to us that these monuments are more a testimony to failure than to success. That they are like the ghost towns of the West. They show how people were living it up and in the process polluted their environment and outgrew their resources.
The monuments are evidence of massive ecological disasters, in many cases precipitated or encouraged by the very people we think of as heroes. But unlike the dusty ghost towns in the West, these enduring monuments point to civilizations that often survived and thrived for centuries. They were well thought out and well planned. They survived many setbacks and disasters. They had ample time to prepare for the worst and find technological solutions to their problems. And there was no lack of trying. There is plenty of evidence of technological breakthroughs. Some so ingenious we still have not figured out how they worked. But despite all that, these civilizations failed.
This is resource failure on a very grand scale. But it will be nothing compared to our present experiment. Resource depletion and failure on a planetary scale.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
dark skies
Flying is seen by many as one of the great triumphs of the 20th century. The wish to take to the skies and fly away is as old as humanity. And these days, people are taking to the skies in droves. The FAA forecast predicts 768 million passengers this year, and more than one billion passengers by 2015. By 2020 the total will reach 1.2 billion. That translates into 81.1 million take-offs, up from 62.5 million today. The growth is equivalent to adding two major metropolitan airports each year for the next 12 years.
Not just more flights and more airline fuel mind you. We also lose land to grow food or sustain trees. Given that some airports are the size of Manhattan that really matters. To say nothing of the surrounding infrastructure that follows. In return for land we get more concrete, more buildings that need round the clock heating and cooling, more parking lots, more cars, and more driving. And that is just for commercial flights. The report also predicts general aviation will increase by 59% by 2020. While the number is much smaller, these guys more than make up for it by their added inefficiency.
According to the FAA, "Aviation is a critical part of our national economy, providing for the movement of people and goods throughout the world, enabling economic growth." It also says that since the 1970's there has been a six-fold increase in the mobility provided by the US transportation system. And during that same time, there was a 60% improvement in aircraft fuel efficiency and a 95% reduction in the number of people impacted by noise.
So all is well it appears. Flying translates to freedom and growth, two key indicators of success, and its astonishing expansion proves as much. And the trend is expected to continue in the near future. Until we hit the wall I suppose. Unlike what they tell you in history classes, humans never seem to learn from their past mistakes. The successive stock market bubbles illustrate that point quite well. Like a stock market bubble this type of growth is not sustainable forever.
Note that the expansion in flying dwarfs the gains in fuel economy. And that has been the story throughout. Fuel efficiency for cars and trucks has also gone up dramatically, but its effect has been totally negative. The supposed gains were more than wiped out by bigger engines and heavier cars. To say nothing of the growth in the number of cars and the number of miles driven. It appears people always want to be somewhere else. What it is they are running towards or away from is anybody's guess. No doubt this restlessness must be due to happiness. Or is it?
Not just more flights and more airline fuel mind you. We also lose land to grow food or sustain trees. Given that some airports are the size of Manhattan that really matters. To say nothing of the surrounding infrastructure that follows. In return for land we get more concrete, more buildings that need round the clock heating and cooling, more parking lots, more cars, and more driving. And that is just for commercial flights. The report also predicts general aviation will increase by 59% by 2020. While the number is much smaller, these guys more than make up for it by their added inefficiency.
According to the FAA, "Aviation is a critical part of our national economy, providing for the movement of people and goods throughout the world, enabling economic growth." It also says that since the 1970's there has been a six-fold increase in the mobility provided by the US transportation system. And during that same time, there was a 60% improvement in aircraft fuel efficiency and a 95% reduction in the number of people impacted by noise.
So all is well it appears. Flying translates to freedom and growth, two key indicators of success, and its astonishing expansion proves as much. And the trend is expected to continue in the near future. Until we hit the wall I suppose. Unlike what they tell you in history classes, humans never seem to learn from their past mistakes. The successive stock market bubbles illustrate that point quite well. Like a stock market bubble this type of growth is not sustainable forever.
Note that the expansion in flying dwarfs the gains in fuel economy. And that has been the story throughout. Fuel efficiency for cars and trucks has also gone up dramatically, but its effect has been totally negative. The supposed gains were more than wiped out by bigger engines and heavier cars. To say nothing of the growth in the number of cars and the number of miles driven. It appears people always want to be somewhere else. What it is they are running towards or away from is anybody's guess. No doubt this restlessness must be due to happiness. Or is it?
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
nonlinearities
Physical systems are nonlinear. Global climate is one good example. In general, nonlinear problems are hard to solve and they are not as easy to understand as linear systems. Furthermore, linear systems are quite predictable whereas nonlinear ones are inherently not. While this may sound like a lot of techno-babble, rest assured that it is something all of us are familiar with.
Most of the time we assume things will behave linearly. What that means is that we believe things are additive. Something like, if you eat twice as much you will gain twice as much weight. This sort of thinking is extremely common in popular medicine. People think that if some vitamin is good for them, then twice as much vitamin must be twice as good. Or if a lot of alcohol is bad for them then some alcohol must be somewhat bad. But this is not always true.
A common nonlinearity that interferes with this type of prediction is a threshold. We are all familiar with thresholds. For example it takes some energy to get something moving. Once it moves however, things return to "normal." And by normal we mean it behaves more or less linearly. If you push twice as hard, it will move twice as fast. And everyday experience is usually in that realm. When you ride a bike as a kid, you are really moving too slowly for air resistance to become much of a problem. Within your normal operating conditions all you worry about is rolling resistance, which is pretty much linear. You pedal harder and you go faster. And the harder you pedal the faster you go.
Many physical systems have these "linear regimes," and it therefore becomes really tempting to think that things are always linear. Until something weird happens. All living systems eventually cross another threshold called death. And nothing is weirder than having someone die in a freak accident. Such an unpredictable event leaves us wondering and shaking our heads. That is the problem with thresholds and nonlinearities. There is often no going back.
But most of us would rather not think about that ultimate nonlinearity called death. Although death is certain, predicting when it will strike is impossible. And although we have grown accustomed to not expecting it during everyday normal activities, occasionally it does strike out of the blue. And when it does we look for a reason. Something of higher purpose that is more predictable. We yearn for linearity because it gives us some measure of control.
And the same is true for our ecosystem. We would like to think it is under control. We would like to think it will always return to normal. And although there are freak incidents such as storms, earthquakes, and other turmoil, at the end of the day we think it will all blow over. There is always another day. But nonlinear systems do not behave that way. Sometimes they cross a threshold and take another course altogether. They go on a new path that is radically different from the one traveled before. And the change may be irreversible.
Nature is very intricate and complex. There are many checks and balances, and things tend to settle in a solid and stable equilibrium. Look at our bodies. They can take a fair beating and survive large parameter swings. They are extremely adaptable. They are robust and have many built-in mechanisms to restore equilibrium. But occasionally a very small disturbance in one key parameter will take them across a lethal threshold. Suddenly a radically different path is taken. One that is irreversible and undesirable. And the same body that held together so well and weathered so many storms is now quickly taken apart.
As any parent knows, it is dangerous to play with fire- or greenhouse gases for that matter.
Most of the time we assume things will behave linearly. What that means is that we believe things are additive. Something like, if you eat twice as much you will gain twice as much weight. This sort of thinking is extremely common in popular medicine. People think that if some vitamin is good for them, then twice as much vitamin must be twice as good. Or if a lot of alcohol is bad for them then some alcohol must be somewhat bad. But this is not always true.
A common nonlinearity that interferes with this type of prediction is a threshold. We are all familiar with thresholds. For example it takes some energy to get something moving. Once it moves however, things return to "normal." And by normal we mean it behaves more or less linearly. If you push twice as hard, it will move twice as fast. And everyday experience is usually in that realm. When you ride a bike as a kid, you are really moving too slowly for air resistance to become much of a problem. Within your normal operating conditions all you worry about is rolling resistance, which is pretty much linear. You pedal harder and you go faster. And the harder you pedal the faster you go.
Many physical systems have these "linear regimes," and it therefore becomes really tempting to think that things are always linear. Until something weird happens. All living systems eventually cross another threshold called death. And nothing is weirder than having someone die in a freak accident. Such an unpredictable event leaves us wondering and shaking our heads. That is the problem with thresholds and nonlinearities. There is often no going back.
But most of us would rather not think about that ultimate nonlinearity called death. Although death is certain, predicting when it will strike is impossible. And although we have grown accustomed to not expecting it during everyday normal activities, occasionally it does strike out of the blue. And when it does we look for a reason. Something of higher purpose that is more predictable. We yearn for linearity because it gives us some measure of control.
And the same is true for our ecosystem. We would like to think it is under control. We would like to think it will always return to normal. And although there are freak incidents such as storms, earthquakes, and other turmoil, at the end of the day we think it will all blow over. There is always another day. But nonlinear systems do not behave that way. Sometimes they cross a threshold and take another course altogether. They go on a new path that is radically different from the one traveled before. And the change may be irreversible.
Nature is very intricate and complex. There are many checks and balances, and things tend to settle in a solid and stable equilibrium. Look at our bodies. They can take a fair beating and survive large parameter swings. They are extremely adaptable. They are robust and have many built-in mechanisms to restore equilibrium. But occasionally a very small disturbance in one key parameter will take them across a lethal threshold. Suddenly a radically different path is taken. One that is irreversible and undesirable. And the same body that held together so well and weathered so many storms is now quickly taken apart.
As any parent knows, it is dangerous to play with fire- or greenhouse gases for that matter.