Today's Wall Street Journal has another article about the cost of going green. And guess what, it isn't cheap. Unfortunately, it is also bogus -most of it that is. As the article correctly points out, going green is first and foremost a business slogan that hardware and home furnishing stores are adopting in order to boost sluggish sales. And that is the problem. It is a battle cry to spend more and "save" the economy. It is also the worst thing you can do.
To go green you need to reduce spending, or stop spending. You need to keep stuff instead of throwing it out. If you ditch your "old" car, appliance, furniture, etc. and buy something new that is eco-friendly, chances are you are doing a lot more damage than if you had just kept the "old" item. That is all the more true since most "old" items are not really old at all. Most have years of useful life in them. And even if they use more energy, replacing them puts a much bigger burden on the environment than keeping them. By all means keep using your old stuff and find new uses for it. That is the very best thing you can do for the environment.
To really go green what you need to do is downsize. That is also my recipe for health in America. America needs to downsize in a major way. Downsize your home, your car, your other toys, and your body. Fortunately this can all be done concurrently. If you drive less and walk or bike more, you will downsize your gas expenditures, cut back on greenhouse gases and pollution, and give your body some much needed exercise. The latter will help you lose weight and reduce your chances of getting some nasty diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. It will also make you tired naturally and that will allow you do away with sleeping aids and the like. Exercise will reduce your stress and likely reduce your blood pressure as well. More savings and more health.
It is true that spending less will damage the economy. Especially since that economy is based on wasteful spending. But that should not worry you too much. The current economy is unsustainable to begin with. Sooner or later it will have to disappear. Yes, you heard that right. Disappear. Not a recession or a depression mind you. A total overhaul. And yes, this will be very painful and will cause a lot of hardship, especially for the less-well-to-do and the poor. Lest you let your bleeding heart guide you, remember that the sooner we abandon this economy the less painful it will be and the less people will have to suffer. To keep going only makes matters worse.
The good news is that after a period of turmoil things will settle down. It is not the end of time. But we will have to change our life-style and we will have a lot less discretionary income. We will live a much simpler life and one that is much more in tune with reality. No more green lawns in the desert. No more 100 mile daily commutes. No more hour long showers. No more cars for everyone. But if you think that is too much for you to bear, just remember that if we keep going the way we are, we will end up in another Middle-Age-like period. A period where "standard of living" is a meaningless expression. One where mere survival is a true everyday adventure instead.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 28, 2008
market forces
A favorite line in the Wall Street Journal is "let market forces take care of {anything you care to add}." According to the WSJ anything and everything can be solved this way and should be solved this way. It is like a mantra. And there is no doubt in my mind that market forces can "fix" things, depending on how you define fix. If fixing things means letting go and see what happens then the WSJ is the do-it-yourself newspaper par excellence.
The main reason why the WSJ aficionado's want to let the market fix things is because they are afraid regulations will cut into their profit margins. It is not that they want to fix things or that they even care. It is just that they are afraid as all hell that someone would do something that would take even a 1,000th of 1 % of their profit margin. In the old days this used to be known as greed and it was considered bad. Now if anything, greed is good. Never mind, it won't last.
Letting the markets decide is not only synonymous with doing nothing, it is also the dumbest thing one can do. But why do you think rich people, who ought to have some smarts -after all they were smart enough to move wealth in their direction and makes us believe this was the right thing to do- would take such a course in the face of overwhelming evidence that it can't last ?
There are several reasons why. First off, they are incredibly greedy. So greedy that their fear of missing out on something is many times greater than their reason or common sense. They will follow that fear until they are absolutely, 101% sure that there is no other way to go. And even then they will first try to shift the blame and the obligation of a fix onto others. Unfortunately when things move fast, such a strategy is too little too late.
Secondly, they feel immune to most threats. They live in ivory towers and are largely unaffected by bad news. It is only natural for them to think that this will continue forever. Marie Antoinette, the one who famously said, "Let them eat cake." never saw it coming either. She thought she was above it all and untouchable. Why me worry? Most superrich feel the same way. They think they will survive and survive well.
Thirdly, there are many so many apocalyptic predictions -and better than 99.9% of them never materialize- that most people are very suspicious of doomsday scenarios. The few times that everyone really worries -as in the famous Y2K "crisis"- are usually non-issues and the aftermath of those just reinforces the notion that all doomsday scenarios are unrealistic.
But it is not predictions of doom that should worry you. It is simple facts. The fact that most fisheries are overfished. The fact that we can see the end of oil and fossil fuels. The fact that Lake Mead is dropping below the Las Vegas city intakes. The fact that the climate is changing. The fact that the rain forest is shrinking. The fact that the population is exploding. What all these facts tell you is that something will happen soon unless we take serious steps and implement severe restrictions.
Sure, the markets will take care of it. But markets take care of things in a very simple way. They crash or collapse causing immense and long-lasting hardship. Surely we are intelligent enough to find a better way ?
The main reason why the WSJ aficionado's want to let the market fix things is because they are afraid regulations will cut into their profit margins. It is not that they want to fix things or that they even care. It is just that they are afraid as all hell that someone would do something that would take even a 1,000th of 1 % of their profit margin. In the old days this used to be known as greed and it was considered bad. Now if anything, greed is good. Never mind, it won't last.
Letting the markets decide is not only synonymous with doing nothing, it is also the dumbest thing one can do. But why do you think rich people, who ought to have some smarts -after all they were smart enough to move wealth in their direction and makes us believe this was the right thing to do- would take such a course in the face of overwhelming evidence that it can't last ?
There are several reasons why. First off, they are incredibly greedy. So greedy that their fear of missing out on something is many times greater than their reason or common sense. They will follow that fear until they are absolutely, 101% sure that there is no other way to go. And even then they will first try to shift the blame and the obligation of a fix onto others. Unfortunately when things move fast, such a strategy is too little too late.
Secondly, they feel immune to most threats. They live in ivory towers and are largely unaffected by bad news. It is only natural for them to think that this will continue forever. Marie Antoinette, the one who famously said, "Let them eat cake." never saw it coming either. She thought she was above it all and untouchable. Why me worry? Most superrich feel the same way. They think they will survive and survive well.
Thirdly, there are many so many apocalyptic predictions -and better than 99.9% of them never materialize- that most people are very suspicious of doomsday scenarios. The few times that everyone really worries -as in the famous Y2K "crisis"- are usually non-issues and the aftermath of those just reinforces the notion that all doomsday scenarios are unrealistic.
But it is not predictions of doom that should worry you. It is simple facts. The fact that most fisheries are overfished. The fact that we can see the end of oil and fossil fuels. The fact that Lake Mead is dropping below the Las Vegas city intakes. The fact that the climate is changing. The fact that the rain forest is shrinking. The fact that the population is exploding. What all these facts tell you is that something will happen soon unless we take serious steps and implement severe restrictions.
Sure, the markets will take care of it. But markets take care of things in a very simple way. They crash or collapse causing immense and long-lasting hardship. Surely we are intelligent enough to find a better way ?
Monday, February 25, 2008
peak oil (again)
Peak oil made it into the local news yesterday. In a Special Report, KTVU described "peak oil" as a phenomenon that is gaining adherents everywhere. It was described as an "apocalyptic" vision with severe shortages in food, medicine, technology, and the like. An end of the world scenario. KTVU then dug up a UC Berkeley economics professor to call it all "laughable" and "untrue." Although the professor did agree that global warming was a problem. When it comes to fossil fuel however, he thought there would be plenty to go around for a long time to come. Even when oil runs out we will be able to produce liquid hydrocarbons to feed our energy "needs," he said.
I for one, tend to agree that it is unlikely we will run out of energy anytime soon. I have said before that pollution is much more likely to do us in. But that does not mean we won't be in trouble if oil gets more expensive. In the simplest scenario, prices for liquid fuel -the kind you need in transportation- will go so high that everyone will be forced to cut back severely. Given how our need for liquid fuel is embedded in our infrastructure, that alone could cause major upheavals. Think the housing market is bad now ? What if suddenly all those nice suburban homes become worthless ? Because modern suburbia is built on the premise of cheap liquid fuel. Without it, all those houses have no value. To say nothing of the houses in the middle of the desert. These too are in for a major re-valuation. Negative numbers come to mind.
Humans are very good problem solvers. Especially when the problem is easily perceived. Lack of oil is such a problem. While it may not go down without some major hardship and pain, it is unlikely to cause an apocalyptic scenario. The same cannot be said for insidious problems such as global warming, where the true cause is much more open to debate and the link much more indirect. Warming is especially problematic because it is difficult to imagine during adverse weather events, of which there are plenty. Nobody is very keen on global warming during a snowstorm.
Pollution is a difficult matter because its effects are very stealthy. Crop yields go down slowly, driving prices up and causing shortages. Diseases spread to newer locales. Food shortages make people more susceptible to disease. Salt water intrusion and flooding destroy valuable crop land. Wind erosion removes top soils. Weather becomes more erratic leading to occasional heavy losses. All this happens slowly and in the background. It hardly ever makes front page news. And to make matters even more confusing, a ton of 'noise' is superimposed on the long term trends. The noise often makes it difficult to see what is really happening. And it gives the naysayers plenty of ammunition that can be put to good use in politics.
But the most dangerous result is the sudden appearance of positive feedback. Entering what is known as a vicious circle of negative effects. (Ironically enough I found that the Wall Street Journal called the current vicious circle in housing an example of negative feedback. Negative no doubt refers to the negative outcomes such as falling prices. Because the phenomenon described was a clear example of positive feedback. At least in the engineering sense of the word. Maybe economists have a different definition?)
In any case, positive feedback can appear suddenly and unexpectedly. When it does, disastrous outcomes accelerate quickly. Then it is often too late to fix things and perfectly reasonable fixes may now only make matters worse. Because we entered into a different regime. One in which the old rules no longer apply. This is a situation humans are not very good at solving. For one, the number of good solutions is now very small and dwindling even faster. For another, drastic counterintuitive actions are needed fast. Last but not least, time is a major enemy. The latter is especially true where for humans. Because humans have a huge built-in lag time. Their life-span and their time to maturity are very long. Coupled with huge numbers it is a recipe for disaster. These scenarios can lead to apocalyptic endings. You have been warned.
I for one, tend to agree that it is unlikely we will run out of energy anytime soon. I have said before that pollution is much more likely to do us in. But that does not mean we won't be in trouble if oil gets more expensive. In the simplest scenario, prices for liquid fuel -the kind you need in transportation- will go so high that everyone will be forced to cut back severely. Given how our need for liquid fuel is embedded in our infrastructure, that alone could cause major upheavals. Think the housing market is bad now ? What if suddenly all those nice suburban homes become worthless ? Because modern suburbia is built on the premise of cheap liquid fuel. Without it, all those houses have no value. To say nothing of the houses in the middle of the desert. These too are in for a major re-valuation. Negative numbers come to mind.
Humans are very good problem solvers. Especially when the problem is easily perceived. Lack of oil is such a problem. While it may not go down without some major hardship and pain, it is unlikely to cause an apocalyptic scenario. The same cannot be said for insidious problems such as global warming, where the true cause is much more open to debate and the link much more indirect. Warming is especially problematic because it is difficult to imagine during adverse weather events, of which there are plenty. Nobody is very keen on global warming during a snowstorm.
Pollution is a difficult matter because its effects are very stealthy. Crop yields go down slowly, driving prices up and causing shortages. Diseases spread to newer locales. Food shortages make people more susceptible to disease. Salt water intrusion and flooding destroy valuable crop land. Wind erosion removes top soils. Weather becomes more erratic leading to occasional heavy losses. All this happens slowly and in the background. It hardly ever makes front page news. And to make matters even more confusing, a ton of 'noise' is superimposed on the long term trends. The noise often makes it difficult to see what is really happening. And it gives the naysayers plenty of ammunition that can be put to good use in politics.
But the most dangerous result is the sudden appearance of positive feedback. Entering what is known as a vicious circle of negative effects. (Ironically enough I found that the Wall Street Journal called the current vicious circle in housing an example of negative feedback. Negative no doubt refers to the negative outcomes such as falling prices. Because the phenomenon described was a clear example of positive feedback. At least in the engineering sense of the word. Maybe economists have a different definition?)
In any case, positive feedback can appear suddenly and unexpectedly. When it does, disastrous outcomes accelerate quickly. Then it is often too late to fix things and perfectly reasonable fixes may now only make matters worse. Because we entered into a different regime. One in which the old rules no longer apply. This is a situation humans are not very good at solving. For one, the number of good solutions is now very small and dwindling even faster. For another, drastic counterintuitive actions are needed fast. Last but not least, time is a major enemy. The latter is especially true where for humans. Because humans have a huge built-in lag time. Their life-span and their time to maturity are very long. Coupled with huge numbers it is a recipe for disaster. These scenarios can lead to apocalyptic endings. You have been warned.
Monday, February 18, 2008
the forgotten charm of the outhouse
Sewage spills into the San Francisco Bay have become headline news. It started with a multi-million gallon spill in Richardson Bay during the heavy January rains. Then there was the San Quentin parking lot spill that drained into the Bay. Pretty soon, eager journalists discovered that spills are a regular occurrence and are usually quickly forgotten. A token fine is paid and everybody moves on. For the sewage treatment plants, paying the fine is peanuts compared to the money that would be needed to upgrade the system. Most systems are outdated by several decades and in need of millions of dollars of repairs.
In the meantime we are polluting the Bay and with it a plentiful food supply of bottom feeders and salmon. It is not just a minor inconvenience. And it is not about to get better. Because nobody wants to pay the extra taxes that would be needed to fix the problem. You heard the voters: they want services but they do not want to pay for it.
But why is there a problem? For one, there are over five million toilets in the Bay Area that all get flushed several times a day.
You may think the modern toilet is a marvel of engineering. Especially the newer low flow types that "save" water. This is the type of savings that we are familiar with. Spend more to save more. And even those low flow marvels account for a huge chunk of the residential water use. Imagine that, we spend all this effort to provide clean running water, free of chemicals and bacteria, and people just flush most of it down the toilet. In some cases, cities will go as far as desalinating ocean water at a huge cost and huge pollution just so we can flush away our waste (into those same oceans by the way).
Is an ultra-low flow toilet the solution ? Well, not really. The famous water closet (WC) toilet is the problem not the solution. It used to be people had outhouses to take care of waste. Outhouses are remarkably simple. They consist of a wood plank with a round hole in it, suspended above a huge container. The more sanitary ones include a cover for the hole and screens in the vents to keep out flying insects. The outhouse does not use water. It also keeps the smells out the house by a simple means: location. No water waste and no fans or windows that let out the heat (that then gets replaced).
Outhouses have another benefit. The residues stay put and ferment. Then they can be used to cover the land and fertilize it for the next growing cycle. That way we return a lot of the nitrates that we took out in plants. It is a neat cycle with a minimal amount of loss. That, my friends, is a marvel of engineering. It cuts back on water and artificial fertilizer use. Granted, it is a rather stinky preposition especially on those days when the redistribution takes place. It is not something our modern noses are used to anymore. It is not something suburbia can tolerate. Never mind the tons of air pollution from SUVs, lawn-mowers, leaf-blowers and chain saw exhaust that smells like roses to us now. But not human waste, mind you. That is "unnatural."
So what happened to this marvelous system ? Well, soon people figured out they'd rather not go outside to use the bathroom. They'd rather do so in the comfort of their home. But that meant bringing a toilet into the house, not exactly an appetizing idea. To solve this problem, ingenious minds invented the flush toilet and the S shaped outflow. Now there was a way to dispose of things and block smells from entering back into the house. Add a couple of fans and generous windows and you can take care of the other smells too. Never mind the heat and cooling you lose that way. It is all part of modern conveniences. No more freezing bottoms or scary night time trips to the outhouse. No more fears of falling down the toilet.
Cities, with no room for outhouses, quickly discovered the sewer system. At first sewers would just dump their residues in rivers and streams a little ways away from the city. But that quickly led to ugly and smelly scenes and so sewer outlets were moved. Until they could no longer be moved. In came the sewer treatment plant. More water and power use. And more losses. Because we were now shipping the valuable nitrate and other bio-components away from the land and the next cycle of plants.
Soon other ingenious minds came up with the artificial fertilizer, a clean non-smelly substance that can be spread over the land with bare hands. Never mind all the oil and power that went into producing that. And once that fertilizer goes into plants and the plants into humans or animals, the residues just get flushed away. So every season you need to bring in more fertilizer. That, my friends, is good for business and the economy.
While we were busy undoing this highly efficient system, we also added a lot more people. That is called a double whammy. We move to a more wasteful system and we bring in more people to waste even more. And where do all these fertilizers go ? With a healthy dose of enteric bacteria mixed in ? To the oceans. There, they provide ample nutrients for algae and bacteria in a convenient watery medium. And to make matters even better, we are also adding a healthy dose of warming just to keep the pot boiling.
Now instead of recycling our waste and growing more food with it, we ship it to the oceans where it grows algae. Algae that then bloom and use the oxygen supply killing off the fish that we otherwise would eat. In other cases we "only" add bacteria, that are now also free to multiply in the water (instead of the soil where their expansion is limited). These can then infect our favorite shellfish and other bottom feeders and make us sick that way. Or they can infect us when we use the beaches for recreational activities.
However, we all have warm bottoms and a toilet in the coziness of our home. And in doing so, we are helping the economy.
In the meantime we are polluting the Bay and with it a plentiful food supply of bottom feeders and salmon. It is not just a minor inconvenience. And it is not about to get better. Because nobody wants to pay the extra taxes that would be needed to fix the problem. You heard the voters: they want services but they do not want to pay for it.
But why is there a problem? For one, there are over five million toilets in the Bay Area that all get flushed several times a day.
You may think the modern toilet is a marvel of engineering. Especially the newer low flow types that "save" water. This is the type of savings that we are familiar with. Spend more to save more. And even those low flow marvels account for a huge chunk of the residential water use. Imagine that, we spend all this effort to provide clean running water, free of chemicals and bacteria, and people just flush most of it down the toilet. In some cases, cities will go as far as desalinating ocean water at a huge cost and huge pollution just so we can flush away our waste (into those same oceans by the way).
Is an ultra-low flow toilet the solution ? Well, not really. The famous water closet (WC) toilet is the problem not the solution. It used to be people had outhouses to take care of waste. Outhouses are remarkably simple. They consist of a wood plank with a round hole in it, suspended above a huge container. The more sanitary ones include a cover for the hole and screens in the vents to keep out flying insects. The outhouse does not use water. It also keeps the smells out the house by a simple means: location. No water waste and no fans or windows that let out the heat (that then gets replaced).
Outhouses have another benefit. The residues stay put and ferment. Then they can be used to cover the land and fertilize it for the next growing cycle. That way we return a lot of the nitrates that we took out in plants. It is a neat cycle with a minimal amount of loss. That, my friends, is a marvel of engineering. It cuts back on water and artificial fertilizer use. Granted, it is a rather stinky preposition especially on those days when the redistribution takes place. It is not something our modern noses are used to anymore. It is not something suburbia can tolerate. Never mind the tons of air pollution from SUVs, lawn-mowers, leaf-blowers and chain saw exhaust that smells like roses to us now. But not human waste, mind you. That is "unnatural."
So what happened to this marvelous system ? Well, soon people figured out they'd rather not go outside to use the bathroom. They'd rather do so in the comfort of their home. But that meant bringing a toilet into the house, not exactly an appetizing idea. To solve this problem, ingenious minds invented the flush toilet and the S shaped outflow. Now there was a way to dispose of things and block smells from entering back into the house. Add a couple of fans and generous windows and you can take care of the other smells too. Never mind the heat and cooling you lose that way. It is all part of modern conveniences. No more freezing bottoms or scary night time trips to the outhouse. No more fears of falling down the toilet.
Cities, with no room for outhouses, quickly discovered the sewer system. At first sewers would just dump their residues in rivers and streams a little ways away from the city. But that quickly led to ugly and smelly scenes and so sewer outlets were moved. Until they could no longer be moved. In came the sewer treatment plant. More water and power use. And more losses. Because we were now shipping the valuable nitrate and other bio-components away from the land and the next cycle of plants.
Soon other ingenious minds came up with the artificial fertilizer, a clean non-smelly substance that can be spread over the land with bare hands. Never mind all the oil and power that went into producing that. And once that fertilizer goes into plants and the plants into humans or animals, the residues just get flushed away. So every season you need to bring in more fertilizer. That, my friends, is good for business and the economy.
While we were busy undoing this highly efficient system, we also added a lot more people. That is called a double whammy. We move to a more wasteful system and we bring in more people to waste even more. And where do all these fertilizers go ? With a healthy dose of enteric bacteria mixed in ? To the oceans. There, they provide ample nutrients for algae and bacteria in a convenient watery medium. And to make matters even better, we are also adding a healthy dose of warming just to keep the pot boiling.
Now instead of recycling our waste and growing more food with it, we ship it to the oceans where it grows algae. Algae that then bloom and use the oxygen supply killing off the fish that we otherwise would eat. In other cases we "only" add bacteria, that are now also free to multiply in the water (instead of the soil where their expansion is limited). These can then infect our favorite shellfish and other bottom feeders and make us sick that way. Or they can infect us when we use the beaches for recreational activities.
However, we all have warm bottoms and a toilet in the coziness of our home. And in doing so, we are helping the economy.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
breaking the cycle
It is encouraging to hear that many people are trying to do something about our environmental problems. Often however, they appear to get side-tracked on minor issues that matter very little in the overall scheme of things. Perhaps that is not surprising because the overall problem is too overwhelming to deal with. These smaller issues look easier to tackle and are therefore more gratifying. A good way to cure that eco-anxiety that invades our lives.
I read a New York Times article about eco-moms in Marin County. The County, one of the richest in the country, and as the NYT points out, one with a bigger than average footprint, is also a center for activism. Here so-called eco-moms meet to do something to save the world. But when I read what it is they are worried about, it turns out to be a newer spin on the old "Berkeley" favorites. Berkeley, for those of you who do not know, is just across the bay from Marin, and many former Berkeley residents and students have moved up to Marin to enjoy an All-American life-style. They have not given up though and continue to preach the ills of such society. These ills are rather insignificant pet-peeves such as plastic grocery bags, out-gassing paint, PVC toys and tainted pet food.
All of these Berkeley transplants may not realize that the very act of moving to that big McMansion in suburbia is the real problem. That action alone nullifies all their subsequent activism. They could have done no greater service to the environment than stay in their Berkeley apartment where they could walk to everything instead of having to drive. Never mind that they are vigilant not to idle the car while waiting for the kids to get out of school. Never mind that they just bought a new hybrid that cost as much in oil to produce as it will save over its short duty-cycle. The problem is of their own making. The kids should walk to school instead.
Our eco-moms could have walked to the store as they did when they lived in Berkeley. No plastic grocery bags needed. No oversized refrigerators either. Plus some healthy exercise to boot. No need to drive to that health club and fire up the 1.5 hp treadmill, while blowing the fans and turning on the television.
President Bush had it right when he talked about no compromise on the American way of life. He laid his finger on the core issue. The (current) American way of life. It is unsustainable and that is what we need to change. We need to abandon suburbia, turn in our cars, and stop shopping. Shopping is not patriotic. It is a self-destructive habit. That is what all addictions are. And there again, our beloved President had it right when he said we are addicted to oil. Because that is our real addiction: oil. Not heroin or crack cocaine, or crystal meth. America's real killer drug is oil. And America's real drug pushers are the oil companies. The president knows, he is one of them.
I read a New York Times article about eco-moms in Marin County. The County, one of the richest in the country, and as the NYT points out, one with a bigger than average footprint, is also a center for activism. Here so-called eco-moms meet to do something to save the world. But when I read what it is they are worried about, it turns out to be a newer spin on the old "Berkeley" favorites. Berkeley, for those of you who do not know, is just across the bay from Marin, and many former Berkeley residents and students have moved up to Marin to enjoy an All-American life-style. They have not given up though and continue to preach the ills of such society. These ills are rather insignificant pet-peeves such as plastic grocery bags, out-gassing paint, PVC toys and tainted pet food.
All of these Berkeley transplants may not realize that the very act of moving to that big McMansion in suburbia is the real problem. That action alone nullifies all their subsequent activism. They could have done no greater service to the environment than stay in their Berkeley apartment where they could walk to everything instead of having to drive. Never mind that they are vigilant not to idle the car while waiting for the kids to get out of school. Never mind that they just bought a new hybrid that cost as much in oil to produce as it will save over its short duty-cycle. The problem is of their own making. The kids should walk to school instead.
Our eco-moms could have walked to the store as they did when they lived in Berkeley. No plastic grocery bags needed. No oversized refrigerators either. Plus some healthy exercise to boot. No need to drive to that health club and fire up the 1.5 hp treadmill, while blowing the fans and turning on the television.
President Bush had it right when he talked about no compromise on the American way of life. He laid his finger on the core issue. The (current) American way of life. It is unsustainable and that is what we need to change. We need to abandon suburbia, turn in our cars, and stop shopping. Shopping is not patriotic. It is a self-destructive habit. That is what all addictions are. And there again, our beloved President had it right when he said we are addicted to oil. Because that is our real addiction: oil. Not heroin or crack cocaine, or crystal meth. America's real killer drug is oil. And America's real drug pushers are the oil companies. The president knows, he is one of them.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
forever hungry
One tenth of the US population goes to bed hungry. For the richest and most powerful country in the world, these are shocking numbers. Yet the issue fails to resonate with voters. Attempts to make poverty a campaign issue in the upcoming election failed miserably. According to pollsters, poverty does not even rank in the top 10 of voter concerns. Experience has shown that trying to rally support for any cause that is not in the top three is a losing proposition. Poverty failed as an issue even in areas where it was blatantly obvious as in states suffering in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.
World wide the figures are much worse of course. Anywhere between a quarter and a third of the population may be hungry or malnourished according to the World Health Organization. Attempts to reduce world hunger by one half have failed over and over again. The issue was raised once again at the World Economic Forum in Davos, but we doubt it will make any difference. It never has before. Hunger is down somewhat from its all time high, but the reductions are minimal to say the least. In essence world hunger is an issue that is here to stay.
Somewhat ironically the world has enough food to feed its current population an oversized meal three times a day. Estimates are that we produce enough food to give everyone on the planet in excess of 2,700 calories per day. That is more than the recommended daily intake for adults, which is set at 2,000 calories for women and 2,500 calories for men. In essence, the world produces enough food to make everyone moderately overweight.
Various explanations are given as to why hunger persists. Usually these are linked to distribution. It has been argued that getting the food to the poor is nearly impossible because of bad infrastructure, conflicts, wars, natural disasters, political matters, and so on. At first glance these arguments look very plausible and they make sense to a lot of people. Most of know or think we know how dangerous it is to travel in Africa, Latin America, or SouthEast Asia. Blood thirsty dictators, drug dealers, rogue governments, terrorists, guerrilla fighters, and the like are everywhere waiting to kill us. Every night America gets its daily dose of terror-scare on the evening news.
All these arguments make a great deal of sense until one wonders how the weapons get to all these evil doers. Nearly all weapons are manufactured in the industrialized world and need to be shipped to the same conflict areas. Yet weapons dealers do not suffer from the same problems that make food distribution so difficult. Granted, maybe weapons don't spoil as easily, but to offset that they often cannot be shipped in the open like food can. It seems weapons always find a way.
The distribution argument also fails miserably at home. Surely there is no impediment to reach the 10% of Americans that go to bed hungry every night. America has excellent infrastructure and there are no wars, regional conflict, or other problems in distribution here. America's poor are easily accessible. Yet their numbers are growing year over year.
It is not distribution or other logistics that is keeping food away from the hungry. It is willful intervention by other humans. Sometimes humans purposefully want to inflict damage to others. They want to engineer what is called "genocide." Other times they want to grab whatever they can grab for themselves and leave others out. Often they just want to "get ahead." Now that major predators are out, humans are in competition with other humans for resources. And food is a key resource. It is also a source of wealth. Just ask the agricultural corporations that dominate American food production.
Increased food production quickly leads to more humans, as was evident in the last century when the green revolution occurred. More humans beget even more humans. It happens surprisingly quickly too. And it keeps going until resources run out. The scenario has been played many times over, in boom and bust cycles of increasing magnitude. We are about to witness it happening on a planetary scale. It will be a first, but unfortunately it could also be the last -for everyone that is.
World wide the figures are much worse of course. Anywhere between a quarter and a third of the population may be hungry or malnourished according to the World Health Organization. Attempts to reduce world hunger by one half have failed over and over again. The issue was raised once again at the World Economic Forum in Davos, but we doubt it will make any difference. It never has before. Hunger is down somewhat from its all time high, but the reductions are minimal to say the least. In essence world hunger is an issue that is here to stay.
Somewhat ironically the world has enough food to feed its current population an oversized meal three times a day. Estimates are that we produce enough food to give everyone on the planet in excess of 2,700 calories per day. That is more than the recommended daily intake for adults, which is set at 2,000 calories for women and 2,500 calories for men. In essence, the world produces enough food to make everyone moderately overweight.
Various explanations are given as to why hunger persists. Usually these are linked to distribution. It has been argued that getting the food to the poor is nearly impossible because of bad infrastructure, conflicts, wars, natural disasters, political matters, and so on. At first glance these arguments look very plausible and they make sense to a lot of people. Most of know or think we know how dangerous it is to travel in Africa, Latin America, or SouthEast Asia. Blood thirsty dictators, drug dealers, rogue governments, terrorists, guerrilla fighters, and the like are everywhere waiting to kill us. Every night America gets its daily dose of terror-scare on the evening news.
All these arguments make a great deal of sense until one wonders how the weapons get to all these evil doers. Nearly all weapons are manufactured in the industrialized world and need to be shipped to the same conflict areas. Yet weapons dealers do not suffer from the same problems that make food distribution so difficult. Granted, maybe weapons don't spoil as easily, but to offset that they often cannot be shipped in the open like food can. It seems weapons always find a way.
The distribution argument also fails miserably at home. Surely there is no impediment to reach the 10% of Americans that go to bed hungry every night. America has excellent infrastructure and there are no wars, regional conflict, or other problems in distribution here. America's poor are easily accessible. Yet their numbers are growing year over year.
It is not distribution or other logistics that is keeping food away from the hungry. It is willful intervention by other humans. Sometimes humans purposefully want to inflict damage to others. They want to engineer what is called "genocide." Other times they want to grab whatever they can grab for themselves and leave others out. Often they just want to "get ahead." Now that major predators are out, humans are in competition with other humans for resources. And food is a key resource. It is also a source of wealth. Just ask the agricultural corporations that dominate American food production.
Increased food production quickly leads to more humans, as was evident in the last century when the green revolution occurred. More humans beget even more humans. It happens surprisingly quickly too. And it keeps going until resources run out. The scenario has been played many times over, in boom and bust cycles of increasing magnitude. We are about to witness it happening on a planetary scale. It will be a first, but unfortunately it could also be the last -for everyone that is.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
meet junior, the gas-guzzler
In the 1950's when there were only 150 million Americans, most kids walked or biked to school. After school they played in with their friends in the neighborhood. When dinner was ready, mom stepped outside and yelled for the little ones to wash their hands and come to dinner. Now that there are 300 million of us, kids are driven to school, and to an ever increasing number of "after school activities," birthday parties, and play-dates. Like a highly paid limo service, parents or nannies are waiting at every step to drive junior to his or her many engagements.
Clearly, this is not a good trend. It should surprise nobody that childhood obesity is rampant. But the trend is not just destructive to our kids. It also results in a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas production. And it isn't limited to the daily driving.
Children are the most important force behind the move to suburbia, a decidedly unhealthy and environmentally destructive choice. Most adults it seems, become fearful of the city when they are about to have children. Neighborhoods that looked inviting and stimulating before, suddenly turn frightening and dark. The daily barrage of "news" only adds oil to the fire. Expectant parents feel a strong urge to go hide in suburbia, lest something happens to their precious newborns.
With the move to suburbia comes a bigger house, more items to put in that house, and a lot more driving. The driving starts right away as mom and dad need to go to work, to pregnancy class, and to regular checkups. It only gets worse from here. Junior needs a nanny who has to drive in and out. A bit later he or she needs to be driven to day care and later to pre-school. Many families now add a third car to drive junior around. They also switch to heavier and bulkier cars that get worse gas mileage. Kids are the main justification for the mini-van revolution. The same applies to the SUV and the newer cross-over car. Nothing like 5,000 pounds of metal to shield the little tyke. And lots of room to drive the soccer team around.
Anxiety is the key driver in child rearing. And it seems the older baby boomers are a lot more anxious than previous generations of - generally younger- parents were. For one, these younger parents did not have the luxury of worrying about everything from good schools to brain-stimulation activities. They often also lacked the resources to over-pamper their offspring. And believe it or not, that was a whole lot better. There was no epidemic of childhood obesity back then. Kids did not get stuffed with food supplements, forced into intellectual and cultural activities at age 2, and driven all over the universe. They had time to be kids. They walked, ran, and played. And that was better for their bodies AND their brains.
Running and walking are no longer acceptable. They are seen as a waste of time. Or worse, dangerous. These could be signs of hyperactivity or ADHD. Sitting still is no good either. Maybe the little one is autistic. There is no more time to wait for normal development to happen. Junior needs to sit upright at 6 months, walk at 11 and talk at 2 years. It is all on the clock. Any delay needs swift medical attention. To be followed by psychotherapy and tutoring if necessary. And don't forget the drugs. Junior is good for the services economy.
According to research, K-12 schools use 7% of all commercial building's energy use. Got to keep those youngsters warm and hooked to the computer all day long. Got to get those brains prepared for the real world. Outside, 82 million moms stand at the ready to drive the kids to a myriad of after-school activities, all of these happening at different locations. Junior needs chess, piano lessons, karate, soccer, ballet, etc. All of it starting as soon as he or she utters a few sounds and is stable enough to stand on two feet. There is no time to lose. If we want to score Harvard or Yale, we better get on the waiting list for that super pre-school that charges $20,000 in tuition and has a five year waiting list. Better get another job too and some more driving and flying around.
Unfortunately, all this activity will do more than its fair share to destroy junior's world. But oh, get in the car ! We are late for chess.
Clearly, this is not a good trend. It should surprise nobody that childhood obesity is rampant. But the trend is not just destructive to our kids. It also results in a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas production. And it isn't limited to the daily driving.
Children are the most important force behind the move to suburbia, a decidedly unhealthy and environmentally destructive choice. Most adults it seems, become fearful of the city when they are about to have children. Neighborhoods that looked inviting and stimulating before, suddenly turn frightening and dark. The daily barrage of "news" only adds oil to the fire. Expectant parents feel a strong urge to go hide in suburbia, lest something happens to their precious newborns.
With the move to suburbia comes a bigger house, more items to put in that house, and a lot more driving. The driving starts right away as mom and dad need to go to work, to pregnancy class, and to regular checkups. It only gets worse from here. Junior needs a nanny who has to drive in and out. A bit later he or she needs to be driven to day care and later to pre-school. Many families now add a third car to drive junior around. They also switch to heavier and bulkier cars that get worse gas mileage. Kids are the main justification for the mini-van revolution. The same applies to the SUV and the newer cross-over car. Nothing like 5,000 pounds of metal to shield the little tyke. And lots of room to drive the soccer team around.
Anxiety is the key driver in child rearing. And it seems the older baby boomers are a lot more anxious than previous generations of - generally younger- parents were. For one, these younger parents did not have the luxury of worrying about everything from good schools to brain-stimulation activities. They often also lacked the resources to over-pamper their offspring. And believe it or not, that was a whole lot better. There was no epidemic of childhood obesity back then. Kids did not get stuffed with food supplements, forced into intellectual and cultural activities at age 2, and driven all over the universe. They had time to be kids. They walked, ran, and played. And that was better for their bodies AND their brains.
Running and walking are no longer acceptable. They are seen as a waste of time. Or worse, dangerous. These could be signs of hyperactivity or ADHD. Sitting still is no good either. Maybe the little one is autistic. There is no more time to wait for normal development to happen. Junior needs to sit upright at 6 months, walk at 11 and talk at 2 years. It is all on the clock. Any delay needs swift medical attention. To be followed by psychotherapy and tutoring if necessary. And don't forget the drugs. Junior is good for the services economy.
According to research, K-12 schools use 7% of all commercial building's energy use. Got to keep those youngsters warm and hooked to the computer all day long. Got to get those brains prepared for the real world. Outside, 82 million moms stand at the ready to drive the kids to a myriad of after-school activities, all of these happening at different locations. Junior needs chess, piano lessons, karate, soccer, ballet, etc. All of it starting as soon as he or she utters a few sounds and is stable enough to stand on two feet. There is no time to lose. If we want to score Harvard or Yale, we better get on the waiting list for that super pre-school that charges $20,000 in tuition and has a five year waiting list. Better get another job too and some more driving and flying around.
Unfortunately, all this activity will do more than its fair share to destroy junior's world. But oh, get in the car ! We are late for chess.
Friday, February 1, 2008
population bubble
In 1950 there were an estimated 540 million people in China, virtually the same as in Europe. India had a mere 350 million while the US stood at 150 million. The total world population was at 2.5 billion, nearly half of which lived in China and Europe. What came next is generally referred to as the baby boom in the West. In history texts the baby boom is often seen as a reaction to the loss of life in World War II. The data do not mesh very well with this view. US losses were relatively small, at less than half a million, yet the US population doubled in size in the next 56 years.
In Europe, where significant losses of nearly 50 million had occurred, only 250 million were added. That means Europe only grew by 50% or half as much as the US. The real population boom happened in Asia, where the impact of war had been relatively small. From 1950 to 2000 China's population more than doubled to 1.3 billion. India's population skyrocketed to over 1 billion and is expected to keep growing and eventually overtake China. In China growth was so rapid that authorities had to step in and force mandatory birth control. China's growth has leveled off at 1.7 or below replacement, but India is still far about replacement rates at nearly 2.8.
A better explanation for this furious growth is oil. The exploitation of this new energy source enabled many things, chief among them a near doubling in agricultural productivity. Suddenly there was a mountain of food and a means to distribute it relatively cheaply. And more food quickly translated in more babies surviving to adulthood. The change was greatest in those countries with untapped potential. And that included the US and much of SouthEast Asia. Europe was densely populated to begin with so the impact here was far less pronounced.
The agricultural miracle has been called the "Green Revolution." Its key ingredients were pesticides and fertilizers. But one should not forget the plentiful oil used to power farm machinery, irrigation systems, and refrigeration and shipment of food. The Green Revolution was seen as a great victory for science and technology. It coincided with many other breakthroughs that changed people's lives in rather dramatic ways. These include the automobile, radios and TV's and even some fearful weapons such as the atomic bomb. Many of these had been developed decades earlier but the late 1940s and early 1950s were the period of market acceptance. The war and its aftermath played a great role in worldwide distribution.
As is common during such times, people quickly moved to integrate the new amenities into everyday life. Cities were built that were predicated on the automobile and oil. Layouts that had never been seen before and that would not have been viable earlier on, quickly became the norm. And nowhere was this more obvious than in California and the American West, areas where there was little history to stand in the way of progress.
Excess production in the West fed the growing armies of people in the East. And in return, the East quickly provided cheap labor to make trinkets for us. Industrial production started to shift Eastward and the economies in the West quickly moved into Services and other intangibles. All the while the world ran up a big credit card bill. A bill written in pollution, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas production. A boom time economy has developed that is dependent on cheap oil and all the benefits cheap oil can bring.
Unfortunately, it is not sustainable. But it is also not hard to see why people would resist letting go of it. And why people think so highly of scientific breakthroughs and technological solutions. The latter however were merely clever tricks to better exploit the true driver of the bubble: oil.
To keep going we won't just have to find another source. We will also have to deal with the residuals left over from the previous party.
In Europe, where significant losses of nearly 50 million had occurred, only 250 million were added. That means Europe only grew by 50% or half as much as the US. The real population boom happened in Asia, where the impact of war had been relatively small. From 1950 to 2000 China's population more than doubled to 1.3 billion. India's population skyrocketed to over 1 billion and is expected to keep growing and eventually overtake China. In China growth was so rapid that authorities had to step in and force mandatory birth control. China's growth has leveled off at 1.7 or below replacement, but India is still far about replacement rates at nearly 2.8.
A better explanation for this furious growth is oil. The exploitation of this new energy source enabled many things, chief among them a near doubling in agricultural productivity. Suddenly there was a mountain of food and a means to distribute it relatively cheaply. And more food quickly translated in more babies surviving to adulthood. The change was greatest in those countries with untapped potential. And that included the US and much of SouthEast Asia. Europe was densely populated to begin with so the impact here was far less pronounced.
The agricultural miracle has been called the "Green Revolution." Its key ingredients were pesticides and fertilizers. But one should not forget the plentiful oil used to power farm machinery, irrigation systems, and refrigeration and shipment of food. The Green Revolution was seen as a great victory for science and technology. It coincided with many other breakthroughs that changed people's lives in rather dramatic ways. These include the automobile, radios and TV's and even some fearful weapons such as the atomic bomb. Many of these had been developed decades earlier but the late 1940s and early 1950s were the period of market acceptance. The war and its aftermath played a great role in worldwide distribution.
As is common during such times, people quickly moved to integrate the new amenities into everyday life. Cities were built that were predicated on the automobile and oil. Layouts that had never been seen before and that would not have been viable earlier on, quickly became the norm. And nowhere was this more obvious than in California and the American West, areas where there was little history to stand in the way of progress.
Excess production in the West fed the growing armies of people in the East. And in return, the East quickly provided cheap labor to make trinkets for us. Industrial production started to shift Eastward and the economies in the West quickly moved into Services and other intangibles. All the while the world ran up a big credit card bill. A bill written in pollution, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas production. A boom time economy has developed that is dependent on cheap oil and all the benefits cheap oil can bring.
Unfortunately, it is not sustainable. But it is also not hard to see why people would resist letting go of it. And why people think so highly of scientific breakthroughs and technological solutions. The latter however were merely clever tricks to better exploit the true driver of the bubble: oil.
To keep going we won't just have to find another source. We will also have to deal with the residuals left over from the previous party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
