dumb and dumber

You would think that when a predictable crisis hits, people would sit back and think how to best solve it. That would be the intelligent thing to do. It would also guarantee a better outcome in the long run. However, once again, everyone from politicians on down seems eager to prove that intelligence is not all it is cracked up to be. And so here we are, in a bad situation with everyone trampling all over everyone else eager to come up with an even dumber idea than those previously voiced.

From repealing gas taxes for the summer, to halt stockpiling gas, to drilling in the alaska wildlife refuge -which has the added benefit of destroying yet another fragile environment- politicians can't stop flooding the nation's airwaves and print media with deadbeat ideas. Whatever it takes to appeal to the lowest common denominator, while pleasing rich campaign contributors is up for grabs. Lawmakers everywhere are beating each other up to be the first and loudest proponents of such idiocies.

For the first time in nearly a decade we are making some headway on global warming. Better than signing Kyoto, we now have a Wall Street dream: the market is forcing long overdue corrections. And what does government do? It immediately seeks to undo the "free market." And that in a Republican administration, and led by the Republican frontrunner for president. Where is truth in advertising when you need it? Where is the hands-off approach Republicans seem to favor. And what about Democrats who are so full of saving the environment. Why are they joining this chorus?

Every election we hear pundits say how the "American people are smart, the voters are smart." If the voters are so smart why don't they stand up to these politicians. It appears whatever smarts we have are rather myopic and focused on our immediate concerns. Or maybe smarts are there but they take second seat to everything else we do?

The country is making progress because higher gas prices are forcing people to drive less. Higher gas is making trucking and shipping of items less profitable, favoring locally produced goods. Airlines are reducing passenger capacity and filling up as many seats as possible before taking off. All of this is wonderful. It is what environmentalists were calling for, and what the green-conscious public so readily agreed with. Until reality hit that is.

Contrary to what our politicos are saying, what we need now is higher gas prices. We need to increase gas prices some more and then keep them there. Only then will Americans start reducing their carbon foot print. This is a free market solution. One that avoids dreaded government intervention.

Temporary solutions exist for those unfortunate ones hit hard by higher gas prices. We could give them gas stamps. We could encourage them to move closer to stores and work by giving out grants. We could help them get into affordable housing. We could improve public transportation. The only thing we should not do however, is reduce gas prices. That would be a step in the wrong direction.

the stimulus check is in the mail

The government wants us to do our patriotic duty and spend money to "save the economy." That is why we will all find money in our bank accounts, or for those of us who don't trust the electronic networks, checks in our mailboxes. I take it the poor and uneducated fall primarily in the latter category. That must be why many retailers are offering to turn rebate checks into a gift cards.

These "caring" retailers will also add 10% to that check for any person who does so. Imagine that, you get $300 from the government and those nice people at Wal Mart will give you an extra $30 to spend. Why not add another gimmick to this already gimmicky scheme? Before you spend your stimulus money, better think again.

Retailers can generously add 10% to all those checks because most people leave a fair amount of cash "un-cashed" on their gift cards. There are tons of used gift cards out there with $4-10 left on them. The tendency is so common and so widespread that gift cards have become a favorite tool for retailers to "tax" consumers. Not only do they lock you in -you will now spend all that money at Wal Mart and nowhere else- they will also get the leftovers free of charge.

California law makers have recently stepped in and a new law in the state forces retailers to cash out small amounts of leftover cash on gift cards. That little leftover does nothing to stimulate the economy but it adds directly to the bottom line. Big corporations love to play these tricks on unsuspecting consumers.

There are other reasons for holding on to the money. One is that the economy is in dire straits and a little bit of money like that is unlikely to make a big difference. When people are falling behind on their mortgage payments, a one time $300 check is unlikely to save their home. Especially when that house is now worth $100K+ less than the outstanding mortgage balance.

Before you know it you may be out of a job, out of a house, and bankrupt to boot. Add to that rising food and energy prices and maybe you would do better trying to save your rebate for a rainy day. Not that we will get many more of these once global warming kicks in.

Let's not forget the bigger picture though. What this economy needs is a major overhaul. An overhaul that won't be possible without a major contraction. We simply have to give up on our unsustainable life-style and go back to the basics. That does not mean give up on modern comforts or technologies as some would have us believe. But it does mean we should stop consuming for the sake of consumption.

We need to stop churning through stuff. And that will take some doing. Not in the least because so many people got so rich making us do so. These guys are not about to give up without a fight. They are not about to roll over and smile. So it is time for us to fight back. Fight back by ending this senseless consumption that is treating our valuable resources as if they are cheap and unlimited. The time of endless supplies is over. We can see the end in most cases. Granted it is often more than 50 to 100 years away, but even that should be scary enough for us to sit down and think again.

One hundred years is not that much time. Furthermore, serious hardship is likely to start much sooner as resources become more scarce and prices will skyrocket. Sure there will be speculation and false alarms, and it would not surprise me to see two or three episodes where prices drop dramatically and everyone laughs at another doomsday scenario gone bust. Sooner or later though reality will kick in and there won't be any more excuses. Better get ready before it is too late.

more journal logic

Today's WSJ has an editorial by Steven Hayward. Mr. Hayward is a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and judging from his incidental comments, he is not a democrat. He is also not a "believer" in global warming. Or at least not in a sensible solution. Mr Hayward discusses the Real Cost of Tackling Global Warming and the scenario he paints is one of absolute doom for the average American. He says such scary things as:"you can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TV's. Quelle horreur, mes amis ! Surely the end of the world is near !

And how does Mr Hayward come to these anxiety provoking ideas ? He simply calculates how much energy a household would be able to use if we are to meet the called for greenhouse gas reduction goals. He starts, quite logically, from where we are now but he also assumes we won't change our habits. And maybe there is some truth to that. It is hard to change people's habits. And that is why we have mortality. So the people with the old and inappropriate habits, who can't possible change, die out and are replaced by new people, who can be trained to have better habits. Or at least that is the intention.

Mr. Hayward does not consider that we waste more than 75% of the energy we use today. We do so because we are lazy and because it does not matter to us financially. Energy is cheap so why should we care? We have always had plenty and so we think we will always have plenty. America as a whole has never seen real hardship. It has never experienced wars. Sure, we fight wars and we have been fighting wars continuously since the beginning of the last century, but we have never seen war at home. Wars are things that happen far from home. They are also an odd form of mass entertainment. We can stare at the "shock and awe" our military inflicts on other countries. It is like a giant Fourth of July fireworks parade and some people respond accordingly.

But war at home is different. When those airliners flew into the World Trade Center, people were scared and shocked. Something like it had never happened in America. But, bad as it may be, two airliners don't come close to matching what happened to Tokyo, Dresden, and other cities in World War two. To say nothing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That type of horror is a bit different from not having a flat screen TV.

Trouble is bound to happen if we follow Mr. Hayward's lead and do nothing. Because as he says, how on God's green earth will we make up the difference? The difference between our ambitious goals and a realistic 80% reduction. For starters we could try to use less energy. That is really not that hard at all. Given that we outright waste more than 75% it should be easy to take step one. Just try to cut out the waste. The waste that does nobody any good, like those porch lights that stay on all day. Or those satellite-DVRs that spin around the clock.

Turn off your lights, disconnect your appliances, and don't use electricity for something you can do manually. That is easy to do. It does not take much effort and kids can be trained to do this so they will do it automatically without thinking about it.

You won't have to ditch anything. You can have a refrigerator and you can have a flat screen TV. You just need to turn that TV off when you aren't watching it. And keep the refrigerator door closed unless you take something out. You need to decide beforehand what you will take out. That too is not hard. And you could stop stuffing all those sodas and beers in there. That will also do wonders for your health and your weight. You will be happier and live longer.

All this is easy unless you live in suburbia. And the further your suburb is from the city the worse off you are. Because not only does your house use more power, you do too. And you are using it for no reason other than to do what others do without using power.

You may have to move to a more sensible location though. Just like people should not live in flood plains, they also should not live in deserts or far away from their jobs and hobbies. All that contributes to traffic jams, waste, and pollution. It also causes high blood pressure, obesity, depression, loneliness, and scores of other ills that are easily avoided by living closer. Live where you can walk to work or ride your bike. If you do so, you will be healthier and feel happier. Time to ditch the SUV and all those other useless things that people try to sell you by preying on your insecurities and weaknesses. Those things that are just there to show off and burn energy and money. Better shape up.

Time to stand up and fight America !

greenhouse joke

Today's Wall Street Journal has an editorial pointing out the contradiction in people's outcry for climate change laws and their even louder cries for cheaper gas. For once, I have to give the Journal credit for a well written and sensible editorial. It is amazing how cowardly our lawmakers are reacting to the current "gas crisis." Even those calling for tougher regulation and the need to do something about global warming see no issue in simultaneously calling for cheaper gas. According to the Journal nobody can get elected, or even govern on the premise of more expensive gas. Clearly that is not the case, as most European governments are doing just that. And they are doing fine too. Not only do they have more expensive gas, they have higher gas taxes too.

Fortunately for the Europeans, their infrastructure was built before cars and cheap oil came along. What that means is that the layouts are more sensible and more robust. In contrast, America's layouts, especially those in the West, are as poorly adapted to the new reality as the giant dinosaurs were so many millions of years ago.

As for lawmakers, McCain, Clinton, Obama, all have pledged to take action to combat global warming. And here is the easiest and best thing anyone can do: raise gas prices. Instead of calling for cheaper gas, a gas tax holiday and other gimmicks, these candidates should applaud the current situation and call for even higher gas prices. Anything else, as the editorial quotes McCain in saying, "is a joke."

I have pointed out before how people fail to grasp the most basic issues. If you are serious about ending the war in Iraq, if you are serious about global warming, then please stop driving so much. If you drive less, you also won't have to worry about high gas prices. Turn off your lights at night, turn down your heater and your air conditioner, especially when you are out. It is perfectly possible to live in a nice house and use half the energy that most people are using today. Even with higher prices, those who are serious about conservation should be able to save money without giving up any comfort.

And please don't talk about investing in alternative energy. About solar and wind power and other "innovations." The key to our problems is not there. Because global warming is just one symptom of a much wider problem. And that problem won't go away by installing solar panels or windmills or any other technology for that matter. The problem is with our life-style. A life-style that we are exporting to other countries, who are eager to mimic our gluttony.

The key is overconsumption. We are too fat in more ways than one, and so we need to consume less. Consuming something else is just deluding yourself. Installing solar panels so you can keep using as much electricity as you did before -or more as some do- is just plain idiotic. Buying a hybrid so you can keep driving is equally boneheaded.

All it shows is that you fail to grasp the problem, or maybe, that you choose to ignore it and go on as before. The problem however, will not just go away. Ignoring it will not help. The longer we wait and the more we try to prop up our unsustainable life-style with desalination plants, alternative energy, biofuels, and other crutches, the harder we will crash. Better swallow a bit of pain now.

speculation?

Is the food shortage for real or is it speculation? The same can be asked in the commodities and energy markets. Are we running out of goods and oil or is the shortage artificial? NYTimes editorial writer Paul Krugman answered this question recently by offering three alternatives. The first, that it was all due to speculation and investors driving prices sky high, mainly because other markets were performing so poorly. This apparently has happened before, but more about that later. The second was a combination of both speculation and some real shortages, while the third was outright and real shortage.

I think there is an answer that avoids a choice between these alternatives. Because in some sense they all play a role. Certainly food and commodities prices are high because of a fair amount of speculation. And we aren't really out of food (yet). The wave of obesity, which some call the epidemic is still in full swing. Clearly, many have too much to eat. So much so that they would prefer to use some of that corn to put into their SUVs and offset high oil prices.

Much of the speculation is also driven by future planning and by estimates of future yields. In the planning section we have the ambitious and voter-pleasing US plan to use more corn for ethanol to "reduce dependence on foreign oil." I have pointed out several times before that we are dependent on foreign oil because we choose to be wasteful, not because we need foreign oil. And no, we don't need to drill the Alaska wildlife refuge to handle this self-made problem. Secondly, we also choose to do so to prevent others from taking too much oil. I.e. we have a vested stake in making sure we use enough oil.

As for yields, there are the dire predictions of future shortages in almost anything of "real value." Food, oil, basic materials, etc. That is certainly true and worrisome, and if we keep on wasting stuff the way we do, we are bound to run out sooner rather than later. What is not mentioned here is that the pollution buildup from all that mining, oil-burning, and food producing activity will probably get us long before we run out of supplies.

Add to the planning and yield projections, the ability to make a quick buck, and the never ending greed of "investors." As has happened before in times of plenty, people are once again becoming unashamed of their unbridled greed. Some are so unashamed, they proudly display greed as a token of success. But as the good pope would remind them, greed is a deadly sin. What that really means apart from religion, is that the human experience over the centuries has shown that openly visible greed almost always leads to disaster. The disaster is then framed as god's punishment for human sins.

The truth is that we are awfully close to disaster. That too has happened before many times I might add, but NEVER on a planetary scale. That is what makes this looming disaster so much more worrisome than any previous one we have faced. And when we get closer to disaster, real and artificial shortages, and combinations of both will become more frequent. Initially, all will eventually dissipate and give the naysayers plenty of ammunition to scold those who worry, but in the end, shortages will become so frequent, with so little normal time in between that everyone will get the picture. Unfortunately, by then it will be too late to take effective measures and avoid a widespread and deep catastrophe.

carrying capacity

To some the earth looks overcrowded as it is. To others there is still much open space left. Years ago, I borrowed a motor home from one of my friends to go visit the American West. I had never been there. Before I left he told me I would see how much open space was left. And he was right. We drove across hundreds of miles of empty space with barely a creature in sight. No doubt my friend thought these acres would all one day be filled with suburbs and gated communities like the one he lived in in Orange County. There was only one problem. A problem that is easy to overlook from an air conditioned motor home with a stocked refrigerator. No water.

For people who grew up watching 2001, Star Wars and other movies that show a future of mega-cities with high rises reaching into the stratosphere, and many layers of aerial traffic, it may appear that we have a ways to go. So what if the luddites say it can never happen? Did they not say that about trains and automobiles too? Clearly, the sky is the limit when it comes to success. Soon we will have buildings that reach up for miles, space hotels flying around in orbit, and bases on the moon and mars. Or will we?

Unfortunately, the movie set designers never consider the real logistics of their creations. How does one feed all these people? Where does all the waste go? Where does the energy come from to power all these vehicles, air- and space-craft? And what about the inevitable pollutants? These are all real issues that matter. Take the simple sky-scraper for example. Already, current designs lose huge amounts of space for ventilation shafts, heating and cooling, cabling, elevators, stairs and what have you. The higher you go the worse it gets. Soon what limits you is not how high you can build, but how much real usable space you get. Sure that may not matter so much for one or two buildings, whose main purpose is to impress visitors from other nations, but putting your whole population in monster buildings does create serious problems. The best sky scrapers are the ones that are largely empty.

I would venture to say that we are near carrying capacity on the planet. Unless we were to adopt stringent restrictions and rationing, our ability to feed people will soon be under stress. And that is true even if we leave nearly 1 billion people hungry as is. That is one sixth of the population. The US makes up one twentieth of the earth's population but it uses more than one quarter of the available resources. We do not have enough resources to bring just China or India up to our current level, let alone both of them.

The problem is not just food. We are also polluting at an extremely high rate. Pollution other than air, is nearly invisible in the West because we are very good at dumping our trash somewhere else. And we are dumping enormous amounts of it. Furthermore increasing percentages of it are harmful in one way or another and they do pollute groundwater and other precious and limited resources. If other countries started generating trash at the rate we do, pretty soon it would become quite visible to all.

There are areas in this country where resource destruction is quite visible. What is always so striking about these places is not just the destruction, but the enormous amount of waste surrounding it. Clearly, these scars are not going to disappear anytime soon, unless we are prepared to spend big dollars.

Already the gaseous pollution is there for everyone to see. CO2 levels are rising. Methane levels are rising. And the planet is experiencing a greenhouse warming effect that will stay with us for centuries to come. Even if we were to stop adding greenhouse gases today, the effect would be there one hundred years from now.

It is no longer sufficient for us to find a new source of energy to sustain our appetites. We need to also find an effective way to deal with our refuse. That will ultimately prove to be a much harder problem. One more reason to start conserving and to reduce waste today. There isn't much time to left to lose.

the role of government

It appears some individuals see the role of government as one of a facilitator of certain (business) interests. These interests are the ones that selected the candidate and ensured his or her success. It is a slightly more cynical view than that of politicians simply returning favors to campaign contributors, however bad you may think that is. Here we have individuals being promoted by business interests and seeking election so they can influence the bottom line of said interests.

These politicians are de facto employees of a business. Their one and only goal is to promote the success of that business each and every day. They have no other professional interests and the words "public service" mean very little to them. Apart from their job, they may have some personal interest in putting a stamp on things, or leaving a legacy, or otherwise flattering their egos. But only to the extent that this does not interfere with their job. It is one of the brownie points awarded to them by the corporations they work for.

These employees do not come to Washington with an open mind. They do not seek to find solutions to problems, nor do they want to compromise other than on a very superficial level. Their goal is to make sure the public believe in them and package the business goals in such a way to ensure acceptance. Their dialogue is a monologue crafted by Madison avenue that says all the right things but commits to nothing of substance. They use the inertia of the bureaucracy to their maximum advantage. At times they use outright deception. But most of the time they are happy just to divert attention away from their real goals. Like magicians on stage, they entertain while performing the real work outside of public scrutiny.

And so they tackle real problems that worry corporate heavyweights. How to get control over Iraqi oil. How to ensure that the Sudan crisis does not get out of hand -by this we mean that the protests do not derail our friends in the oil business. How to soothe worries about global warming without affecting profit margins. The list goes on.

Often the best way to deal with a nasty problem is to promise to do something about it in the future. Or to make a bold statement without any follow-on action. Or to plan further meetings to discuss the issues in more detail. Or to set up some working groups and committees. In most cases, that will make the issue go away and soon enough everyone will have forgotten what the fuzz was all about. Or at the very least they will be distracted by some other, more urgent matter.

Let's try to fix greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Heck that should be long enough into the future to avert any danger. Danger to our profit margins that is. Who knows what will happen in 2025? It is for a future generation to worry about. But perhaps more importantly, it shows we care. It shows the public that we take them seriously. We will fix their worries in 2025.

food and agriculture

A UN-World Bank study concluded that food production has to change if we are to cure world hunger and prevent ecological disaster. The study admits that the current industrialization of food production has resulted in great gains in productivity but it also pointed out that the benefits of these are spread around the globe very unevenly. So while the West got rich, and while India and China were able to grow furiously, there are still 800+ million people today who go to bed hungry every day.

There are several problems with food production and agriculture that could bring about future disasters. There is an astonishing loss of biodiversity, making the food crop very vulnerable to pests and increasing demand for pesticides. On the other hand, the biotech industry is trying to make up for this by reintroducing certain pest-fighting genes and thereby reduce the need for pesticides. It is like much else in our society: first you create a problem and then you try to solve it in some roundabout way. But like so many engineered battles, in the long run we are much more likely to lose out.

Agriculture has not just focused on monoculture. It has also concentrated on large scale. Because large fields of identical items are easiest to harvest and process and have the best return on investment. Such fields are also the most vulnerable and once a pest or disaster finds a "hole in the armor," total devastation is inevitable. It seems likely that over time, organisms will become resistant to nearly all pesticides. Since pesticides target multi-cellular organisms, resistance is slower to develop than antibiotic resistance, but develop it will. And much like we are moving back to pre-antibiotic times in medicine, we will go back to pre-pesticide days in agriculture too. Unfortunately, by then we will have destroyed a ton of biological variability that is ultimately the only long-term defense against pests.

The UN-World bank study recommends going back to the "family farm," a small local enterprise that produces food for the owners and the local neighborhood. It is unlikely to get a seal of approval from the world's leading food producers. Agriculture is big business and too many people stand to lose if this were to happen. Not just food producers, but also fertilizer, pesticide and seed producers, biotechs, farm equipment manufacturers and the like.

Unfortunately, our current agriculture system is not sustainable. It is far too dependent on oil, massive irrigation projects, and monoculture to survive for very long. No doubt technologists will patch it up for many decades to come, while those who are getting rich of it will continue to sing its praises. But sooner or later it will all come crashing down. The longer we wait the more painful and the more disastrous that fall will be.

Fortunately, there is something we can do now. As citizens of a rich country we can have a disproportionate effect too, so every little bit will help a lot. First, buy local food. Join the locavores. That is the most important thing you can do. Don't buy anything that had to travel more than 100 miles to get to your table. And the heavier it is, the more eagerly you should avoid it. So never, ever buy bottled water.

Secondly, grow your own food. Everyone can grow some food, especially fruit. The more food you grow the better. The benefits go far beyond feeding yourself or your family. You are also helping maintain biodiversity. Especially if you grow items like heirloom tomatoes or less popular varieties of fruit.

Thirdly, buy organic. Always buy organic milk if you buy milk. But also look for organic fruit and cotton. While cotton is not a food item, growing cotton is one of the most polluting endeavors on the planet. Every cotton item you buy that is made from organic cotton will make a huge difference in the overall scheme of things.

Don't ever think these problems are too difficult to tackle. The truth is they are not. And we can all make a huge difference to our environment and the long term survival of our species. And feel better in the process too.

food and survival

As any mother knows, food is essential to well-being and survival. Produce more food and more people will appear. Furthermore, more will survive into adulthood and more will reproduce and have healthy offspring. Food is the single most important contributor to longer and healthier lives. Well-fed people get sick less and often, and when they do, they survive better than those who are not. The main reason we have so many people on the planet today is because the Green Revolution of the 1950s produced so much excess food. That food was produced thanks to a wealth of cheap fossil fuels.

But food alone is not enough and food prices do matter. If people cannot make a profit, food ends up being wasted. Farmers have thrown away food time and again when they felt their margins were insufficient. As for feeding the world, there has always been enough food to feed everyone alive, but the number of hungry has stayed more or less the same throughout. These people are hungry, not because there is a lack of food, but because they cannot afford to buy it. They starve while we in the West battle with obesity.

Given how world economies work, producing more food will not solve the hunger problem, ever. If we make good food available for cheap prices, then people will quickly reproduce more and more of their offspring will survive. That will lead to higher demand and at some point production improvements, which are rather linear, won't be able to keep up with population growth, which is more exponential in nature.

Chances are things will get worse, a lot worse, before they get better. We already have a severe food crisis and instability is rising around the globe. Prices are rising because of increasing fuel costs, the lure of biofuels, and the increasing demand for higher quality, lower yield items such as beef. All these have some relationship to global warming or remedies for global warming, and all will continue to cause deterioration in the food supply for decades to come. The days of cheap fuel are over and so are the days of cheap food.

Many important food sources are also overextended. Fish stock are at capacity or past capacity and some have predicted the oceans will be empty within 50 years. Given how many people depend on fish as a source of protein, massive starvation is likely to ensue. But global warming -whether man made or not- is also going to rear its ugly face. Some of the best food producers of today are likely to suffer the most. Countries like India will be affected in major ways and that will have repercussions around Asia. With over a billion people, most of them young, and many educated with access to technology, this could give rise to a rather interesting fight.

Already the anger of the world is directly almost exclusively at the US. Many high level foreign officials have used bad words to describe our venture into biofuels. Lots of people around the world look at America as a nation of overweight individuals driving around in oversized cars who show no sign of concern for their starving neighbors. Oh no, rather than help, the Americans are now growing and burning food in their oversized engines to sustain their bad driving habits. And with Congress looking to please constituents in an election year, don't expect anything but more money going into biofuels.

Many Americans are aware of the deteriorating status the country enjoys abroad. But too few are paying attention to this next wave of anti-American sentiment that is building. How would you feel if you saw people hoarding corn for their SUV while your family is starving to death?

love and waste

I wondered about the good reader from Florida, who claimed, "it is not that we are wasteful," when addressing carbon taxes as a solution to global warming. It occurred to me that many good citizens may feel this way and would be indignant at being called wasteful. Yet wasteful they are. All of us live an enormously wasteful life-style. So wasteful that it is unsustainable and will lead to our early demise, unless we fix it.

So what is wasteful? According to my dictionary, (a person, action or process), using or expending something of value carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose. As an example the dictionary lists: wasteful energy consumption. Well clearly, things like petroleum, other fuels, water, food, etc. are all things of value. Burning gas in one's car while sitting still in a traffic jam is to no purpose so it would clearly qualify as wasteful. According to one estimate, Americans burn 2.7 billion gallons of gas unproductively. That is a little less than the daily gas production worldwide. They waste even more heating and cooling their empty houses during the day.

But our good reader would no doubt argue that it is not his fault that he has to spend time in traffic jams. He is not "in love" with traffic jams anymore than he is "in love" with petroleum. Furthermore, he would point to a technological solution to do away with traffic jams, in the process singing the praises of technology and pointing out to us how technology will save us all.

But let's go back to the original definition and explore some more. Air is certainly a thing of value. Cut off someone's air supply and they die a swift death. Yet nobody would argue we are wasting air. Sometimes people say, don't waste your breath, but that clearly has a different meaning. We do not waste air under normal circumstances, because there is plenty of it around and it is free, so its real value is close to zero. Unless you go scuba diving. Divers do know about wasting air. You can easily waste a lot of air by panicking, or making unnecessary movements. Beginning scuba divers waste a lot of air.

The context really matters. You can easily waste air while diving, whereas nobody would accuse you of wasting air if you made a few frivolous dance passes on solid ground. Similarly, you may not be wasting water if you have a huge green lawn in Seattle, where it rains every other day, but the same cannot be said for a lawn in Phoenix, Arizona. Building golf courses in the desert is clearly very wasteful. And it becomes more wasteful with every passing day.

Because there is another thing to consider. The human condition is far from stationary. The conditions that prevailed when we grew up are no longer there once we reach middle age. That is probably one reason why biological organisms have a limited life-span. Because, even though these organisms are quite flexible and adaptable, there are clear limits to their adaptation potential. And then it is time for a new generation to take over. Anyone who grew up in the baby boomer generation, when there were 3 billion people on the planet is now faced with the fact that we have 6 billion humans. What may have been a little excessive back then, will now often be downright wasteful. And by 2050, there will be 9 billion people. Clearly things that are acceptable today will not longer work then.

There are two other misconceptions at work. One is that technology will solve all our problems. People will often point to the great achievements of modern technology, and to the great gains in efficiency. But the reality is otherwise. If anything, technology created our problems, and so far has not shown any evidence of being able to solve them. All efficiency gains have quickly disappeared as people cashed in on the "savings." Whenever the savings were huge, people have quickly responded by making more people so as to cash in even more effectively.

The second misconception is to view human history as a straight line from inception to the present, with things always improving. That too is easily debunked. There have been serious setbacks in human history and both life expectancy and well being have fluctuated enormously in the past. There have been times of great wealth and great achievement, followed by deep retreats. And even those who think the overall trend has been upward would do good to consider the warning: past performance is no guarantee of future success.

carbon credits and reader comments

The reader comments -in today's Wall Street Journal- on a recent article about carbon credits are quite instructive. Here are some interesting responses. One reader points out that the high European tax on gasoline is in fact a tax on carbon emissions. He claims a $1 per gallon gas tax is equivalent to a $100 per ton carbon tax. So far so good. I am in favor of higher gas prices and experience shows that higher prices do reduce consumption and are very beneficial in the battle against global warming.

But now the reader claims that since Europe charges anywhere from $2-3 tax per gallon, but consumption nonetheless went up by 26% from 1990 to 2004, that is proof that of a failed policy. The raise is irrelevant of course. What we really need to know is how much consumption would have gone up without the extra tax. And to get an idea of whether this works or not, just take a look at gas consumption per capita in Europe versus the US. Clearly Europeans use a lot less. Now you will probably say, distances are shorter in Europe, but that is a meaningless argument. Distances are what people make them to be. If Americans think it is acceptable to live 50 miles from work and commute that far by car everyday, then low gas prices surely have something to do with it.

I am sure you will find another argument to counter this, such as high home prices or something like it. But remember that high housing prices are also an artifact. They are high because the government subsidizes housing by letting people deduct their mortgage interest. Furthermore, Americans can buy homes with a little as 5% down. In Europe, even 20% is rare to find and most mortgages require at least 40-50%. Secondly, with abundant cheap energy, builders prefer to build huge houses so they can charge more. Suburbia is a totally subsidized and artificial living arrangement. It cannot persist without abundant cheap energy and water. Nobody could afford to live in Palm Desert without extensive support. Even Sacramento would be a wasteland with cheap gas and plenty of dam building.

On to another instructive comment. One reader says, Who would be ignorant enough to sign onto something that China and India don't participate in? Fair enough and many readers make similar observations. These basically say that we should not foot the bill for others, or that we should not use our hard-earned dollars to help others. There is a strong sense in all these that the readers are not prepared to cooperate with others -even others who have an inferior standard of living- to save our habitat. We would rather die rich than share.

And finally, the most telling of all. It reads, It's not that we are in love with petroleum; not that we are wasteful and "dislike" nature. It's that we do not want the federal government giving away our tax money and global competitiveness.

This one puts it all together in one nice package. And let's take it at face value. Let's assume the reader does not think he is in love with petroleum. Let's assume he does not dislike nature and that he truly believes he is not wasteful. Then, more than any other comment this one illustrates the profound ignorance of our citizenry. Our maybe the spectacular success of our Madison Avenue brain washing.

Let's set the following test. Maybe the reader can stop using petroleum for a week. Both directly -as in driving, heating and cooling- and indirectly -as in using only local food grown without fertilizers, pesticides, and artificially pumped in water. Food shipped in by bicycle. Let him do this and then tell us with a straight face that he is not in love with petroleum. Because the truth is, he has no clue how deeply addicted and dependent he, and all of us really are. Without petroleum, most of us would starve.

As for being wasteful. Let's take a look at his electricity, gas, and water bills. Let's see how many gallons of water he needs to get through the day. Let's check how many kWh of electricity, and how many therms of gas. Let's multiply that by the current world population and see how big the shortfall is. Not wasteful, give me a break.

It is comments like these that often make me wonder if there is any hope left for humanity.

invisible crisis

Just before the housing bubble burst, things looked really good. Excitement was in the air. Credit was easy to come by and housing tracts appeared out of nowhere as so many mushrooms before dawn. There were new houses everywhere you looked, and more were being built all the time. Furthermore the houses changed hands in the blink of an eye. Everyone was getting richer and richer all the time.

Very few people had an inkling that anything was wrong or could go wrong. The prevailing mantra was housing will always go up. It has always gone up and it will always go up. Never mind that the population is aging, never mind that many people already owned two and three houses. Housing always goes up. There is no such thing as a national housing market, all housing is local, and local looked good. And then the bombshell hit.

Currently, there is a food crisis. It is hardly visible from where we are and as one San Diego reader to another blog remarked: supermarket shelves are full and people are obese. What food crisis? But the food crisis is as real as the housing crisis. It just hasn't hit the US yet. Being one of the richest countries in the world has its advantages you could say. But it will hit and it will hit hard. First the farmers will benefit some more, and then everyone will be in dire straits. Everyone except the well to do. Unless of course things really go out of hand. You never know.

One thing about bubbles and catastrophes of this kind is that things always look the best right before the implosion. Witness all the overweight people. Witness all the wasted food everywhere. Nevertheless, we are about to experience a major food implosion. Many countries have already seen riots and more riots are sure to come. Better get ready for the storm. Food prices are rising at astronomical rates, and they are rising to levels that will hurt middle class consumers. But it won't stop there. There will be shortages too. It won't be pretty. And there won't be any quick solutions. So much for biofuels you might say.

too puny to matter?

An often heard criticism of global warming is that we humans are too puny to matter much. An extension of this criticism is that we as individuals are too insignificant to do anything about it. Big problems need big solutions. Well, I urge you to look at the facts and reconsider. Very small savings multiplied by billions of humans do matter. They matter a lot.

The BBC estimated that if every British household turned off just one 100W light bulb for a day, Britain could remove four 500 megawatt coal fired plants. Britain has 22 million households. Or to use another example. The famous Hoover dam produces 2,080 megawatts of electricity. That is just sufficient for one 100W bulb for every British household. Surely, Britons would not be worse off if they were forced to use one less bulb. But how do you get them there? Unfortunately my friends only one things seems to work: higher prices. You don't like it and I don't either, but there is no other way.

The Grand Coulee Dam is the largest hydro-electric power source in the US, and the third largest in the world. It produces 6490 megawatts or more than three times the Hoover output. However, with 105 million households in the US, not even the Grand Coulee could provide enough power for that one extra bulb. One less 100W bulb for every US household would save more power than the Grand Coulee, the Hoover, and the Chief Joseph dams combined. Think about that when you leave your lights on.

And then there is some good news. Americans are driving less. Yes folks, economics works. Even if the geniuses on Wall Street and Capitol Hill don't understand it -or pretend not to. When prices go up, people use less. They are smart. They start treating oil for what it really is, a precious and finite resource. Americans, like everyone else in the world, are smart enough to figure out how to combine car trips and save gas. Over time, even Americans will figure out that buying a smaller car makes sense too. And they won't be any unhappier for it. And that is why the government should fix gas prices at no less than $5 per gallon. Only then will we make some headway against greenhouse gases. All the rest is idle talk and grandstanding.

So Senators Clinton, McCain, and Obama, how about it? How about showing some real leadership and some guts where it really matters? How about setting a minimum gas price? How about driving home the message that our resources are finite and valuable and that wasting them is a stupid thing to do?

blue man show

If you've been following the news lately you surely witnessed the latest blue man show. No, this one is not on a Las Vegas stage, but it is just as unreal. Light blue clad Chinese "security" people forming a protective cocoon around the Olympic Torch. Despite the baby blue outfit these "pros" are not to be messed with. Some popular websites labeled them "thugs," and other highly descriptive but rather unsympathetic terms were used. Maybe the Chinese government is trying to show the world how it handles dissidents? After Tibet, who is next ?

This latest fiasco shows once again what the "Olympic spirit" is all about. Now that the epic cold war struggle is over, the torch has -quite literally- been passed to China. And the Chinese are trying to show the world how important they really are. One can only hope that people take notice. With all the undue attention given to al-Qaeda and other Islamist organizations, it is easy to forget where the real threat lies. And this one won't be as easy to deal with. China is the one nation that can mobilize millions and it won shy away from a few thousand casualties here and there.

Politicians would do well to forget about phony wars, that generally achieve nothing other than wasting inordinate amounts of money. Phony wars like the war on drugs, the war on cancer, the war on terror, etc. These are nothing but bottomless pits for spending. And all have a negative return on investment. Neither drugs, nor cancer, nor terrorists will ever go away. Furthermore, these are not important threats in the overall scheme of things.

We should pay attention to what really matters. In our world of limited resources, China is adding "another France" every year to its unquenchable thirst for energy. Growth of such magnitude will not come to rest easily. Sooner or later something will have to give. And since all wars are about resources, this is a war in the making. So rather than spend money to beef up another dictatorship in return for some cheap trinkets, we should rein in those greedy "investors" and have them focus on our own economy.

Unfortunately that economy is turning more into a giant fluff ball with every passing day. Every time we ship a real job abroad to save a few pennies, we replace it with another fluff ball position. While that position may pay better over the short run, and economists can happily check the added value box, it won't be so good once the big bubble bursts. Like those McMansions in the desert, we won't have much use for another life-style coach when trouble strikes. Given how close to the edge we are living that trouble cannot be too far off either.

iraq and the big picture

Whether you are for or against the war in Iraq, remember one thing. The war is and was all about oil. Everyone knew it all along but nobody wanted to come forward and say so. Those who tried were quickly silenced. Often by flag-waving, patriotic slogans, and ingenious and long-winded arguments about freedom, democracy, and what have you. Or maybe they were touched by cruelties such as "gassing his own people."

The Iraq war has been wrapped and boxed in more layers than an Egyptian mummy. Instead of cotton and cedar though, we are talking layers of political and ideological obfuscation. If nothing else, it shows how good we humans are at rationalizing our behaviors and how willing we are to listen to and even believing other people's rationalizations. Experts have analyzed and probed into the President's mindset and utterances, only to discover drives and motivations that wouldn't fool a four year old.

The war in Iraq is a logical and inevitable consequence of our over-indulgent life-style and addiction to oil. And that life-style goes across the aisle. Nobody with the tiniest bit of self respect can argue they are against the war and drive an SUV every day. What they can say is that they are against how the war was conducted. Or that they are disappointed in the tactics we had to resort to. They can be embarrassed that we had to use torture or open up concentration camps to get our way. They can be shocked at what little was achieved. And maybe that is what this is all about. We are all against the way the war in Iraq was run.

The conservatives may feel we should have gone in with more fire power. More shock and awe fireworks. However, they probably remember the Vietnam debacle and the strong aversion we all have towards casualties. In this age of high-tech we want clean wars without casualties. American casualties that is. Because for all our political correctness, the others don't count, and that is exactly why we don't count them. Wars are messy, anyone can tell you, and as long as we keep the mess away from us, things should be OK.

The liberals may feel there was too much overt damage. Too many shocking images unfit for prime time TV. Too much loss of life. They may think should be able to get our oil without blood and gore, and without all that macho testosterone posturing. Let's just be smart about it and find some way to run off with it. That is what those anti-war stickers on the big Volvo cross-over are all about. But hurry, we have to drive the kid to soccer practice and then get in the car to go to the gym. And let's not forget our weekend trip to the mall.

Perhaps we should have a little People magazine quiz to find out if we are really against the war. It could have questions like, how many cars do you own? How many boats, motorcycles, jetskis, snowmobiles, lawn-mowers, and other gas guzzling devices? How big is your house? How high is your monthly electricity bill? How much gas and oil do you use for heating? How much water do you waste each and every day? How big is your lawn? And how many frequent flyer miles do you have? How much beef do you eat? And how much do you weigh?

If you scored above 5, and who doesn't, you are a true dyed-in-the-wool supporter of the war in Iraq. So quit the charade and sing out loud with Borat, "we support your war of terror."

more money, less happiness

According to a study by three prominent economists, Americans have a higher standard of living today but they are little or no happier than previous generations. The study is based on a survey of 4,000 Americans, and is reviewed in a column in the Wall Street Journal. In a somewhat surprising statement -for the Journal that is- the reviewing author states "If your income doubled, you would initially be delighted. But research suggest you would quickly get used to all that extra money." I am happy that others confirm what I have said and written about in this blog many times. You adapt and then things are the same.

Back to the study though. What the authors found was that so called "engaging leisure and spiritual activities, " which includes hanging out with friends, exercising, listening to music, reading a book, going to a party -or to a church, etc. are key to happiness. These are the components of happiness that you can change. Other components such as your basic disposition, or your life circumstances also matter but you have far less flexibility here. Furthermore we can safely assume that these have not changed much from one generation to the next. So it is all in the engaging activities. The authors also call these "things you choose to do, rather than have to do." It does not include being a couch potato and sitting in front of a TV munching chips. That activity lacks "engagement" and is devoid of "spirituality."

Perhaps surprisingly, given all the attention paid to the rat race, today's men and women have more leisure time than their parents or grandparents had. So they have the chance to spend more time in these "engaging leisure and spiritual activities." But they do not. Rather than exercise, they prefer to lie around and watch TV. What they also don't do as much is socializing. And that is no doubt a direct result of suburbia. People in cities are forced to socialize. They are also forced to walk more. That keeps them skinnier and happier it seems.

Today's generation lives in large homes that separate individuals and pull them away from each other. Everyone has their own room, their own bathroom, and some couples even have their own bedrooms. That is what you get when you live in a 5,000 sq ft home. You have to "use" all that space. As a result you never get to see the other inhabitants. Instead you watch your own TV in your own room. No more rewarding social interaction. And with everyone having a different schedule, chances are you don't even eat meals together anymore. Not to mention that everyone has their own car.

But it does not stop there. Not only is your house a huge vacuum that you fill with stuff, it also sits isolated on a cul-de-sac or other street that leads to nowhere. There is no place to walk to. No place to interact with others, except maybe the brief hello in the driveway, when you happen to bump into the neighbor. That is, if you are still on speaking terms with the neighbor.

And the rest of suburbia is no different. You go to the mall, or better you drive there. Here again, few chances to interact other than to talk to the shopkeepers who do not want to talk but rather sell you stuff. Many malls are laid out with the parking spaces in the center, so you can park in front of the store and haul huge loads of goodies into your car, before you drive off to the next one, across the parking lot. Again so many missed opportunities.

Not to mention all that time you spend alone in your car. Listening to your stereo. No people to talk to though. No wonder you see so many drivers having conversations with themselves. And those big cars give you that nice sense of isolation. On top of it all but utterly alone. Alone and exposed to commercials. The same happens with TVs. TVs not only make you lazy, they constantly make you feel inadequate. The barrage of commercials telling you that you need this or that gadget to be happy, that you need to go eat here, or buy a new car, definitely takes its toll. And it isn't just the commercials anymore. Product placement is everywhere. All your favorite characters drink this or that soft drink, drive that new car, etc. etc.

It is time to wake up America. Your unsustainable life-style is not just destructive to the environment. It is bad for your health, and it appears to your happiness as well. Time to turn off the TV, ditch the car, and go live in a normal sized house in a nice neighborhood, where you can walk to the store.

not seeing the forest for the trees

Neuroscience tells us that humans can only pay attention to one or at most a few items at a time. There is so much information to process that your brain ignores most of it. There are some inborn mechanisms to help you pick what to focus on, and in some instances learning plays a role too. The key skill you acquire in learning how to drive a car, or any other fast paced activity, is to digest what is important and what is not. Beginning drivers are overwhelmed with information coming at them at high speed. One gets the impression that over time, one learns to process it, but the reality is, one learns to ignore most of it. Even walking slowly, the information flow is so vast that it would quickly overwhelm your processing capacity. The only reason why the near-stationary world does not come at you so fast, is that you learned to deal with it as a toddler.

The idea that you actually see and hear what is happening is an illusion. It is an illusion created by your brain. That is what your brain is there for. To simulate the world. And that simulation runs in the background at all times. It is where you live. Your sensory systems update the simulation in piecemeal fashion, picking and choosing important spots that need updates. All in all very little information is added but it is added constantly. Most of the time, these updates are sufficient and there are few surprises. Occasionally, things fail in some minor way. Very rarely they fail catastrophically and we get hit by something we never saw coming.

There are hundreds of experiments to show that this is for real and that your perception of reality is largely a deception. Furthermore, early attempts at artificial intelligence and robotics quickly ran into this problem. There was so much information to process that the poor robot could only move a fraction of an inch every ten minutes or so. Even then it failed to keep up. And some robots were feeding all their info into supercomputers for processing. They were worse at "surviving" than a simple housefly.

For a while it was thought that a lack of computing power was the issue, and there are many texts purporting to show how extensive the compute power of human brains is. Much like similar texts claiming how many genes we had or needed -or wish we had-, the super brain theorists will be in for a surprise when all is said and done. Our brains, like everything else about us, are a bag of clever tricks. Their processing capacity is very limited. Other animals survive very well with even more limited compute power and it is by no means certain that superior intelligence is a better long term survival strategy. For one, the cost of building and maintaining it is quite prohibitive. Evolution seems to favor simple designs.

Because humans can only process so much, they often get bogged down in details. Advertisers know this and take advantage of it. They focus on branding or associating items with one critical feeling. They know people have limited bandwidth and so they like simple messages. Simple messages that stick in your mind. Enjoy Coca-Cola ice-cold.

Politicians too like things to be simple. And so do nay-sayers who argue against climate change, evolution, the benefit of vaccines, and other obvious phenomena. But even those of us who try to pay attention to the bigger picture can fail to grasp the magnitude of certain situations. We prefer to deal with pollution, greenhouse gases, global warming, drought, food shortages, deforestation, etc. in piecemeal fashion. And in doing so, we may fail to grasp the big picture. We are living in our simulation where all is well. And most of the time that works for us. We may think the big picture is unchanged and needs only updating in a few critical spots. However, in rare circumstances that view can fail catastrophically too. Unfortunately we may have reached or we are about to reach such a circumstance.