food and starvation

The BBC asks the question, is it time to reconsider GM foods? Like hybrid cars, GM or genetically modified foods are the big technology breakthrough that is going to save us from extinction. But whereas hybrid cars are largely a gimmick, GM foods do have some merit. Inserting genes to make plants more resistant to pests, or make it so they can tolerate herbicides seems to make sense. After all, it is what evolutionary forces have been doing all along. That is what "evolution" is all about: change to deal with your environment. You might argue plants would never become tolerant to RoundUp, the Monsanto herbicide, but that is just wrong. Given that there is a genetic solution to RoundUp tolerance, it seems likely that sooner or later plants would have acquired this trait. That is, if there were enough RoundUp available to make RoundUp resistance a distinct advantage.

GM foods are likely to work for a while. They will make it so farmers use less chemicals and hence, less oil, but I doubt it will make much difference, or for very long. It may make Monsanto stockholders wealthy though, but that is another matter. Ultimately, pesticides and herbicides will fare no better than antibiotics: resistant strains will appear and the gains will be nullified. For antibiotics, it took a mere fifty years for that to happen. Give it another 50 years and we will be back to pre-antibiotic times. For pesticides and herbicides it may take a bit longer, since multi-cellular organisms cannot adapt that quickly. But ultimately, these chemicals will become part of the "normal" scenery and of limited value to agriculture.

The trouble is that giving the way we live now, with all the waste, and excess, there are simply too many people on the planet. Oil is what keeps them there and oil is a limited resource. Once we run out, or are getting close to run out, the party will be over. That means the people will have to disappear, one way or another. If we changed our life-style perhaps we could accommodate more but six billion is a lot. As for changing life-styles, fat chance that that will happen. So we are looking at mass starvation, massive die-offs as a result of disease and other enormously unpleasant events.

The sooner we deal with it the better off we will all be.

an absurd economy

High fuel prices are irking Americans. There are calls for government intervention. Investigations into price gouging. Appeals to reduce the federal excise tax. Calls for a summer gas holiday. Despite all that fury, Americans pay less for gas than the rest of the world. They also waste more gas than the rest of the world. And the news is not all bad: high gas prices are causing many to drive less and opt for public transportation. Given the enormous waste that is a good thing. Gas prices should be kept high according to many. It appears to be the only way to solve the global warming crisis.

Europeans are even more unhappy. They pay more than $8 a gallon now and that is causing serious hardship. It is hurting the transportation business, the fishing industries, and agriculture. One could agree that $4 is a good thing since it makes people more aware, but maybe $8 is too much of a good thing. After all, Europeans are already quite fuel-efficient. How much more can one push?

Let's take a look at Western economies and see what decades of cheap oil have done. The transportation business for example, how essential is all that cargo? I have earlier pointed out how much people spend shipping water all around the planet. Water is very heavy so it is a very energy-intensive item to ship. Furthermore, there is enough clean drinking water everywhere in the Western World. So much so that people flush their toilets with it. Everyone has access to clean, high quality water that is often of better quality than the bottled water we bring in. Clearly this is a totally unneeded business.

Yet people never think twice before ordering Evian or Perrier from the French Alps, or San Pellegrino from Italy. Global sales of bottled water were estimated at $100 billion a year. Global consumption was 154 billion litres in 2004 and it has been growing by more than 10% a year since. 154 billion litres weigh 154 billion kilos or 154 million tons. In 2006, the US consumed more than 8 billion gallons (30 billion litres or 30 million tons !) of bottled water.

That is not all. Consumption of carbonated soft drinks is even higher. Given that these are water, some carbon dioxide, tons of sugar and some flavorings, once again one has to wonder where the need is. Not to mention the 50 billion empty bottles and containers that end up in landfills every year. At least 23 billion of those contained nothing but water. Producing the bottles alone consumes the equivalent of 17 million barrels of oil. Bottling created 2.5 million tons of CO2 according to the Pacific Institute. And we haven't even left the factory!

Producing and shipping bottled water and carbonated sodas may be the biggest waste of resources but it is not the only one. As a matter of fact we ship unnecessary stuff all the time. We ship cheese and wine to Europe and they ship cheese and wine to us. Most of the intra-EU trade consists of such needless exchanges. The French drink Italian wines and the Italians drink French wine. The Dutch eat Belgian cheese and the Belgians eat Dutch cheese.

Cheap transportation also allows Norwegian fishermen to catch fish, ship it to China for cleaning, and then reimport it for sale in Norway. These idiotic arrangements are no fluke. They happen everywhere and all the time. And they are all due to cheap oil. It is cheaper to ship and have fish cleaned in China than in Norway. It makes economic sense to do it this way and so people do. That they also waste a precious resource in the process is something nobody worries about. That they also pollute our planet and emit greenhouse gas is something that has only recently received a little bit of attention.

Cheap oil has warped the West and undoing these knots will be a very painful process. So painful that it seems likely people will go through great lengths to try and preserve the status quo. That is very unfortunate. Because we are wasting a precious resource that is limited and won't be easy to replace. An non-oil economy is simply not feasible. That is the plain truth and oil executives and anyone with a bit of sense knows it. Solar panels are not going to ship bottled water around the planet.

Fortunately, there is plenty you can do. Drive less, don't drink bottled water -it is lower quality in any case-, don't drink sodas -they make you fat-, and become a locavore. All these will save you money and help the environment. They will also induce lawmakers and politicians to undo the absurd economy that oil has created.

the press and objectivity

In America, journalists are supposed to be objective. At least that is the advertised rule. It is a rule that doesn't hold in other countries, where a biased press corps is acceptable. Most countries have political parties with their own newspapers and these newspapers reflect the view of the party. That view is not limited to the editorials but pervades the entire paper. If you read a socialist paper you will get news through a socialist lens. If you buy a conservative paper, you will see the world as a conservative does. In most of those countries, the only "objective" source of news is on TV, where a national broadcasting company holds sway. The broadcasting company is funded by the government and so the news is more or less impartial -although generally not too critical of the ruling party or parties.

Australia is a country where news is biased and it should surprise nobody that Rupert Murdoch, who was born in this tradition would bring it with him to the US. The only problem is that we "expect" objectivity. The other problem is that we do not have a powerful public broadcasting system, and most people get their news from a private business, supported by advertising. The only "confidence" we have is that the journalists, writers, and editorialists working there are schooled in the "objective" tradition.

Now notice two things: advertisers are the real customers of the network. They are the ones that pay. As such they like shows that people watch, but not if these shows have negative connotations. They do not like their products to be associated with negative images. Right off the bat, you have a situation of pervasive, and very powerful censorship. It won't ban things outright but we have to make sure that the newscast is not too negative or dwells too much on stories that may upset people. Here is the source of your public interest story about the cat that got rescued from a tree.

It is also likely the main reason why news stations go commercial-free in times of disaster. You may think they want to give you the news without interruption, but they probably think, our advertisers would not like it anyways. At least we have the viewers and if people know we cover things they will tune in when nothing happens too.

The second thing is even more frightening. Here are some very powerful corporations, led by some very powerful people, who -invariably- have very strong opinions about a lot of things. These people are the ones paying the bills. You as a poor journalist are paid by these people. Furthermore, the people you get the news from also have strong opinions. They too know how to protect their "turf." And they too wield a very powerful weapon: they can give you the story you need. But only if they like you. Otherwise they can give your competitor a heads up. Now answer this simple question: how long do you think it will take the successful journalist to "see" this picture? And what will happen next?

Yesterday we got a powerful admission of this fact during Anderson Cooper's 360. This came up in reference to Scott McCellan, the former White House press secretary who wrote another scathing memoir. One in a long list detailing how disconnected, disfunctional, and chaotic the White House really is. But that is another matter.

Scott was apparently frustrated that the journalists did not ask the though questions regarding the war. And then one guest revealed to us that her bosses were sensitive to the ratings of the president. You may remember that Bush had very high popularity ratings before the war. The bosses were not eager to go hard on a President who was so popular. Furthermore, the bosses were not keen on being seen as unpatriotic by opposing the war. They were sensitive to their image. And apparently, they were sensitive enough to let the journalists and writers, and editors know.

This was not some case of Fox News. By now we all know Fox News is biased, strongly biased. We all know Rupert takes time out to make sure the news is covered the way he likes it covered. It is understandable given his background and tradition. It is rather unusual that he would bother, but he has strong opinions. It is however inexcusable that he does this in a tradition of objectivity, without bothering to inform us of it. To the contrary, he does the opposite. Fox News swears it is objective. It is fair and balanced. More kool-aid anyone?

The story we saw last night is perhaps more scary. It shows that meddling, active meddling is not limited to Fox. It happens everywhere. Of course, we expected as much. But being told it is really true is another matter altogether. So now you know. Don't trust the news. Especially not when it supports the powers that be.

three Americas

America consists of three societies that live next to one another with few, if any interactions. On top there are the rich and superrich, who are effectively shielded from everyone and participate little in regular society except to further their wealth and wield their power. In America the superrich are a source of great public interest and a subset of them live lives that are exposed to a level not seen in other nations. Publications such as Forbes and Fortune publish data on the wealthiest individuals that many in other countries would consider inappropriate or even obscene. Despite the visibility and voyeurism, Americas top group is effectively isolated in its ivory tower. There is a glass wall.

The most remarkable characteristic of the superrich is how their wealth has consistently increased over the past half century. The gap between the rich and the middle class is now as wide as it has ever been and it is still growing. What that means is that these individuals are increasingly out of touch with the masses. It is -as history shows- a potentially dangerous situation in the making.

The bulk of Americans are part of the second society that includes the middle class (white collar) and the worker classes (blue collar). Although politically and ideologically divided, with a vast spread in wealth between the upper middle class and the non-union worker at the bottom, this group has more in common than they are willing to admit. This is the America we refer to when we discuss every day concerns.

The key attribute for the middle is vulnerability. All these individuals are to a large extent vulnerable to disastrous events that can wreak havoc with their livelihood and status. All have the feeling they have to keep going in order to survive. They are the ones on the treadmill who have to walk ever faster to stay in the same place.

Common phenomena such as divorce, chronic illness, and even accidents can have a major impact on their well-being. Bankruptcy and financial disaster are a reality for these people. As Lou Dobbs likes to point out, the middle class is under attack. It is the American middle class that experiences the glum that Fareed Zakaria highlights in his latest book. It is this part of society that feels the country is moving in the wrong direction. It is this part of society that knows the economic uncertainty, the problems in the job market, even the threat of terrorism. It is this part of society that is kept in fear by the onslaught of the media. These are the people who are one pink slip away from ruin.

The middle is the part affected by the subprime lending crisis. These are the American consumers. The ones who are constantly being told it is their patriotic duty to buy more things. They are also the small town Americans who cling to guns and religion and xenophobia out of bitterness over lost jobs and declining opportunities. Barack Obama hit the nail on the head. The mistake he made was to say it out loud. That did not go over well and Fox "news" was waiting for him.

The third America is surprisingly large. Almost 10% of the US population, the highest number of any civilized country. These are the people who live in hunger and misery. Many of them are safely tucked away in forgotten valleys and desolate countryside. The rest is considered a blight to inner cities or resides in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Even in plain view, the poor are largely ignored and sequestered away. It is common for Americans to view poverty as a self-inflicted state, unworthy of sympathy or compassion. The poor do not participate in American society. They do not vote, so politicians ignore them. The rest just tries to get away or put them away. Here are the bodies that make up the largest prison population of any industrialized country. They "require" the most policing and social services. They are an enormous burden on society. It is a tax we all have to pay.

post-American malaise?

According to Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, Americans are glum at the moment. Really glum, he says. And to prove his point he refers to a recent poll revealing that 81 percent of the American people believe that the country is on the wrong track. That is apparently the most negative response in the last 25 years. So far so good. I do believe Americans think the country is heading the wrong way. The question is why? The other question is how deep does this feeling of malaise run? Or to put it another way, how easy would it be to fix it?

According to Fareed, Americans are unsettled because frightening things are happening elsewhere in the world. If we are to believe his thesis nothing is wrong at home, it is just that the post-American world is unsettling to Americans. Things that were once the essence and purview of America are no longer so. He goes on to give examples: the tallest building is in Taipei, the biggest refinery is in India, the largest publicly traded company is in Beijing, Bollywood is bigger than Hollywood. It goes on and on. However compelling this list may seem, I doubt that it matters one bit. Most Americans, I am afraid to admit, are not aware of these facts, and those that are, probably couldn't care less. Based on my limited sampling, Americans still strongly believe that things American are the best in the world. If they do feel bad for a related reason, it is because they feel they cannot access these goodies. Sure, we have the best healthcare, but who has insurance that is good enough to access it? The list goes on, so I won't bore you here.

Fareed also hits on something else, the fact that information is exploding. This too sounds -at first glance at least- somewhat reasonable. He claims that despite the fact that violence is on the decline, not just in America, but worldwide, the information (about violence) is exploding. We see images from around the world all the time. There is a constant hype and 24hr newscasts. Last I checked the newscasts were there, but the amount of time spent on "news of the world" was easily and consistently dwarfed by the local weather forecast, and tons of other trivia -like the cat in Texas, that was rescued from a tree.

Hold on though, apparently the hype appears to be an unfortunate side-effect of the fact that "the information revolution is so new, we -reporters, writers, readers, viewers, -are all just now figuring out how to put everything in context." The latter statement is either a deliberate falsehood, or one of the most naive interpretations of news and reporting I have ever heard. It is almost funny. Maybe Fareed should take a look at Outfoxed. His "figuring out how to put everything in context" may sound good but it is hopelessly gullible and self-serving. There is ample evidence that the news media -increasingly dominated by demagogues like Rupert Murdoch- are deliberately trying to create a climate of fear in the American mind. Fox news, the undisputed star of "breaking news" and "news alerts" maybe "fair and balanced" but they are certainly not trying to put everything in context. At least not in the traditional sense of the word.

It may well be that Americans are bombarded by images of violence around the world, but once again I doubt that it would do much to produce widespread malaise. If anything, I suspect it might make people feel better about being so lucky to be American. There is a fear, due to the events of 9/11 and artfully stoked by the media, of international terrorism, but that once again has led to more resolve and determination, not malaise and glum feelings.

When it comes to images of domestic violence, the same polls clearly show that although violence is a concern, it is not the number one concern of Americans right now. To use a well-used quote: It's the economy, stupid. If Americans are unhappy about international affairs, it is because they see themselves being marginalized more and more through the actions of their government. And if they do feel bad, it is because they disagree with those actions but feel powerless to do something about it.

The main reason for America's glum is the deteriorating status of the American middle class. The very core of society, once firmly in control of their destiny, with good steady jobs, guaranteed pensions, and fabulous benefits, is no more. Job markets are uncertain, benefits are disappearing, pensions are no more, and corporations have no qualms shutting down factories and uprooting communities to move jobs overseas. The increasingly large gap between the superrich and the middle class, who are now struggling to make ends meet, is what people see. A middle class that is hugely in debt and is facing uncertain retirement in ever larger numbers. The feeling that the American dream has passed them by. All of it compounded by the recent string of market bubbles, the last of which is now causing millions to lose their home. A home that is the last vestige of the American dream.

No it isn't the world that is worrying us, Fareed. Nor are our worries as superficial as you seem to think.

difficult choices

According to the experts, asking people to do something hard repeatedly is much less likely to yield good results than asking them to make a more difficult decision once. You would think these experts were talking about life-or-death decisions. However, the quote was part of a story on energy conservation published in the Washington Post. In it various experts gave their opinions as to the effectiveness of measures and incentives for energy conservation. And what a stellar panel of experts it was. All the big ivy league names were there to put in their 2c's worth.

The hard choice it turns out was to turn off the lights every time you stop using them. That was considered difficult enough so as to have a very low likelihood of success. The "more difficult" one-time decision was to buy energy efficient light bulbs or CFL's. So, the experts concluded it is better to have people change their bulbs than ask them to turn off the lights. The story then went on to take us through various calculations showing how CFL's would save the planet. Those calculations included assumptions as to the life-time of CFL's versus regular bulbs. They also ignored the environmental cost of producing CFL's and the waste generated by throwing out perfectly good incandescent bulbs only to replace them with the latest gadgets.

It is the type of "green thinking" that companies like as it forces the public to buy more goodies. Just imagine the economic bounty generated by changing out all existing bulbs with more energy efficient CFL's. And it won't stop there of course. Long before these CFL's reach their estimated seven year life-span, we will see more ads to replace them with even more efficient bulbs, or bulbs that provide "more natural" light, or whatever other trick the industry will come up with to keep the dollars flowing. A seven year life-span is a great selling point, except that we really do not want people to buy bulbs on such an infrequent basis. We all realize that this is not good for the economy. But let's get back to the difficult decisions you need to make on a daily basis.

I agree that turning off lights may present a challenge to people. It is something you have to think about each and every time you use a light. Much like closing the door of your car each and every time you enter or exit the vehicle. I am surprised not more people drive around with their car doors left open. Or not more cars are parked with the doors wide open. Surely that is what the "experts" would predict. These experts by the way were at MIT, not some second-rate school in nowhere land, or some political think-thank where "experts" are paid to say things that make no sense whatsoever but do advance an agenda. No these were bona-fide academic experts. People in the know.

Surely turning off your lights is a habit you have to learn. At first, it may be necessary to pay extra attention to what you are doing. It does require some effort. But after a very short time period it should be largely automatic, much like closing your car door. I use the car door example, because my children, much like other children had the unfortunate habit of stepping out of the car and leaving the doors wide open. They too had to learn. But like most people, they succeeded in this difficult challenge. These days, they rarely step out of the car leaving the doors open. And I am proud to say, they rarely leave their room without turning off the appliances and the lights.

I also want to offer you real life evidence that these difficult actions do generate some payoff. Some data to counter expert opinion. Despite living in an above average sized house, with all the accoutrements of modern life -a house where most of the bulbs are good old-fashioned incandescent ones- our monthly electric bill rarely goes over $30 a month. I also need to tell you that we live in California, where energy prices are among the highest in the country. In reality $30 is a rarity and we usually stay well below $25.

No ostentatious solar panels, windmills, or other exotic alternative energy sources here. Just plain old PG&E power and 21st century living that includes big screen TV's, DVR's, computers, and the like. All are used extensively, but all are turned off as soon as we stop using them. Even if we are just taking a 5 minute break. I know it is hard, and I commiserate with all of you each and every time I close my car doors. Wouldn't it be easier to buy a car with doors that close automatically?

Now, there is a green thought for you entrepreneurs!

fashion and waste

It has been said that fashion is a uniquely Western idea. According to historians it originated sometime in the 14th century, although there were distinct changes in dress happening well before that time. The Romans had their fashions, and so did others that lived prior to the 14th century, but the changes were rather slow and occurred over several generations. These changes appear to have been driven by societal changes and other events. Clearly those fashions are not equivalent to modern fashion. In modern fashion, the idea is to throw out perfectly good items and replace them by similar items that look slightly different, either in color, or in length or in cut or in a combination of all these. Fashion is not just limited to clothing and the most apparent historical record of fashion exists in building styles.

In the Middle Ages, buildings as well as clothing were strongly influenced by fashion and the richer cities would often tear down town halls, churches, and cathedrals and build new ones in the latest style. Less well to do cities had to stick to tearing down the bell tower and adding a new one or modifying another smaller part in the latest fashion. The poor ones whose fortunes had shifted, were forced to keep their old churches to the delight of historians and tourists alike. Cities that ran out of money often had buildings under construction for many centuries and these buildings too are an amalgam of fashions. In such cases, we may find that one or two styles were skipped resulting in some very interesting mixes.

But fashion really expanded its reach in the last couple of centuries. It is now a worldwide phenomenon that affects nearly everything we buy from clothing to computers, to cell phones, to cars. Fashion is a major driver of consumption and it is the best way to promote wasteful spending. How else can you convince sane people to throw away perfectly good items and replace them with new copies that are nearly identical?

Some areas of society have managed to keep away from fashion's onslaught, but they are few and far between. Dress that is less susceptible to fashion is now labeled traditional dress and it is largely reserved for festivities and festivals. We all know about Dutch wooden shoes, Scottish kilts, Andalucian traje corto, and other traditional outfits. These outfits do change over time, but much more slowly. In any case they are not subject to the fashion stranglehold that dictates replacement every season. Traditional outfits are kept until they are beyond use and repair. As such they are exempt.

For all its glamour fashion is an unsustainable and waste producing industry. It has little or no redeeming value and its only purpose seems to be to promote waste. No wonder it has become so deeply entrenched in Western economies. And no wonder we are so eager to export it around the world, where more eager producers and customers can't wait to get their hands on it. Progress it is called. And progress as we all know, means waste. The only goal we are progressing towards seems to be extinction. Fortunately, we will all look good when we finally do go down ! We will go out in style.

alternative energy: drink the kool-aid before it gets warm

It is amazing how powerful the belief in alternative energy really is. And how much people are banking on it. Perhaps it is not surprising, but it never seems to occur to people that cutting back on energy and resource use is the only sensible solution. We are using too much and we are wasting too much. This is not sustainable. It is not so much a matter of what energy source -or even what resource- we use, but how much of it we use and how much of it we waste. That is what really has to change. And it won't be easy.

There is no such thing as "clean energy." Some forms are cleaner than others and some have a ways to go in filling their specific pollution niche, but ultimately all forms of energy are polluting. By pollution we mean, all forms of energy create byproducts that end up harming us. Some forms, like fossil fuels produce gases that are now accumulating at high rates leading to serious consequences. But other forms, like solar or wind, will have other consequences that are equally damaging. It is just that these forms have a ways to go before they get there. But if we attack solar and wind like we did oil, it won't be long before we are faced with another crisis. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

For some obscure reason, people seem to believe that using more energy means progress. They equate the size of their mansions, the number of bedrooms and bathrooms, the size of their refrigerators, the number of cars, boats, and jet skis parked in their garage, with success. Ironically enough, it is fairly easy to show that these measures are largely meaningless. They do not correlate with happiness, and if anything they strongly correlate with deteriorating health. Obesity is but one sign of deterioration.

All that is happening here is people taking advantage of an abundant resource by using as much of it as quickly as possible, irrespective of whether such use provides any benefit. Sure, some people do benefit but they are a very small minority. The rest are suffering the consequences.

As a species we are opportunistic. That much is similar to other species. Unfortunately though, we found ourselves with sufficient technology to exploit an abundant resource, called fossil fuels. As any opportunistic species, we "exploded" in numbers and in appetite to quickly absorb whatever there was to absorb. The world population skyrocketed. Energy use per capita did too. We built entire infrastructures around this waste. We colonized uninhabitable areas such as deserts, and arctic regions. To say nothing of distant suburbs. All this infrastructures was built based on the premise of a never ending supply of cheap oil. It is all dependent on abundant cheap oil.

Now we are bracing ourselves for the coming collapse. Sadly, our longevity and the longevity of our infrastructure means that any retreat will be extremely painful. The longer we postpone, the more painful it will be. And the higher the price we will pay. Not surprisingly, few are willing to face up to it. They would prefer to keep going. They are driven to strongly resist any movement towards a sensible solution. They are quite likely, afraid of what might happen. But in doing so they are only making matters worse. Time to wake up America. Time to cut back.

the return of coal

With oil prices skyrocketing everyone is busily looking for relief. They are also busily ignoring the simplest and by far the most rational solution: consume less. Reducing consumption is what people should focus on now. More than half of our energy use is downright wasteful and does nobody any good whatsoever. It is wasted in heating and cooling of empty residences, office buildings and the like. It is wasted in illuminating the night -and quite often the day- sky. It is burned up sitting in endless traffic jams and countless trips to the shopping mall where we buy more energy-hogging appliances, tools and toys.

And speaking of shopping malls, Memorial day is just around the corner. A double whammy. Big sales and the the official start of what is known as the (summer) driving season. For good measure stores have been announcing pre-Memorial Day sales. Why not get into the action a bit early? Anything we can do to support waste. How many people remember what Memorial Day is all about?

The reason why people ignore the best solution is simple: nobody stands to gain anything from less consumption. Nobody makes any money this way. As a matter of fact, many stand to lose money if consumers were to decide to stop wasting stuff. Our economy is totally dependent on discretionary spending. So spending less means recession, a word we have learned to fear as the black plague. And speaking of black, the black stuff known as coal is making a comeback.

However, we do not want to think of coal as black. That carries bad connotations. Coal is so polluting that lobbyists have coined the term clean coal. Clean coal is mirage much like those now-empty homes in the Arizona desert. That is why companies are starting to run ads to convince us there is such a thing as clean coal. Doublespeak anyone?

The run to coal is accelerating and with every rise in the price of oil, the pace increases. The NYT ran an article recently documenting the return to coal. Unfortunately for the environment we all live in, the US has plentiful coal supplies. And so does China. The two biggest polluters on the planet have the largest in-house reserves. Reserves to their ever increasing energy thirst. Nothing much good can come of this. It is akin to a bunch of heroin addicts with their own poppy growing plantations.

The Bush administration is not sitting still either. Ever busy behind the scenes to do whatever it can to please the energy industry, the administration is quietly attacking existing EPA rules. It aims to overturn as many as it can, while taking the teeth out of the others. Federal laws and regulations are weakening under its relentless onslaught. The situation has gotten so out of hand that states and local governments have tried to pick up the pieces. And here is where the Bush-Cheney legacy is perhaps most telling. The Federal government is working overtime trying to repeal, stall, or nullify state and local initiatives. Talk about Republican values and less government intervention.

The government is also promoting its assets. The Department of Energy website proudly proclaims:"Coal is one of the true measures of the energy strength of the United States. One quarter of the world's coal reserves are found within the United States, and the energy content of the nation's coal resources exceeds that of the world's known recoverable oil. Coal is also the workhorse of the nation's electric power industry, supplying more than half the electricity consumed by Americans. " Hallelujah. Citizens rejoice. Start your plug-in hybrids and inhale those fumes.

We surely have enough coal here to turn our little planet into another Venus. For those of you who haven't caught on yet, the rules of the game are quite simple. He or she who dies with the most goodies wins !

medicine and health

It is often said that doctors are the only professionals that seek to make themselves unnecessary. It sure sounds good. But do we really believe that this is true? Are doctors really out to make themselves obsolete? Although many are driven by higher motives, I found a surprisingly large number of pre-med students willing and even proud to admit that they were in it for the money. Even those that do aspire to higher goals have little choice. Given the high cost of medical education, and the resultant outstanding loans that many young doctors are stuck with, most could not afford to put themselves out of business even if they wanted to. Fortunately there is little real danger of such a situation materializing. That makes it easy to take the high road.

The pharmaceutical industry is "struggling" with the same dilemma. The "struggle" is largely an internal matter though, as pharmaceutical companies are businesses so they can freely state that their primary goal is to make money. As indicated before, they have a duty to make money and their officers are bound by such duty to maximize revenues and profits. That means the true struggle for pharma is one of communication and public relations. It is key to appear to the public as if profits were an afterthought. This is a serious matter and all pharmaceutical companies try to outdo themselves in this important area.

Health care investors can be even more blunt and they often are. It has been remarked by some famous healthcare analysts that there are only two disasters that happen during a clinical trial for approval of a new drug. One is that the drug does not work. Obviously that is a bad situation and the company will have to forgo a major opportunity to make money. The other equally grave disaster is that the drug cures the patients. That may sound counter-intuitive until you realize that drugs that cure diseases cannot make money. To be truly successful, a drug must mitigate a condition enough to make a difference, but not so much that patients can ever stop taking the drug.

It is fairly easy to see that the best drugs are the ones you have to take for the rest of your life. And the best conditions to focus drug development on are the ones where people survive for a very long time after diagnosis. Both of these are necessary ingredients for the so-called blockbuster drug. Blockbusters are drugs that sell in excess of $1B a year and major pharmaceutical companies are set up to pursue blockbusters and blockbusters only. Considering that patents offer exclusivity for about a decade (17 years to be exact but one needs to subtract the years it takes for approval), and that a drug, once developed is practically speaking all profit or margin, it should not surprise us that pharmaceuticals are big business. The top selling drug today is Pfizer's Lipitor, a medication for high cholesterol levels that brings in a nice $12B a year for the company.

Note two things: high cholesterol levels (in nearly all) result in no symptoms or signs, and drugs for high cholesterol need to be taken for life. High cholesterol is a condition that is linked to a higher incidence of heart disease and stroke. It is not an illness per se (again with few exceptions). The linkage was established through population studies. You may note that possession of a car is likely equally strongly linked to almost any predominantly Western disease.

Just as it behooves pharmaceutical companies to focus on drugs that nearly everyone can take for the rest of their lives, it is advantageous for healthcare providers to focus on patients with chronic, but largely stable conditions. Doctors thrive on hypertension, high cholesterol, diabetes, and especially chronic complaints. Although MDs often state that the latter are their least favorite patients, the economics shows them to be essential to the well being of the practice.

In short, healthcare, like so many other things in life, is a playground for consumers and providers. Consumers of services, devices, and drugs. In that sense it is not so different from other areas of the service economy. It is equally sensitive to over-consumption and waste. Which means, unfortunately, that its net impact on health is rather trivial.

obesity and global warming

Obesity rates are climbing. Since the 1970's the population has been getting fatter year over year. Some forty years later, despite many warnings and outcries, the situation is getting worse rather than better. Obesity is now attacking the rich as easily as the poor, and children as well as adults. In many communities more than half the people are overweight or obese, raising the question of what is normal weight. Others have gone as far as blaming obesity for global warming.

All this time, various experts have chimed in with everything from genetics to metabolism, to sedentary life-styles as the key culprit. Almost in lockstep with waves of proposed solutions, studies have appeared casting doubt on the efficacy of these remedies. We hear that in the long run, diets don't work, drugs don't work, and even exercise doesn't work. So why are we getting so fat? The public is left to believe that some mysterious force is at work, something that cannot possibly be controlled, and surely something that they cannot be blamed for. Yet obesity is a strong indictment of our way of life. Not that anyone seems to care.

Unlike smoking, obesity is not susceptible to public censure. While smokers can be made to feel uncomfortable, or even downright guilty, overweight people do not respond the same way. Few of them can be shamed into eating less. Furthermore, getting rid of excess weight is more difficult than quitting smoking. While most people manage to quit smoking, leaving only the truly addicted to struggle with patches and other solutions, the overweight do not respond as well to therapy. Very few lose weight and those that do tend to gain it all back rather quickly. They can count themselves lucky if they do not end up heavier after the diet than before. The overweight are part of a growing trend. By definition trends gather followers. That is the best way to silence the critics.

The reason all the remedies fail is quite telling. Being overweight or obese is a life-style problem. It is the result of a certain way of living, a round the clock, 7 days a week, 365 days a year attack. And that is not something you can fight with a few weeks of low calorie meals, or a pill, or 20 minutes of "exercise" a day. It is like trying to fix a leaking dam by sticking your finger in the crack.

Despite all the scientific "noise" about genes, neurotransmitters, hormones, and the like there is no doubt that obesity is a direct result of our unhealthy life-style. Obesity is largely the result of cheap oil. This is not some far fetched idea or another conspiracy theory. Cheap oil enables our life-style. It powers everything from the SUV's we drive, to the fertilizer, pesticides, and farm equipment that produces our abundant calories and high fructose corn syrup. Without cheap oil, a separated pedestrian-unfriendly suburbia with its endless cul-de-sacs, its shopping malls, and its drive-through everything, would not exist.

Obesity is closely related to overabundant cheap food and sugary drinks, relentless advertising of such foods and drinks, and a total lack of exercise. The less people exercise the fatter they get. Twenty minutes of walking on a treadmill in a cozy gym do not qualify as exercise in this context. They may to the gym owners, and the treadmill factories, and the numerous other beneficiaries of the "health and fitness" industry, but these actors are no different than the fast food operators, the soda producers, or the high fructose corn syrup peddlers. They all strive for limitless consumption. Most gyms and health clubs are nothing more than a new type of supermarket peddling energy drinks, sports drinks, and candy bars.

Don't look to the government for help. Their food pyramids are concocted by industry and tailored to ensure excess production in one area or another can find the right buyers. If we have excess grains, then grains must be healthy and consumption needs to be encouraged. There is always a scientist somewhere who can bless the benefits of five servings a day.

It is easy to blame the government bureaucrats, but they have little option but to bow to powerful commercial interests. Their elected masters owe large debts to these corporate heavyweights, who financed their campaigns. So it should be no surprise that their main interest lies in promoting the corn farmers, the poultry industry, the beef producers, the dairy industry, the orange growers, and the millions of other constituents who benefit from selling excess calories to the public. As an example, Washington Post reported that the health department could not promote universal breast-feeding for fear of upsetting the breast milk substitute producers.

The government goes further than just advertising for the food industry. It also subsidizes production and consumption. From free water, to farm subsidies, to school lunch programs and aid to the poor, there are so many sponsored programs that mentioning them all would take a few days.

Suffice it to say that obesity is here to stay, and that all remedies -short of changing our way of life- will fall short of the mark. Yes, obesity is linked to pollution and global warming. It is also linked to excess consumption and waste. But rather than being the cause of these ills, it is in a weird sense, a corrective step. Because obesity has major effects on morbidity and mortality. It makes life much more expensive, thereby ultimately curtailing consumption. It makes you sick and reduces your life-expectancy and fertility.

I am sure this is not the type of corrective action many will welcome. But the choice is clear, folks. Either we grow up and do something about our way of life, or that way of life will do something about us.

corporate social responsibility

To conduct business, humans have invented virtual entities known as "corporations." The word corporation derives from the Latin corpus or body. These entities are in effect legal bodies or to put it more poetically, imaginary people. They have certain legal rights and obligations. They have legal responsibilities. They can own items and make a profit. They can be sued if they misbehave. And they are responsible to their owners, known as shareholders.

In short, we have created legal persons. The brains of those legal persons are entrusted to a group of people known as the officers of the company, led by the Chief Executive Officer or CEO. To provide some oversight the company also has a board of directors. All of this is to make sure that the corporation behaves properly and that nobody cheats or steals from it, or uses it in any fraudulent manner or to conduct a crime.

In general, corporations are led by honest, hard-working people, who are well respected in their communities. These people are driven by a variety of motivations and making a profit is surely one of them. But many also desire to make a difference in their communities or the world. Yet, however well-adjusted these people are, the law is asking them to behave in a distinctly anti-social, and some have said psychopathic manner.

Just to make things clear, a psychopath is a person has no conscience. They lack of remorse or guilt and are immoral and antisocial. They have no regard for the well-being of others and only think of themselves. They do not feel empathy for their fellow man. Often they are charming, cunning and manipulative. So how does this relate to a corporation?

Corporations have to act with the sole purpose of making money for their shareholders. If that means laying off people, taking away their benefits, or unsettling entire communities so be it. If it means destroying the environment, ditto. Corporations can only think about profit and all else has to submit to this prime motive. Even if the officers and directors disagree or find such behavior distasteful, they are bound by fiduciary duty to uphold it.

A corporation has to act as an antisocial, immoral, egotistical person. Investors can sue a corporation and its officers if it deviates from this premise for whatever reason. Even if that deviation is done for social or humanitarian reasons. The corporation has a ruthless profit motive and if it has to harm people to get there, so be it. As long as no crime is committed, we expect corporations to behave in whatever manner ensures maximal profit.

It is quite surprising that smart and well-meaning humans have come up with such a legal structure. I have discussed this topic before on March 22 and suggested that shareholders revolt and demand a legal structure that is more in line with normal human behavior. If we create artificial people, should they not behave like normal people do? No society tolerates psychopaths in their middle and no society should tolerate psychopathic behavior from virtual people either.

The posting provoked quite a few comments stating how it was impractical or impossible to legalize moral behavior. Clearly that is not the case, and ordinary humans are held to such standards and promptly punished if they don't act this way.

So why treat our virtual people any differently?

It turns out others have thought along the same lines, and a movement has started to form around a new entity called the B corporation. It was started by a successful Stanford graduate, called Coen Gilbert, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. A B corporation can have values that go beyond profit. Right now, B corporations are more the exception than the rule. The story listed 23 B corporations based in the Bay Area. It is a start.

However, B corporations have no special tax status. It is also unclear how much legal protection they would enjoy if shareholders sued them for leaving profits on the table. The situation is quite complex. Some states have laws allowing companies to consider the interest of constituencies other than shareholders, but California is not one of these. However, a bill has been introduced in California by Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-SF) to do just that.

Don't hold your breath. I am sure there are many powerful opponents here. Furthermore, many sensible ideas never make it in the real world. This one however, should be welcomed by all. It is correcting a mistake we made earlier. That much is just plain common sense.

change your life style

Sooner or later, all of us in the West will have to change our life-style. Unfortunately, it seems highly likely that when we finally get around to it, it will be too late. Too late to stop a rather dramatic drop in our standard of living. A disaster of rather epic proportions.

The reason for the delay is that people only change when they have no other alternatives left. However, with so many of us on the planet, late change is a dangerous adaptation and will not reach its intended goal. It becomes akin to turning around an aircraft carrier. If you want to turn around, better start before you have to.

It is easy to see what is wrong with our current life-style. It is easy to do something about it as long as one is determined and persistent. In the long run, I can assure you, you will save lots of money, feel a lot better about yourself and be a lot healthier too. Therein lies the main reason for change. Not to save the planet or other lofty goals, but to be happier and live a better life. To save yourself a lot of unnecessary trouble. Not convinced ? Take a look at what we are doing today.

The trouble is that we have become hyper consumers. We have optimized consumption to such a high degree that we do it continuously, effortlessly and painlessly. We think we need to consume to be happy. In many cases, we have gone so far as to convince ourselves that we could not possibly live any other way. And to keep up with all that runaway consumption, most of us have to work like maniacs. Even those of us who can afford not to work, drive themselves nuts in a never ending rat race. However, the high rate at which we are depleting our resources and the high prevalence of life-style-induced diseases and mental health problems shows that we are deluding ourselves.

The first step to take is to isolate oneself from the constant barrage of advertising. That is easier said than done. It is however, a necessary step, because all of us, no matter how confident we feel or how strong our sense of self is, are very susceptible to advertising. Advertising is a billion dollar industry and there is a very good reason for it: it works. It works even if you think you are immune to it. Really, if you feel immune, chances are you are a helpless victim. Try to stop, if you can.

Advertising constantly tell us how much more successful we will be, and how people will look up to us, and how much happier we will be if we buy this or that item or spend money or this or that vacation, or treatment, or massage. It reminds us of how much money we will save if we just buy something now. How big bargains are slipping away before our very eyes, and how we should rush to the store and load up on everything and anything that is offered for sale. It tells us our perfectly good items are outdated, out of fashion, useless, and ready for the garbage dump. Time to upgrade.

Advertising and fashions remind us to look our best, to show off, to let others know that we are at the vanguard, that we are cool, that we are important. And invariably we need to throw away perfectly good stuff and change into a slightly different shade of green, or blue, to do so. We need a GPS to find our way home, a DVD player to entertain the kids, a cup holder for our starbucks. Ever thought how nice it would be if you didn't need to go anywhere? But even at home we are outdated. That dark green patio furniture is so passe, so old-fashioned, so yesterday. Today's successful individuals buy light green. Light green shows that you are young, sexy and with the times. It communicates success.

At first it may seem hard to swim against the tide. It may appear impossible. But if you just manage to wean yourself from the ads, you will see that it is quite easy really. And you will see an astonishing truth. It is you who are original, interesting, and self-confident. It is you who are different.

No doubt you will say, so what? I may be different but the others can't see it. They think I am outdated. Patience my friends. Of course your friends and neighbors react this way. They are conditioned to do so. They have to revolt against anyone who does not want to go with the flow. That too is what advertising does to you. Or addiction for that matter. What happens when one addict decides to come clean? His or her friends revolt. But over time -very little time- they will see the light. That is where determination and persistence comes in. Without it you won't succeed.

Whereas the others slavishly follow the herd and trample all over one another be better, to be different and to be cool, you are the one above it all. The independent thinker, the one with self-confidence. Ironically enough that is exactly what the advertisers promised you if you followed their lead.

The root of all our problems, global warming, pollution, obesity, drug-addictions, oil-addictions, wastefulness, lies in our desire to stand out from the crowd. Our deep-seated wish to be special, to be desirable, to be above the crowd. Isn't it funny that we constantly attempt to do so by eagerly following that very same crowd? We rush into supermarkets, department stores, luxury stores, to find those magic items that will bring us success. That special watch, that awesome SUV, that stylish dress, that cookie-cutter item that we are led to believe is so unique, so special, so you.

We travel to exotic destinations to seek an ephemeral holy grail. We endure overcrowded airline flights, being treated like criminals and searched, forced into long delays, eating endless bags of peanuts, subjected to abusive industry practices. We gladly endure it all to feel better about ourselves. Self-flagellation is alive and well my friends. Maybe it is time to wake up and smell the real coffee.

drugged nation

In a further indication of the sorry state of American health, it was reported yesterday that over half of insured Americans are on drugs. And we are not referring to the occasional pain killer. These are chronic drugs that are taken for extended periods of time, some for life. Many believe the percentage of drug users will only go up in the coming years.

While some in the medical community were quick to point out how good our drugs for chronic conditions have become, others were not so upbeat. Among the dissenters some pointed out the relentless and extremely effective direct-to-consumer advertising used by pharmaceutical companies. There is little doubt that many are taking medications they don't need. No matter how good these are, none are free of side-effects and not all side-effects are harmless. Given the numbers of drug users there is no doubt that many a premature death is caused by medication.

Apart from all that the real issue here is the declining public health. If over half of the population needs medication to live something is seriously wrong. Perhaps not surprisingly a lot of drug-taking was linked to obesity, diabetes, and heart ailments. All these conditions are negatively impacted by a sedentary life-style, lack of exercise, and over-consumption of food. These are suburban illnesses, brought about and reinforced by an unnatural life-style that some believe is the pinnacle of achievement and success.

It reminds me of the commercials for a smoke-free country. They start out by highlighting all the glamour put forth by tobacco companies. You can be successful, a movie star, the Marlboro man, an adventurer, a socialite. Then the images fade and a very sick person attached to an oxygen tank appears. The message ends by saying this is the true face of smoking. Similarly, we could envision a commercial showing a big suburban mcmansion, two huge SUV's, an oversized lawn, tons of power tools, and other accoutrements of the good life. Now fade to sickly obese inhabitants, huffing and puffing to lift themselves out of the couch reaching for their life-saving drugs.

There were startling findings in the study, such as the fact that two thirds of women over 20 were on medication. These are women in their prime reproductive years. Think of the potential harm that can be done to the unborn once these women get pregnant. Then again, over one quarter of children and teens are on chronic medications as well and three quarters of the elderly. It appears that Americans are drugged from the womb to the grave.

The pharma industry is unrelenting in its search for illnesses that fit their drugs. It is called "label expansion" and it is something that makes many investors drool. The drug industry is not alone however. The medical profession also does its part by bringing more and more conditions within the medical realm. Children are no longer difficult, they suffer from ADHD. People are no longer sleeping less as they get older, they suffer from insomnia. And then there are the ever dropping numbers of acceptable cholesterol levels and blood pressure readings. Without any consideration as to the cause, the zealots are out to drive these numbers into the ground. Already signs are appearing that lowering blood pressure isn't always a smart thing to do. It often leads to premature death. How come you never hear about this in the mainstream media? Here is a hint: there are plenty of medications to lower blood pressure, and these have to be taken for the rest of one's life. The same holds for cholesterol.

Come on America, time to take another pill. Forget about your bicycle. It is too hard in any case.

a cure for many ills

A very simple mechanical device that has been around for over a century could cure many of today's ills. From congestion to air pollution to better health and less obesity, the lowly bicycle can do what sophisticated technologies cannot. For those trying to read the tea leaves and peering into the future for a solution to global warming and the obesity epidemic, let it be known that the best solution already exists.

It is a message that is heard loud and clear across Europe and some parts of Asia. Many European cities are investing heavily in bicycle infrastructure. Asia, long a bicycle stronghold is having second thoughts about converting to cars. But don't hold your breath because an endless barrage of advertising is not about to let that happen. It remains to be seen whether common sense can prevail against such devious means. Meanwhile, the US, as seems to be the new rule for the 21st century, is once-again lagging far behind. In America, bicycles are considered toys for children, not ultra-efficient means of transportation.

Over 80% of bicycles are produced in China. Although, you probably remember the images of thousands of Chinese bicyclists creating their own kind of traffic jams, the truth is that rising wealth is causing China to take a giant step backwards. The new rich are quickly acquiring their latest status symbol, the car. The only problem is that they consider it to be a step forward. It is already becoming clear to the rest of the world that this is a fallacy. Once the Olympics get underway and images of smog-filled Beijing will be beamed to every living room on the planet, it will be obvious how very wrong the Chinese are. But who can blame them? For years they have been bombarded with Western propaganda and ads from car companies, that can only see an under-served market and could not care less about an impending environmental disaster.

Amsterdam is the poster child of a new world. In this decidedly modern city, over 55% of those traveling five miles or less use a bicycle. Despite the cold and wet weather, bicycling remains a favorite means of transportation in the Netherlands. The country has the best cycling infrastructure in the world, bar none. Other Europeans cities are following suit. And it isn't just high gas prices that are forcing them to. Gas prices have been high for decades in Europe. What worries people more is continuous traffic jams, air pollution, and the ever growing health care costs associated with a sedentary life-style.

Paris now has 20,000 bikes available for rent throughout the city and in the first three months of the new program over six million people took advantage of it. Bicycling is not only faster and easier, it also avoids big city headaches such as finding parking spots.

Now that we have effectively banned cigarette smoking and are eradicating second-hand smoke, maybe it is time to turn our attention to car exhaust. Study after study has shown how air pollution contributes to asthma, COPD, and other lung ailments. The death toll from such poisons probably exceeds the death toll from cigarette smoking by a few orders of magnitude. Yet the rightful indignation is nowhere to be found (yet). It still strikes people as somewhat odd that an accomplished athlete such as Haile Gebrsellasie refuses to compete in the Beijing Olympics, citing health issues. It seems more appropriate to us to boycott the Chinese Olympics for the alleged mistreatment of Tibet that is said to have caused many deaths, but not because of air pollution, a condition that is likely to kill many more.

health care crisis

Health care spending and health insurance are favorite topics for presidential elections and this year is no different. Once again the spotlight is on spending, insurance, and insurance coverage. Suffice it to say that the US is doing very poorly in this sector compared other civilized countries. Here we are on par with the Third World except when it comes to spending. We spend more than any other country on the planet but our return on investment is decidedly poor. Life expectancy in the US is ranked 27th in the world, just ahead of Cuba, a country that spends just $186 per person per year. We need $4,800, the most of any nation. The second biggest spender, Switzerland at $3,300 per person, can at least boast of a much better life expectancy, where it ranks 4th.

We are constantly told that our health care system is the best in the world, and while some may disagree, it is for sure the one that is the most out of reach. US healthcare is virtually off-limits to most citizens. I am sure that is not much of a concern to many as they seem to believe that they have access and that is what matters. Access to the best of the best. Surely, the US healthcare system is big on tech wizardry and stitching skills. We excel at procedures nobody else will do. To go where no man has gone before. Unfortunately, anyone with a bit of clinical know-how and experience will tell you that such flashy stuff often amounts to nothing much in the scheme of things. While the record shattering twenty bypass operation is front page news, the same patient dying a few days later in the ICU from a nosocomial infection goes largely unnoticed.

Furthermore, as any centenarian will tell you, the key to longevity is to stay away from hospitals and medical practitioners. Iatrogenic deaths run close to a million per year according to some studies. Iatrogenic morbidity is many times higher. Clearly prevention is better than cure. And the best prevention is the one where you don't see a doctor. Prevention of the type advertised by doctors, hospitals, and drug companies only serves to provide these do-gooders with another source of income.

It may sound far fetched but preventive healthcare is closely linked to global warming. Suburban living with its huge, isolated mansions and perpetual need for driving not only causes excess greenhouse gas production, it also leads to social isolation, and lack of exercise. Hence our epidemic of obesity, a key factor in many illnesses. Obesity rates are much higher in suburbia than in urban populations.

Many of the "diseases" that consume our health care budget and make our citizens ill are easily preventable. That is not to say that all cases can be prevented, as genetics surely plays a role. However, the vast majority of cases are. Heart disease, stroke, cancer and other ills will always be with us but they need not affect so many people or strike so early in life.

Lack of exercise, endless hours spent in traffic jams or watching TV, social isolation, fast food, ubiquitous sodas, sugar-rich diets, are but some of the factors that are making people sick. Some studies have argued that whatever savings we as a society made against infectious disease have been nullified by our new illnesses due to lack of exercise.

It appears our life-style is unsustainable in more ways than one. Our key problems are intimately connected. Before the subprime crisis, 25% of housing loss and foreclosure were linked to lack of health insurance and soaring health care bills. We have just added another factor to that list. The housing problems caused by the lending crisis are added on top of those due to inadequate health care coverage.

Recent studies have shown that for the first time since world war two, life-expectancy is dropping in some areas of the country. The finding was isolated and it could be a fluke, but it is also possible that we have another canary in the coal mine situation. Rather than blame the health care industry -which is already more bloated than healthy- we should look in the mirror and face the problem. We are getting fatter, we are exercising less, we are isolated in our mansions and our cars, and despite our "enhanced connectivity" promised by cell phones and the internet, we are more often alone and lonely. To fill the void we do our patriotic duty and go shopping. We are busily consuming our way out of existence.

mcmansion mania

In 1991, a firestorm burned down over 3,000 homes in the Oakland-Berkeley hills. It was one of the largest disasters in US history. Now almost 20 years later, the area has been transformed in more ways than one. Before the fire the hills were densely overgrown with eucalyptus trees and large shrubs. The houses were small wooden structures, often dark brown in color, and hidden in the shrubbery. Many resembled cottages or ski-cabins of the sort one might find in the Sierra. One could easily travel up Tunnel Road near where the fire started, and not notice the houses in the canyon. These days it is hard to see the canyon from the mansions.

The area has been rebuilt with a vengeance. Huge estate-like homes that take up entire lots all the way to the property line, tower over one another. From some angles it looks like people built skyscrapers as one house looms large over another with no break in between. I read somewhere that before the 1991 fire there were no million dollar homes in Oakland. Now there is barely a house to be found in the "burn area" that costs less than $1 million. Most are over 4,000 sq ft. and comprise 3 or more stories.

One has to wonder what got into people. Surely many made a killing on insurance payments and what better way to spend it than to build a palatial estate and fill it with goodies. Shop till you drop. But the signs of trouble are already popping up. While construction activity is ongoing -and every new house is even bigger than the previous ones- there are several properties in foreclosure. Others are for sale and many of those have "new price" and "price reduced" stickers in plain sight.

The Bay Area prides itself on environmental responsibility. People here believe in recycling and buying organic food. They hate cigarette smoking. They also like the Prius hybrid. However, it never occurs to them that all their driving -and Bay Area residents like to drive-, their love of four wheel drive cars, and their lust for mcmansions is utterly irresponsible.

Apart from being environmentally unfriendly, big homes are also a big liability. They require a lot of stuff to fill, meaning a lot of extra money. And filling them people do. I have earlier commented on this fear of emptiness (see horror vacui) and the desire to always fill a dwelling to capacity.

Big houses also use a lot of energy to run. Most new homes have air conditioning despite the fact that it is barely needed in the Bay Area (unlike the Central Valley, summers are cool here). Air conditioning and heating, are but two of the many extra expenses these houses bring with them. Just think of all the light bulbs and all the TV sets that are needed to decorate the mansions. There is also cleaning, repairing, etc. All of this is fine as long as there is plentiful cheap oil.

Let's not forget about the water. Most Bay Area residents like their sprinkler systems. The bigger the house, the more water and energy they need. And so it should be no surprise that the East Bay municipal water district is thinking about rationing water again. Now add in the high price of oil, the weakening economy, and many of these wonderful new palaces start looking like overgrown dinosaurs waiting for extinction.

whining about gas prices

One front-page story after another paints a picture of how high gas prices are killing Americans. You would think it is the end of the world. Prices are around $3.50 a gallon average nationwide -over $4 in the Bay Area, and, if we are to believe the media, Americans are having trouble making ends meet. Somehow that does not make a lot of sense to me. This is the richest country in the world and people are whining about $3.50 gasoline?

Suffice it to say that the rest of the civilized world has been living with $3.50 a gallon gas for decades now. Decades during which consumption has steadily risen, despite the high price. Prices in Europe have always been this high and these days they are more than double the amount Americans have to pay. Yet Europeans are living well and they are happy. They often strike me as being happier than us Americans. Maybe it is because the Euro is so high and they feel rich when they are staying over here. In any case, they are not in distress like we supposedly are.

When I look around, all I can think is that gas is way too cheap. Traffic density has barely budged. We read that people are driving less, carpooling more, and -god forbid- are using public transportation, but I still see way too many cars on the road. And way too many big cars with just one occupant. I used to think gas had to be at a minimum of $5 a gallon, but now I am tempted to believe that even $5 is way too cheap if we are to ever wean ourselves of our oil-addiction.

This week the WSJ suggested that we stop filling the national petroleum reserve and sell gas instead. That would make us some money which we desperately need to pay for our adventure in Iraq. And it would ease gas prices. So far so good. But then, in a twist of logic one can only find in the WSJ, the author suggested that this might actually help the environment by spurring investment in alternative energy. Go figure. Make gas less expensive so people can keep up their wasteful gas guzzling and we will save the environment by promoting alternative energy. Only in the journal baby!

No way folks. The only remedy for global warming is steady high gas prices. Think of all the tax money we will collect. It can be used to help education, social security -our next disaster, universal health care, highway repair, better city planning, and what have you. No need to sell petroleum from our national reserve. Just tax those who guzzle gas. A new sin tax. It is the American way. We did it to tobacco and it worked. Time to focus on a more devastating addiction and one that leads to greater ills.

hybrid technology

Quite frequently people re-invent something that already exists and re-introduce it with great fanfare. When they do so they make sure the "new" item is so well camouflaged with the latest widgets that consumers will not see the obvious connection. And so it is that Toyota re-invented the small light-weight car with a small engine and made it look appealing to US consumers. That is no small feat really and the company should be given ample credit for building a small car that Americans want to buy and drive.

Prius is so successful that some have suggested Toyota spin out the line to stand on its own. Prius has also been the target of vicious attacks from SUV makers, some of whom have claimed it was less energy efficient than a full-size SUV. To prove their point these defenders of waste engaged in some creative math using some wild assumptions, but overall they failed to drive their point home. Luckily, the average citizen is smart enough to realize that a Prius has to be more energy efficient than a hummer.

Unfortunately, the hybrid gimmick is having some unwanted side-effects. Many people seem to believe that the Prius achieves its remarkable mileage and its environmentally friendly status by virtue of it being a "hybrid" car. Some people really do believe that the Prius uses less gas because it has an electric engine. But where does the electricity come from?

This is a classical example of a trick question for physics 101. Since the only energy source available to the Prius is gas, it follows that all the Prius' output comes from gas. And that includes the power developed by its electric engine. It is true that the Prius uses some clever tricks such as regenerative braking to fill its batteries, but somehow the initial speed used in this process had to be developed by burning gas. Even if the braking results from coasting down a hill, one has to realize that gas was used to climb that hill in the first place.

The Prius uses several gimmicks to give people the impression of something truly novel. For example, it uses its electric engine to accelerate because electric engines accelerate much faster than a comparable gas engine. And it also shuts off its engine when it isn't needed, saving additional gas in the process. While all that sounds good, there are inevitable losses that come with the dual technology. Converting chemical (gas) energy to electrical energy adds some waste, and storing and retrieving electricity from batteries does too.

The real advantage of the Prius therefore lies in its small size, low weight, and aerodynamic profile. The clever tricks, regenerative braking, shutting down the engine, etc. result in some gains, even after losses due to conversion and storage are taken into account. But these gains are minimal and the lion's share of savings is due to the physical properties just mentioned. And that is important for two reasons.

First, the label "hybrid" is pretty meaningless, especially when attached to large and heavy SUV's. One would be better off buying a smaller conventional car. Second, if you want to save money buy a small conventional car. It will do just as well in gas usage and CO2 production, but will cost a lot less. Prius commands a very high premium. Estimates are that it is "over-priced" compared to a regular car, by at least $7K, or almost 33%.

That is the price you pay for your badge of honor. It is a price you can only get back by driving a lot. And that is exactly what you shouldn't do. If you really care about the environment and your pocketbook, buy a smaller car instead. The most important thing to do is to drive less. Ride your bike. That has the added benefit of keeping you in shape and healthy in the long run.

food shortage

Nothing drives home the image a serious food shortage like seeing obese people hauling 25lbs bags of rice and 24 packs of soda to their cars while complaining of not being able to afford food. While you may accuse me of being overly cynical that was exactly the image that Channel 2 news in the Bay Area chose for its special report a few days ago. If they were trying to rally empathy for those in need, they could have done better. The people they interviewed looked like they would be better off in the long run with some forced dieting.

Truth is there is a real food shortage and current conditions are making it worse. In response to the emergency President Bush quickly decided to announce millions more in food aid. The question is of course, who is he trying to aid? Food aid means the US government buys staples from US farmers and then gives them to starving people in Africa and elsewhere. This type of aid does very little to alleviate the real problem as people need to keep eating and a one time handout is no solution. But don't say that to the farmers in the midwest. Food aid is a very popular item in an election year.

Before we say more nasty things about President Bush, we should realize that this is the only type of aid our beloved farmers are willing to accept. They are 100% opposed to a more efficient type of aid consisting of donating money to poor countries to help develop their agricultural infrastructure. That type of aid, favored by the United Nations and Europeans puts money into other farmers pockets and risks to stimulate the competition. That smacks of communism to us.

The food crisis is exacerbated by the oil crisis and the two markets are now marching in lockstep. So much oil is needed to produce food at current yields that any price movement in oil is immediately reflected in food. This mechanism is key but often ignored in the media. Nobody likes to be reminded that it takes us on average 8-9 calories of energy to produce 1 calorie of food. The other problem is one known as a vicious circle. The higher food prices go, the more demand there is for pesticides and fertilizers in order to drive up yields. Because money can be made. That puts further pressure on oil prices, effectively nullifying all yield gains and making food even more pricey.

The second player is biofuels. This brain-dead idea is wreaking havoc with all agricultural planning. It too is especially powerful in the midwest, a major food exporter and provider for the world. Here farmers can see dollar bills in ethanol and ethanol plants are springing up quicker than bars after Prohibition. No wonder Iowans think biofuels are manna from heaven.

As for their impact on global warming, it is 100% negative. I have already pointed out the biofuels can only hope to affect global warming by driving food prices so high that many people will starve. And less people will mean less pollution. At least for a while until we all catch up. Meanwhile in the West, we could do with some high prices. That way we may be able to cure our latest health threat, the epidemic of obesity that is about to overwhelm our health care system.

All of these concerns are temporary of course. It is estimated that before 2025 the US will stop exporting food in any case. If the population keeps growing and keeps consuming at today's rates there won't be enough land to produce a surplus crop. And considering all the runoff into the Gulf of Mexico, there won't be any more seafood there either.

Time to get out the SUV. Gentlemen, start your engines.

race and gender in America

Here is another puzzle nobody can figure out. Or maybe better to say, nobody wants to figure out. Support for the Republican party is at an all time low. Poll numbers show people are yearning for a Democrat to become president. According to the Wall Street Journal, positive feelings towards Republicans run at 27%, the lowest ever. 73% of the people polled said they believe the country is on the wrong track. President Bush is polling so poorly, he even surpassed his father's all time low record set in 1992. His handling of the economy found support with only 21% of the responders.

Furthermore, when it comes to what the poll calls "generic presidential preference," Democrats stand at 51% and Republicans at 33%. Yet Senator McCain, whose pro-Bush policies are raising concern, and whose age is worrying voters, polls nearly even with either Democratic candidate. When asked which "Candidate shares my values" McCain hits 54% while Obama and Clinton poll in the low 40s. Do you know what that means?

Just imagine for a moment that the Democratic party were running a likable, white male candidate. Do you think these numbers would be the same ? I dare say Senator McCain would poll so poorly as to be irrelevant. The race would be over before it began.

Here is the real surprise though, everybody claims they "do not understand these numbers." Rather they are reluctant to state the obvious but highly politically incorrect truth: many voters do not want a black man or a white woman. That is what the numbers really show. They do not show that McCain is somehow appealing or comforting, what they do show is that Obama and Clinton are not. "Shares my values," should read, "is white and male" like a "real president."

Some networks, eg. CNN, have on occasion brought up this viewpoint only to dismiss it as quickly as possible. Sort of like a dare. The pollsters quickly pointed out that age was even more of a concern to voters than race or gender. They stated that McCain was at a disadvantage. It never occurred to them that maybe it is easier to admit to a pollster that age worries you, than to say that you don't trust a woman or a black person.

Be it as it may, Senator McCain chances are actually quite good, as some foreign correspondents -who don't have to pay lip service to gender and race issues in America- were quick to point out. In the real election, voters won't be shy to show their mistrust for either Obama or Clinton. Recent events have shown a "politically correct way" to disavow Obama. Ironically enough, that opportunity came about all on through the misguided actions of one Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Here is a great way to express one's hidden racism. It is perfectly OK to say that we do not share values with Reverend Wright and all that he stands for. And as for Clinton, well there is just an unlimited number of acceptable ways to denounce her without appearing sexist.

naive

To any big oil industry trader or executive, the current calls for alternative energy seem overly naive. To propose that we tackle our current energy needs with solar or wind power must sound as credulous as young children offering their parents advice on how to solve key problems.

For once though the real naiveness is not in thinking that we can do without oil. Because surely for as long as we persist in our current way of living we cannot and we never will. The naiveness is in thinking that we can keep going the way we are going. That we can keep building houses in the desert and then use energy to keep them from becoming ovens. That we can all drive oversized SUVs wherever and whenever we please. That we can fly around the planet. That we can all lie in front of our flat screen TVs munching chips. That we can all have a lawn. That we can all drink bottled water that has been shipped half way around the globe. That we all need fresh fruit and vegetables in the middle of winter. That the party will never end.

However, not all is lost. Because, however good you think this party feels, it really is not. People are far from happy. There is more depression, more mental illness, and more chronic disease now than at any time in human history. More people are overweight and suffer from diabetes and high blood pressure than at any time in history. These modern ills are so prevalent and so serious that some have argued that all the gains we made against infectious diseases are nullified by the losses we suffer to diabetes, obesity, high blood pressure and the like. I.e. it is not obvious that we are better off than our ancestors several centuries ago. It may appear that way, but then again we may be overly naive.

Our party is not satisfying in any real sense. It is driven by constant activity, constant buying, and other obsessive-compulsive behaviors that make people forget their unhappiness and that some would say, are symptoms of a deep underlying unhappiness. Humans are not well suited to a sedentary life-style. They are not adapted to eating sugar and sweets all day long. Even though we are curious and like to see new things, we do not travel as well as we would like. We suffer from jet lag, travelers diarrhea and other ills. Traveling spreads infectious diseases and will play a major role in the coming and all but inevitable pandemic.

So, you wonder, why do we do all this stuff if it does not really satisfy us? One key reason is the constant barrage of advertising targeting our most basic needs and instincts. We are constantly told that we are inadequate unless we drink coke, budweiser, or unless we buy dove soap, or apply degree deodorant. We need to brush, floss, and gargle listerine. We are told we need to travel and visit faraway places. We are urged to buy larger and heavier cars. We are frightened into swallowing vitamins and supplements, and drink calcium fortified orange juice. We are bombarded with thousands of ads by the time we turn ten.

This flood of advertising is so overwhelming and so difficult to get away from that it is constantly driving our day. Americans watch more commercials than any other people in the world, and they spend more time shopping than any other people. All that shopping amounts to very little as research has shown that we discard or thrash over 90% of what we buy within six months. Nothing has any lasting value in this system of constant and senseless turnover. We have become huge churning machines, taking in goods and energy, and spitting out waste and pollution.

It is indeed very naive to think that we can keep going like this forever. That it is our patriotic duty to consume. The fact that nobody objects to such a depiction of patriotism shows how deeply affected we are by advertising and how warped our sense of the world has become. How can destruction of our land and wasting our resources be called patriotic? It is time to wake up America. Wake up before it is too late.