missing the point

John Tierney is a would-be scientist who writes a column and a blog for the NY Times. The blog is called TierneyLab and he uses it "to check out new research and rethink conventional wisdom about science and society." It appears John prefers the court of public opinion over peer review. Not that peer review is all that much better, mind you. TierneyLab takes a conservative middle of the road position on most topics but has a definite "laissez-faire" bias when it comes to the environment. John likes to reassure us that all is well.

Now John has a short list of "10 Things to Scratch From Your Worry List." Numbered lists like these are very popular with the public and they pervade periodicals, magazines, and do-it-yourself books. Who has time to read a real book these days? What we need in "today's fast paced society" is action items. You know how the ad goes. You've seen it a million times. Still, it is hard to put down these valuable lists. It is not often that you can learn so much in so little time. Smart learning or smart bombs?

Unfortunately, numbered lists frequently miss the point. Their main purpose it seems is to either rally the troops, or to lull everyone back to sleep by telling them that they are doing just fine. Whatever the flavor, lists convey little useful information and they allow the writer to get away with pushing opinions without having to make a solid case for them. In short, lists are not just easy on the reader, they also benefit the lazy writer.

Here are some examples of non-information from today's list. 

#3. John thinks you need not worry about forbidden fruits from afar. This one fits in the category of condoning your bad behavior while giving you some ammunition to fight off your more environmentally conscious friends. The argument is that food from other countries is often produced and shipped "much more efficiently" than domestic food. Note that the local producers haul their wares around in small trucks. The argument is not just false, it ignores the big picture in favor of pushing an image of inefficient local producers clogging up the highways with their pickup trucks trying to deliver inferior food.

Never mind that the "efficiency" of foreign growers is largely due to predatory practices, lax environmental regulation, excessive use of pesticide and fertilizer, mono-culture driven to the extreme, exploitation of cheap labor, enforcement by the military, and most of all, cheap oil. There is a reason bananas are cheaper in the US than locally grown apples. 

John prefers to stick to apples from New Zealand having a smaller carbon footprint than apples in the UK. The NZ argument avoids nasty problems with banana republics. But it misses the point. The point is that efficiency does not matter. There are no brownie points for eating apples with a smaller carbon footprint. Certainly not if those apples are cheaper and hence we eat more of them. 

Shipping foods over long distances is an environmental disaster and no amount of whitewashing will cover it up. Becoming a locavore is the best thing you can do for the environment.

#5. Here is another one, evil plastic bags. In this case John again condones bad behavior and once again his argument is totally beside the point. He says, the EPA thinks paper bags are no better for the environment than plastic bags, and that is true. It is true that the EPA thinks that way, but who can trust the EPA any longer? Unfortunately, it is also true that paper bags as they are currently used are just as bad for the environment. The issue is that throw-away bags, be they paper or plastic, are to be avoided.

Americans are wrappers of the worst kind. Everything we buy is wrapped and sealed and packaged and bagged many times over. We put boxes in boxes and bags in bags. We use so much packaging that the weight of the package rivals that of the goods inside. We use more wrapping than an Egyptian mummy. And all of it is one-time use and gets discarded promptly. We are consumers of bags and wrappings as much as we are consumers of goods that we don't need. 

Yes the plastic bags are evil. And yes you should worry about it. As a matter of fact you should worry about ALL bags, boxes, wrappings, sealing, etc. It is all a huge waste of resources.

To top it all of, in #8, John thinks we need not worry about the missing Arctic ice. And in a clever juxtaposition he also thinks we need not worry about the universe's missing mass (#9). There is no doubt these two are listed in succession because the second one makes the first one look silly. The universe's missing mass is a scientific issue. The mass is not missing in a real sense, we just don't know (or don't agree) where it is. And it is only missing if you accept the leading hypothesis of the birth of the universe. It is an academic problem, and you need not worry about it unless you dream of winning a Nobel prize.

The missing ice in the Arctic is a different matter. It is missing. Granted it is happening far away. But it is real and it is a sign that something is going terribly wrong. Something that will have major repercussions, if not on our lives, then certainly on future generations. The ice is missing because it is melting. It is melting because our climate is changing. And regardless of your beliefs about the cause of global warming, climate changes are serious business.

Despite the drama of comets and other Hollywood-like extinction scenarios, mass extinctions were probably due to climate changes and not to acute events. Even if you doubt that, rest assured that most if not all successful human civilizations collapsed because of climate changes and over-taxing the local environment.

I would say it is the one thing you definitely do need to worry about.

heard on the news

Mervyn's filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection yesterday. The company is one of the latest victims of the economic downturn and the housing bubble. Mervyn's is a Bay Area (Hayward) department store, so considerable attention was paid to this fact. However what really interested me was a quote by a Mervyn's customer interviewed in the parking lot of a store. 

She said, " You know we used to have extra money and we would just go shopping, just for fun, just to see what was out there and what we could buy. We can't do that any longer with gas prices being so high and so much money needed for housing payments. Now we only buy things when we need them." 

And there you have it, consumerism defined. People are buying things they don't need for fun, entertainment. They go (I should say drive) to stores, wander around and look for things to get. Things they did not even know existed, let alone that they would need them. No surprise then that better than 90% of newly bought items end up in the garbage pile within 6 months. Got to make room for the new stuff. We did not need the old stuff in any case.

That, my friends, is the environmental disaster we are faced with. People consuming items for no reason. It matters very little if this good lady chooses paper or plastic, or even whether she brings her own shopping bag (which I doubt). She is wasting resources at a record clip.

The one redeeming factor here is that people do get a minimal amount of exercise. They walk around inside the store. And in doing so they probably also combat the boredom that has invaded their lives. Lives that are so empty they need to go out every weekend to see what they can buy to entertain themselves. It is truly a sad story.

I guess the downturn has its silver lining. By all means let's pray for higher gas prices.

the noses of CNN

And now, for something completely different:

Every once in a while I watch CNN. The network is a far cry from its glory days of a decade and a half ago. Gone is the news and the excellent reporting. For a while one could watch CNN Europe (London) on CNNfn at night, but when they bagged that it was all downhill from there.

CNN ditched the news to be replaced by sound bites, irrelevant tidbits, rumors, in a what appears to have been a silly attempt at being "fair and balanced." At least Fox Noise only says it is fair and balanced. The best remedy against such blatant biases is to do what Keith Olbermann did. At the very least Keith is entertaining and an effective anti-dote against one-sided views.

But I digress.

It occurred to me while watching Campbell Brown -sitting in for Anderson Cooper as the saying goes- that there was a problem with her nose. And when she started talking to Randi Kaye and a few minutes later to Dana Bash, I noticed that all these women have the same nose problem. There seems to be an endemic nose problem at CNN. Many women, including Gloria Borger, Christi Paul, Kyra Phillips, and others unseen have this skinny, straight, hairline nose with narrow nostrils that must make breathing difficult. I did not dig into this any further and some of these noses may have been congenital but the majority appear restored.

I read that Dr. Sanjay Gupta is a practicing neurosurgeon -the latter no doubt explains why he seems to know so little about medicine, remember that joke about surgeons ? They can do everything but they don't know anything.- but it appears he may have taken up a role as resident plastic surgeon.

Is all of this fall-out from the Greta Van Susteren-Paula Zahn debacle that we witnessed six years ago? Poor Greta, trying to be fair and balanced at Fox Noise, despite an eye-lift that came too late to save the day, but that is another story too...

Are nose jobs the remedy ? Reporters are often said to have a nose for a good story. Are these women trying to improve their sense of reporting ? Or do the nose jobs (and eye lifts) reflect the subtle massaging of the facts that is so endemic in the 21st century newscast? Make it all look pretty and appealing so the advertisers are happy?

Nothing more befitting a program whose sole objective has now become to promote consumerism and sell useless junk.

I smell something fishy, do you?

more pollution

Prior to the 1984 LA Olympics, some stores in the Bay Area sold t-shirts showing athletes running on the track wearing gas masks. That vision is about to become a reality some 24 years later. The US Olympic team has developed breathing masks for its athletes to wear. I doubt anyone will wear them during competition, but you are sure to see them on the side-lines.

Despite what Americans would call draconian interventions, Beijing's air remains unsafe to breathe. Not just for athletes mind you, for everyone. So there you have it, the Chinese miracle in all its glory. A miracle that is also affecting India, Mexico, and other "developing nations." 

You have to give the Chinese credit for guts, though. Since July 20, the Chinese government has enforced what no American politician would dare to do: they have limited driving by using odd-even license plate restrictions. They also reduced factory production around the city. Think this could ever happen here? Think again.

Northern California has had a record number of Spare the Air days this summer, but so far no politician has dared to even suggest similar measures. Granted our air is a still far better than Beijing air, but the principle and the results are what matters. The Bay Area air was definitely unhealthy and elected officials neglected their duty of protecting the public by failing to intervene in a meaningful way.

The "Beijing experience" has shown an improvement in air pollution of over 20% since the laws took effect. Unfortunately, Beijing's air is so polluted that 20% barely makes a difference. Now the Chinese are considering further measures. It is rumored they may remove up to 90% of cars off the road for the upcoming Games. What they really should do is make these changes permanent until a better solution can be found. However, I doubt that even China would do such an utterly sensible thing.

Once the Olympics are over, the Chinese miracle will no doubt continue unabated and soon enough their pollution will start affecting the rest of the planet. Because right now, human density is such that our activities have planet-wide implications. 

Just in case you wonder, I am not worried about the planet. The planet will be here long after we are gone. The planet is irrelevant really. What matters is our habitat. It is disappearing order of magnitude faster than it should be because we are choosing to destroy it unnecessarily. Just so we can outdo the neighbors with our bigger, impractical, and mean-looking SUV's.

I urge everyone to follow the Chinese example and retire their cars. Permanently.

pollution politics

The world's billionaires are at it again. Nothing can stop the knights in shining armor from protecting the innocent and needy. Bill Gates and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg teamed up to spend $500 million to stop people around the world from smoking. Once again the wealthiest citizens are going out on a limb to save us all. Or maybe they would like to tell us how to live? There is plenty of irony to go around so don't worry about a jab here or there.

When it comes to air pollution caused by car exhaust, industry, lawnmowers, leaf-blowers, chain saws, and barbecues nobody really seems to care. As a matter of fact the EPA recently devalued a "generic" human life so polluters can have a freer hand to spew their fumes into the air we all breathe. The value of a human life just came down by over $1 million. It is now on the order of $5 million, which would rate the Gates-Bloomberg effort at 500 individuals, but that is another matter.

The upshot is that smoking is evil, while driving your car is good. Even on Spare the Air days! Nobody would dream of forcing poor drivers off the road. That would harm the economy, my friends.

Never mind that the average car, driven for an average distance every year, puts a whole lot more pollution in the atmosphere than the average smoker does. And how about that nice summer backyard barbecue?

Instead we have to deal with sinister commercials, tracing minute amounts of evil chemicals through a building's ventilation systems all the up to your child's playroom. Warning the parent that the smoker in unit X, two floors below is secretly killing their child. Never that such apartment buildings are more often than not located next to busy freeways, where the open window brings in tons of air pollution and particulate matter daily. All that exhaust is -if anything- a whole lot worse for the poor child.

What is Bill Gates thinking of doing about that? Nothing thank you. Our hero is smart enough not to interfere with the business interests of his fellow billionaires. That is why he focuses his attention on Africa, a far-away land where he can safely do as he pleases.

As for Mayor Bloomberg, his efforts to charge drivers in New York city was to be commended. Unfortunately it didn't go anywhere and so now it appears he has learned a lesson. Better stick to evil tobacco and not mess with the SUV's of private citizens.

money and happiness

Often people wonder if money can buy happiness. Most people I think would say yes, although some may qualify their answer a bit. Yes is definitely the answer a consumer society favors. Furthermore, consumer societies work hard to instill this "value" into their citizens. The more time these citizens spend pursuing money and wealth, the more the overall economy and hence the collective power grows. And societies are often ruled by those with an unhealthy appetite for power. 

Unfortunately, we all know that the answer to money and happiness is not as simple as that. There are very many rich but distinctly unhappy people. And the happiest nation on earth is not the richest, although it is clearly a first world country -the current winner is Denmark, but Norway, Switzerland, and others have also won the title in recent memory.

Which brings us to a minority of "hard core" people who will tell you they firmly believe that money does not buy happiness. That is of course easy to say when one lives in a wealthy country where all basic needs are taken care of. One only needs to imagine transporting these happy people to some of the more destitute areas on the planet to see that their beliefs are problematic. A few would merely need to be transported out of their protected neighborhoods to make the same point.

In comes the "yes, but" view. A qualified view that claims a certain amount of wealth or money is needed to take care of basic needs. Any money beyond that does not correlate with happiness these folks would argue. That begs the question, what is a basic need? Are cellphones and cars basic needs? Or is it just limited to food and shelter? If so, does food include restaurant meals and does shelter mean a 4,000 sq ft home? 

It occurred to me that the answer is rather simple. "Can money buy happiness?" is an ill-posed question. Money and happiness have some relationship but it is not a linear or even a smoothly evolving one. It isn't even a fixed one that holds across all societies and time periods. And it certainly is not a causal relationship. "Can money buy happiness" is simply the wrong question to ask. There is no good answer for it. Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

Psychological studies have show that two factors are key to happiness. One is the perception of being in control of one's life and destiny. The more people feel in control, the happier they tend to be. Events beyond anyone's control, so-called "acts of god" definitely play a role in happiness. If fate hits it can put a pronounced damper on one's enthusiasm.

Surveys in Money magazine consistently find that biologists are among the happiest professions, even though their compensation is low, and few biologists are rich. However, as anyone who is familiar with the current situation in academic biology will tell you, biologists are in charge of their careers. They can run their labs like despots if they like. They answer to nobody -within reason of course. They don't have to collaborate unless they desire to do so. They are free to pursue their interests. In short, unlike many other scientists or the majority of employed workers, biologists have nearly absolute control of their little kingdom. And that makes for happy people.

The second factor is perceived success within a peer group. Humans compare their success with that of their peers. That is why we always want to keep up with the Joneses, or do better than the neighbors. We judge our success based on what we perceive in others. But not just any others. We can be quite picky when it comes to selecting peers. And we can also be quite selective when it comes to measures of success. So your neighbor may outdo you in having a fancier car, or a bigger house, but you feel you have better behaved children. Or children that do better in school. Or a better looking partner. Or a nicer yard. Or you may beat the neighbor in a race.

Success and control over one's destiny are closely related. They are but aspects of a single core value. A value that judges how well you are doing compared to others. These are universal correlates of happiness and they have nothing to do with money or wealth per se. Although, in a first world society, there can be some correlation.

As would be expected there is a spread around a mean for these values. A few people grow very obsessed with power and the size of their peer group. They want power over everything. A similarly small group care very little for power and are happy to bob around on the current and ignore most others. Some have a very small and select peer group, while others try to outdo everyone they bump into in one way or another. Some have many interests and can find many ways to achieve success, while others are dead-set and focused on one item, eg. money, partners, cars, etc.

And as is often the case in biology, the ones in the middle are doing best. They are the happiest of all.

no more fat cats

Mintel, a market research organization expects US pet food and supplies sales to rise to $35.3 billion by 2012, an inflation-adjusted increase of over 26% from 2007. Over the past five years, the total US market grew more than 34%. The country is now spending more on pet food and supplies than some countries do on human food. And it shows.

Pets are a reflection of their owners the marketers say. To quote: "The shifting perception of the family pet, from companion to reflection of oneself, continues unabated." Like its owners the average pet is getting more overweight and more unhealthy as time goes on. And guess what? People are proud of it too. Pictures of obese dogs and cats are proudly displayed on websites and in family albums.

Much like the people-food industry, the pet food industry is working hard to produce foods that are overloaded with calories and salt. These "foods" are addictive to the point where pets will forego their natural foods in favor of these products. 

We recently acquired two young kittens. Our kids were in seventh heaven and quickly started taking care of the cats in what they thought was the appropriate way. We stocked up on kitten feed and treats and in no time, the cats were fat and lazy. Their bellies would drag along the floor. They would forego any hunting, avoid leftovers, and cry incessantly to get more of their "crackers." When I complained that the cats were unhealthy and overweight, I was met with incredulous stares. "We are feeding them less than is recommended," my daughter said:" the poor kitties need to eat." Our neighbors chimed in and warned us -they have an obese dog-. One day they tried to wean her dog of her crackers and the "poor puppy" got sick. So they kept feeding the dog, that now barely fits through the door and has trouble walking.

I put an end to it. No more artificial food. No more lying on the couch or sleeping in bed at night. Cats need to go out at night and hunt. At first this was met with utter disbelief and shock. How dare I be so cruel? How dare I suggest that we put the little kitty outside? With all those dangerous animals out there? How will the poor kitty find enough food? What if it got into a fight? I mention all this to show how warped our world view has become. 

Our kids were eager to put their cats in a glass box and pamper them around the clock. Pet, stroke, feed, sleep. Much like baby boomer parents do with their offspring. Not realizing that doing so is the worst thing one can do. No more fun, no more exercise, no more normal food. Just boredom in luxury. Fancy feast meals for the obese cat gourmet.

I am pleased to say that after breaking through much resistance, our cats are now healthy, happy, and normal weight cats. Cats that go out hunting every night, and bring back rodents, snakes, and lizards to show. Cats that get into cat-fights during mating season as any normal cat should. Sure they have a few scratches and they lost some patches of fur. But it all grows back and they are so much the better for it too. They are happy, active, lean and muscular. They eat normal food: whatever they catch plus leftovers. They are weaned from their addictive crackers. 

One thing the marketers got right though: these cats are reflections of their owners. And proudly so.

food prices

According to the FAO data, the current spike in food prices is quite modest. When adjusted for inflation and compared to other data over the last 50 years, the price hike is barely noticeable. In the 1970's for example, rice, wheat, and other cereals were anywhere from double to almost four times as much as they are today. Yet, corn has risen 31% over the past year, while wheat has gone up a whopping 130%, according to Bloomberg.

Several factors have been blamed for these price hikes. Oil prices play an important part as most food stuffs are transported over large distances. I read somewhere that the average food item travels over 1,500 miles before it reaches your table. Oil also powers farm equipment and irrigation devices, that are both needed and used extensively to grow food on an industrial scale. Petroleum is key for fertilizers and pesticides that are an equally integral part of the production process.

It seems likely that oil prices will continue to move upward over the long term. On top of that we will no doubt see several spikes -as the one we are currently in- and drops -that will surely follow-. But the underlying trend will be up and up. Hopefully, that trend will remain "visible"enough so people have some incentive to change their life-styles before the whole rigamarole comes tumbling down in one big collapse.

Apart from oil, there are other factors. One is the biofuel craze, or growing crops for fuel production. More fuel production means less farm land is available for food. This trend is unlikely to persist for long but in the meantime it is giving rise to a fair bit of speculation. Wild promises also make it less likely people will think conservation.

Another factor is the shift in eating habits. That shift is especially pronounced in developing nations such as India and China, that are now changing to Western eating habits. Never mind that such habits come with definite health concerns. The key shift is towards more meat. In China meat consumption per capita has gone from 20 kg in the 1980's to over 50 kg today. Given how inefficient meat production is, and how wasteful it is with resources, that is not good. This trend however is likely to continue for as long as beef is available and people have money to pay for it.

Considering all these factors it may surprise you that FAO predicts food prices will stabilize in the next decade. Not just stabilize mind you, but remain low compared to historical trends. If that is so, there will be no stopping the predicted population boom. Estimates are there will be 9.2 billion people on the planet by 2050.  But then again, people thought US real estate prices would rise forever too.

I am willing to bet we are in for a big surprise. By mid-century the world will be a different place. And it won't be the rosy predictions people have grown accustomed to from watching Star Trek and similar shows.

invisible damage

The BBC has an article today highlighting a Science report about the dismal state of the planet's coral reefs. To anyone who has ever gone snorkeling or scuba diving, the influence of humanity is nowhere as visible as in coastal reefs. The closer a reef is to civilization, the more damaged it is and the more it looks like a wasteland.  Damage to coral reefs is something that jumps out at you. Once you've seen a healthy reef you won't bother going to Florida, or most of Hawaii for that matter. Those are the places where the sparse little fish come to look at all the humans wearing diving gear.

Climate change, overfishing, coastal development, and agricultural run-off are all to blame for damage to the reefs. As soon as the first beach villas go up, all the large fish disappear. The lush growth of coral is replaced by a few patches here and there. To the naive eye an occasional small but colorful reef dweller may look miraculous, but anyone who has gone to healthy reef, with big fish swarming all around you, will know different. Unfortunately, like smog, people adapt and their expectations adjust accordingly.

It is not just beauty that is leaving us, to be replaced by concrete, mega-mansions, artificial lawns, SUV's, motor boats and jet skis. Our very survival may be at stake. As the reefs go, so goes the fish and fish is an important source of protein for much of the world's population. Greenhouse gases like CO2 threaten reefs in two ways. The warmer seas destroy many species and the higher acidity -caused by dissolved CO2- damages even more.

As is usual however, our assault is multi-pronged. Agriculture develops behind the mansions and fertilizer run-off quickly causes algae to bloom. These algae kill off both fish and reefs. Finally, there are the "improvements" in fishing technology. The same "improvements" that allow us to increase our yields, and (temporarily) feed more people. The type of improvements that did away with Monterey's sardines and many other fisheries around the globe.

For many years, coastal people have relied on fishing to survive and thrive. Until they suddenly got access to cheap oil and managed to take fishing to a whole new level. A level that is clearly incompatible with the survival of the fish and the food sources that fish depends on. Big trawlers scoop up all the fish, damage the sea bottom -where food sources for fish are- and thrash coral reefs. The BBC website has a great video showing the destruction of reefs by trawling nets.

It has been estimated that most wild fish stocks will be depleted by mid-century. Some of it will no doubt be replaced by fish farming, but it remains to be seen what the long term viability of fish farms is. Already there are signs that these enterprises accelerate destruction instead of curing it. 

We might be in for a big surprise.

water use so far

Here are my water use figures for the year. This is for a 3,200 sq ft home near the California Coast, with four inhabitants and a small vegetable garden. Initially, while it was still raining, we used rain barrels to collect water for both indoor and outdoor use. That included all uses except drinking water which we get through the "normal channels." 

It rained reasonably regularly during the first two billing periods, but during the last one, we did not have a single drop of rain, and none is expected until at least mid-October. To deal with no new water, we are actively recycling grey water and use grey water for everything, except drinking, showers, and cooking.

During the first billing period (about 2 months), our average daily use was 39 gallons a day. During the second period, it was 36 gallons a day, and during this last period it was 50 gallons a day. The increase reflects the absence of rain.

I would say that this was done without resorting to extreme measures and without any real restrictions. Nothing that affected our quality of life or imposes hard labor. Some people may find recycling water objectionable but it is actually quite easy to do, and takes little or no extra work.

For those of you who are minding your expenses, I have to say that saving water, unfortunately, does not result in much dollar savings. It is not worth it and we are not doing it to save money. Unlike gas and electricity, our "water" bill has so many other items (sewage, altitude charges, seismic improvements, etc.) that have remained fixed that the savings is negligible. That is very sad indeed. 

Here we are in the middle of the second year of a drought and there is really no incentive for people to save water. We hear on a daily basis how officials are discouraged by the weak popular response to a call for conservation, but nobody should be surprised. Instead our good citizens are enraged that they have to save some 10% over previous years, while other water districts have not imposed any such measures or higher rates. Grow up, people !

It is absolutely shameful and embarrassing the way California wastes water. Not to mention the many impediments they put in the way of people trying to save water. Many health officials are using the West Nile virus "threat" and other excuses to discourage people from using rain barrels or installing collection systems. There are no incentives and no houses are being built with rain water collection, even though this would add a minimal cost to a house that will be priced way over $1MM.

I wish the governator would take notice. There are plans in the works for desalination plants in Southern California, and other "grand engineering" schemes that will waste tons of energy so people can flush perfectly good water down their toilets. We have already destroyed one of the most productive salmon fisheries on the Pacific Coast, but there is no end in sight to the destruction people want to inflict just to have a green lawn in the desert and outdo their neighbors.

fat and fatter

In the 1990's China had one of the lowest obesity rates in the world. Obesity in the rural population stood at less than 1% and in Beijing, it was 4% for men and 8% for women. Today, the BBC reports that obesity levels in China are surpassing 25%, with the poor and rural being more commonly affected. Some consider the rural pattern counter-intuitive, but is in line with that of other developing nations. Many had assumed that the richer urban populations that increasingly switched to Western diets would be more susceptible and more obese. Not so. 

It therefore seems rather obvious that the culprit is found in a new life style characterized by less activity and more "leisure time." As China's agriculture becomes industrialized and more people drive motorcycles, and cars instead of bicycles, obesity is on the rise. Another marker is also on the rise: the amount of time spent watching TV (munching cookies and drinking sodas no doubt).

The high fat, high sugar diets surely don't help matters but in China, diet changes are more extensive among the well off urban populations, who happen to be less obese. Be that as it may, nationwide obesity is an ongoing trend and predictions are that China's obesity rates could double within the next 20 years. That would bring China in line with the "civilized world."

One thing seems quite clear: what many would call progress and an increase in the standard of living, is really a double edged sword. It comes at a great cost to health and personal well-being.

Advanced societies as we'd like to call them have overweight and obesity rates higher than 50%. Nations on the path to such "luxury" are seeing their overweight rates grow to similarly high numbers. It appears therefore that, regardless of race, ethnicity, or culture, the price we pay for "progress" is that over half the population becomes distinctly unhealthy or chronically ill. As one Harvard researcher put it, obesity is defined in terms of adverse effects on health, not population norms. The latter goes without saying. Otherwise we would have adjusted our labels since the average and the median cases are now firmly in the overweight category.

And what about the food crisis you may ask? Although 25% of the world is malnourished, it appears that even more are over-nourished. Or maybe malnourished in the sense of excess calories.

gas guzzling culture

The NYTimes has a long article on the American Energy Policy, or lack thereof. The title is: "American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot." Apart from highlighting the obvious -i.e. that we have no policy other than to burn more- the article contains some memorable quotes. Take this for example, from Newt Gingrich: " Our culture favors driving long distances in powerful vehicles and the car as a social expression." 

The word culture is especially well chosen in this context. Powerful vehicles? Social expression? Wouldn't it be better to say oversized, overweight, and overstuffed living rooms on wheels?

Newt also thinks we are not like the Japanese or Europeans. That despite the fact that most Americans -or at least those in control- have a European or Asian ancestry. I.e. we are not "natives" to this continent, no matter what anyone says. Our ancestors may have come here because they were poor, underprivileged, or prosecuted in Europe and Asia, but we certainly cannot claim that European or Asian thinking is foreign to us. Maybe some of us have a chip on our shoulder and feel like we need to show the old country how much better off we are. 

The question is are we? And if we are, how much longer will it last. Here is a quote from Pete Domenici in the same article:"We've got to fix it or our standard of living will change within a decade." What we have to fix is our addiction to cheap oil, and "powerful vehicles."

Decades of advertising have warped the American mind. Decades of commercials telling us that we needed big cars, big houses, and big everything to be happy. That greed is not just acceptable but desirable. That shopping is our patriotic duty. That being wasteful is unavoidable and necessary in modern life. That it is an expression of freedom. That it shows we are better than those Europeans and Asians. 

Our standard of living is higher. What that means is that we spend more money. We buy more and consume more. We are not the American citizen, we are the "American consumer." We consume more, ergo we are happier, right?

Research shows otherwise. Europeans are happier than we are, despite $9 gas. Despite living in smaller homes, and driving smaller cars, and taking public transportation, and riding their bikes. Despite their "socialist" systems, and despite having "inferior medical care" and all that other baloney that the advertisers want to make us believe.

Unfortunately, it seems the European middle class is doing better than the American middle class. Granted they have less discretionary income and fewer "toys" than we do. But then again, they are not over their ears in debt. They don't need to work two jobs to make ends meet. They get five weeks of vacation a year. They take long holidays. Their kids get free education. They get free medical care. Their retirement is taken care off. They are not as overweight and not nearly as stressed as we are. Their jobs cannot disappear overnight and cities don't turn into ghost towns over there.

How about those protesters in Paris? And the German strikers? Is that what we see on TV?  TV, our source of information. Our window to the world. Brought to you by Coca-Cola and Exxon-Mobil.

Stay with us. Don't touch that dial, America ! We'll be back after this.

the 100 year flood

I read somewhere that the MidWest is experiencing its fourth 100 year flood in 35 years. Clearly something is amiss here. Maybe someone misplaced the zero? Already a debate has started whether or not global warming is to blame. Remember Katrina? We are at it once again.

I want to sidestep the global warming issue because it is likely to lead to unproductive debates. Instead of pointing fingers, let's take a look at the facts. Nothing but the facts, ma'am. If four hundred year floods occur in less than forty years then we are really dealing with 10 year floods. And if every 10 year flood is as devastating as this one, we aren't going to do so well in the long run. It is not just a matter of poor statistics we are talking about. It is something that wrecks the livelihood of many good people.

Once again the problem is that people are trying to live in areas where they should not live or do things there that they should not do. I am not saying we should refrain from changing our environment, but there needs to be a limit somewhere. Humans like all animals try to modify their environment, and doing so is a good thing to do. I am absolutely positively in favor of making life better. And if there is some collateral damage, well so be it.

Changing the environment makes it so we can enlarge our niche and it protects us from danger and makes it so we can live more comfortably. But that also imposes a good limit. A cost/benefit limit. Clearly floods like these every ten years or so do not make us comfortable. They do not make it safer for us to live there. We are asking too much.

Every time you ask this much you should also ask yourself, why? And here the why is obvious. It is called greed. We live in the plains because it allows us to grow cheap food that we can transport easily via the river to far away places. But location is not enough. These plains, while enormously productive would not be so without cheap oil. Once again, cheap oil is allowing us to do things we better not do.

The floods are but one symptom. They inundate the land that we grow food on and make it so our yields drop. But in "normal" years the runoff from pesticides and fertilizers make it so the Gulf of Mexico is becoming a wasteland where food (here fish) is disappearing quickly. It appears this situation is one of extremely high cost, with very little benefit. Unless you think high fructose corn syrup is a benefit. The only benefit we can see is dollars flowing into the pockets of some very rich farmers. That is called greed. For the time being the profit is quite literally underwater. 

But fear not, those farmers will go to Congress and you and I, the taxpayers of America will bail them out. Whether we like it or not. And that is wrong.

energy use this year

I went through my energy bills so far this year and I thought it would be a good thing to share some with you to show you what can be done in real life. In a recent energy audit we did, we performed better than 99.9% of households in the region. Here is some background info.

We live in a 3,200 sq ft home, it is bigger than the average home in America but reasonably average for the neighborhood we live in (California Coast). The house is new but not all that well insulated. It has some CFL's but most bulbs are of the old incandescent variety. There are four people in our household. They all turn off their lights and other appliances but nobody goes to extremes to conserve energy. We watch TV like everyone else. Only some of our appliances are energy star rated. The others are older and by no means efficient.

All in all, we have a normal existence with all the amenities of modern life. We certainly have gadgets galore and as you can tell, we do use computers. Here are the hard data.

Electric in Kwh total and Kwh per day

Jan 218 7.5

Feb 232 8.0

Mar 222 7.2

Apr 204 6.8

May 202 6.7

June 203 6.5

Gas usage, in Therms, Therms per day

Jan 35 1.2

Feb 33 1.1

Mar 16 0.5

Apr 13 0.4

May 13 0.4

June 10 0.3

All this works out to an average energy bill of $55 a month, give or take a few cents.

clean energy

Arnold, our governator had some good news for all Californians. Tesla, a company he called "the sexiest car company," will build its second generation electric vehicles in California. The first generation were built in England but the second generation was up for grabs. New Mexico was in the running, and so were other states. But the governator, who bought a Tesla, stepped in with some generous tax breaks. No doubt many are delighted that we are taking a step in the right direction. When it comes to electricity, California is a low carbon emitter. The state produces just 47.24 million metric tons or about as much as Wyoming. The low figure is no doubt due to all the hydro-electric dams in the state. We wrecked one of the most productive salmon fisheries in the nation by doing so, but hey one has to make sacrifices somewhere.

When it comes to transportation and residential use though, we don't do so well. As you might imagine, transportation is really killer. 227.78 million metric tons, the highest in the nation and surpassing Texas at 192.34 by a "healthy" margin. Time we switched to electric cars, don't you think? Although electric is emission free for the car, it is not pollution free as some seem to think. It is also not a shortcut for using less energy.

It takes a certain amount of energy to move a 3,000 pound metal box over a given distance. More so when you also have to lift it, as most of California is far from flat. Barring minor differences in efficiency, it does not matter much how this energy is delivered, be it by coal, gas, hydrogen, electricity, or gravity. More or less the same amount of energy is needed and an equivalent amount of harmful byproducts is produced. In many cases, less carbon, but more toxic heavy metals. Pick your poison the saying goes.

The only way to change the equation is by making the box lighter or not moving it as far or as high. In other words, drive a smaller car and drive less. That is the only solution. Unfortunately, the best way and so far the only way to insure that this will happen is to make energy more expensive.

The same is true for heating and cooling. It takes a certain amount of energy to deliver a quantity of heat or remove it from a building. Both are "needed" a lot in California apparently. You might not think so given our great climate, but reality is different indeed. Many Californians insist on living in normally uninhabitable places. Many also "require" 3,000 plus square foot housing and a wide variety of appliances to deal with inconveniences such as cold shower walls and the like. When it comes to residential carbon emissions, California is second only to New York with 30.27 million metric tons versus 38.02.



When it comes to housing, smaller dwellings would make a huge difference. Better insulation would help too. And not heating or cooling the entire residence when only a few rooms are in use is another idea. While we are at it, abandoning housing that is far away from centers of activity, or located in inhospitable places such as the Coachella valley is also worth considering. When it comes to location, it appears that the subprime crisis will lend a helping hand here.

There is a lot we can do folks, but remember not to deceive yourselves. When it comes to energy use, self-deception is easy to do. Turning off the A/C and opening the car windows may seem like a smart idea, until you consider the increased drag at highway speeds. There are many other examples. Remember the laws of thermodynamics, succinctly summarized as "there is no free lunch!" Don't try to be clever with energy. Substitutions don't work.