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.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
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.
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.
Monday, May 26, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
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!
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!
Saturday, May 24, 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
