Ideology leads to inanity

There are plenty of problems with ethanol, from its relatively low energy balance to the use of corn - a high-intensity crop - to produce it. But whether or not ethanol is the dream fuel, no amount of wishing will make oil shale a better option. There are so many ways to dismantle this argument, but I'll just do one.

In the first section, Mr. Feulner of the Heritage Foundation notes that ethanol is a poor choice because of it's refining challenges:

For one thing, it's expensive to refine ethanol (emphasis mine)

But after he gushes about the availability of oil shale and its potential to supply all of US oil needs by 2020, Feulner admits:

...there's a reason the U.S. economy doesn't already run on oil shale: It's difficult to collect and refine. (emphasis mine)

So let's check the scorecard on oil shale, which the RAND Foundation says can't be developed unless oil prices top $70-95/barrel:

• Gallons of fuel produced last year: (Ethanol - 4 billion; Oil from shale - 0)
• Carbon reductions over gasoline: (Ethanol 5-10%; Oil from shale - 0)
• Renewable: (Ethanol - yes; oil shale - no)

Sounds like a real winner...

Brain damage improves your moral judgment?

An interesting new study with patients suffering from damage to their prefrontal cortex found that these folks can much more quickly arrive at utilitarian moral judgments. For example, in the following scenario, the brain damaged individual would be quick to sacrifice one person to save the rest:

Quick response! What's the best thing to do on a lifeboat with one too many people on board? Should one throw a mortally injured person overboard to ensure definite survival for everyone else, or refuse to act and ensure certain death for all individuals in the boat?

The person with damage to their prefrontal cortex lacks empathy - that emotional aspect that allows us to identify with the pain or injury to others - and so they can easily decide that granny's got to go to save the rest.

So is the ability to quickly make such a rational judgment a blessing? The most moral act in that scenario is probably to volunteer to sacrifice yourself - thus you make the utilitarian decision and the most noble. Maybe next best would be expressing the opinion that it would be best for someone to go, but letting that someone volunteer. Tossing an individual overboard unwillingly feels a lot like murder, even if they were going to die soon anyway. And being the person to make that assessment isn't likely to endear you to others (although perhaps the survival instinct has already overridden their usual moral revulsion to such a suggestion).

I guess that's what makes the lifeboat situation a moral dilemma, at least until the boat founders under the weight of moral indecision.

Replacing gasoline: efficiency, alternatives or both?

Over at Energista they're examining a proposed state tax credit for alternative fuel vehicles in Minnesota, and I think Christopher's comments are worth examining. He decries a credit for alternative fuel vehicles because it can end up subsidizing the purchase of fuel inefficient cars.

The implied argument is that when it comes to developing energy independence, reducing overall fuel use is more important than alternative fuel capability. (It's also important to distinguish between a vehicle that's capable of using alternative fuels from one that is actually run on them - an E85 compatible car can also use straight gasoline)

That particular distinction is what makes this tax credit bad policy. Helping people buy an E85 car is counter-productive if they end up filling up with 100% gasoline. Furthermore, as this op-ed piece notes, tax credits tend to skew benefits toward upper incomes. Shouldn't we expect people of all income levels to help reduce gasoline use? And shouldn't we make sure that government incentives for alternative fuel use actually guarantee that use?

Instead, government could subsidize alternative fuel use - as the feds do, to the tune of 51 cents/gallon - making it more price competitive.

But what about the efficiency issue? Cheaper fuel, even alternative fuel, tends to encourage greater fuel use (although fuel demand is relatively inelastic). And alternative fuels will be able to displace more gasoline use if our overall use is lower. From that perspective, perhaps government is better off just increasing the price of gasoline with a gas tax (exempting alternative fuels like ethanol or biodiesel based on their proportion in our fuel - e.g. 10% off for 10% blend).

A gas tax with a renewable exemption can reduce overall fuel use and shift consumption to alternative fuels. To keep tax burdens equitable, the proceeds can be used to reduce taxes on the poor, who will otherwise be disproportionately burdened by increased gas taxes.

So, a tax credit that may be ineffective (and that will put a hole in the budget) or a gas tax that could be revenue-neutral? Tough choice...

Animated snow depth! v2

The big snowstorms are behind us and spring is imminent! Time to take another look at the 2-week animated snow depth, this time watching the snow fade.

I recommend setting the speed to 50.

Godwin's Law: the Nazis are coming!

During a discussion course my freshman year of college, called "Great Conversation," there would almost inevitably be a reference to Nazis at some point during the discussions or random debates. There was also general consensus that the use of such an analogy was almost always out of context or used hyperbole, rendering the original topic pretty well moot.

Today I learned (from the Wall Street Journal, of all places) that this phenomenon has been codified into a law, Godwin's Law, which states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one. (strikethrough mine)

I'm pleased to note that in a quick search of this blog, the terms "Nazi" and "Hitler" give zero hits, though admittedly this is often a "discussion" of one...

Making hay out of pork

A news story broke recently about Muslim cashiers at local Target stores refusing to ring up pork products. Many in the Islamic faith believe that pigs are unclean (true in the Jewish faith as well) and like the cab drivers before them, have asserted their religious right to ask another cashier or the customer themselves to ring up the item.

My gut reaction probably reflects some religious prejudice. As a "lapsed Catholic," I don't ask for or receive any accommodations for my religious beliefs in my workplace. As a Christian it's easy - you already get your holidays as vacation (note: in my workplace, you can exchange these holidays for the holidays of other faiths). I also am not interfacing with others in a public setting, so there are fewer opportunities for differences of faith to create friction. In other words, when I read about this at first, I had these reactions:
1) Get a job where you don't have to handle pork
2) You aren't handling pork, you are handling plastic-wrap (Target stores don't sell unpackaged meat).

I'm glad I waited to blog, because I saw this story in today's Minneapolis paper that sums up the reader reaction on their message boards. There were a few good points, such as the legal issue that employers are required to make "reasonable accommodations" for religious beliefs or face lawsuits. Some Muslim cashiers were fine with wearing plastic gloves, others were fine with handling the meat if it was packaged. In other words, it's certainly not every Muslim cashier that even requests accommodation.

But what about the customer side of things? If I was Target, serving a public that is increasingly impatient, I might want to consider trying to put folks with religious objections to ringing certain purchases somewhere other than the cash register. It's not just Muslims and pork. Conservative Christian cashiers might object to ringing up condoms. It's not conducive to sales to have clerks who intentionally or unintentionally stigmatize shoppers by refusing to ring certain items.

This issue mirrors the one of the pharmacists who expressed religious objections to dispensing the morning-after birth control pill, although buying bacon is a bit different than trying to obtain the morning after pill from the town's only pharmacist.

I guess my conclusion is this. There's a moral difference between refusing to ring up bacon and dispense drugs or serve people with guide dogs. Having to wait for another cashier or scanning your own bacon is an inconvenience, and might give you some healthy second thoughts about buying bacon in the first place. Being refused a cab ride because you use a guide dog (or carry alcohol) is unjust and perhaps illegal - cab drivers obtain a public license and have a charge to serve the public. Being refused birth control by a medical professional is unconscionable, because obtaining adequate medical care is a right and medical professionals take an oath to do no harm.

The Luddite on the surplus of information

Wired Blogs has a great column by Tony Long called the Luddite, an old guy's look at modern technology. He has a nice piece this week on that ability of modern technology (like RSS feeds) to enhance the American tendency to tune out information we don't care to hear.

Update (a few minutes later): In a nice coincidence, another of Wired's bloggers is also discussing the vagaries of technology, but this time from the perspective that technology erases too many hurdles for people. An excerpt:

Did you know that it's possible to calculate a cosine even if you think "cosine" is a brand of nasal decongestant?

The bunk about the "death tax"

With Democrats in control of Congress, this issue has finally been back-burnered (in an era of record budget deficits, it should never have been on the front). However, I just saw a nice analysis of the estate tax's impact on family farms that should put to rest the concerns of so many Republicans that this tax destroys family farms.

Agricultural economist Daryll Ray summarizes a Congressional Budget Office study that found that in the year 2000, only 138 family farms lacked the liquid assets (cash) to pay off the estate taxes immediately. Ray notes that these 138 farm families don't even have to pay the tax immediately, they have 14 years to do so.

So, at the 2000 exemption level of $675,000, the estate tax puts 138 farms at risk every year. That's 0.007% of the over 2 million farms in the United States. Raise the exemption level to $1.5 million (part of the Bush tax cuts that took effect in 2005) and you reduce the number of farms without sufficient liquid assets to pay the estate tax to 27 (0.001%).

On the other hand, the estate tax is projected to capture $745 billion over the period 2011-2021. As I've mentioned previously, there are several major commitments by the federal government (Medicare, Social Security) and unfunded mandates (special education), as well as deficits that should be covered with estate tax monies.

Note: the debate on the estate tax is complicated by President Bush's tax cuts, which all sunset after 2010. In fact, the estate tax is quietly being phased out by 2010, only to return in its original form in 2011. This odd policy was developed to hide the full cost of the tax cuts and to force someone else to take responsibility for them in 2011.

All fiscal considerations aside, the estate tax is a piece of making a level playing field for achieving the American Dream. Giving everyone a fair shot at the American Dream means that even the progeny of the richest should have to earn their way up the income ladder.

THIS is why we have modern technology. Part 3

Courtesy of Digg.com

This is why we have modern technology? Part 2

You may recall the USB "drive" I blogged about 4 months ago. Well, someone decided that it was annoying to just have the little guy "working away" on the computer without any real purpose, so he added flash memory capacity and a feature to limit the, er..., actions to disk access.

Now that's what I call an "activity monitor"!

What we really need is a government subsidy for TVs

As I was contemplating the 1.2 trillion spent on Iraq, the pending shortfalls in Medicare and Social Security, and the challenges of global warming, a thought entered my head. "What America really needs is a better TV viewing experience - and someone should make a law..."

Well, they did. Thanks to extensive lobbying from high-definition TV manufacturers and other digital device peddlers, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration in the Department of Commerce is setting aside $1,000,000,000 - a billion dollars - to help people comply with the mandatory switch to digital TV broadcasting on February 19, 2009.

What's good about it?
There is one important reason that government has stepped in: when TV goes digital-only in 2009, all of the analog broadcast spectrum currently used for TV becomes government property again. This spectrum can be used for emergency services or "advanced wireless services" such as wireless broadband internet. For the latter use, the government can auction off the spectrum and collect revenue for the use of the airwaves, which were initially given out for free.

The other side: So much for free markets
Remember when you had a great cassette tape collection and they came out with CDs? Well, the CDs seemed so much better that you bought a lot of your music again to update your collection. Pretty soon all we had were CD players. Same happened with VHS tapes. When is the last time you rented a tape at Blockbuster? And remember how the government stepped in to make sure that people bought these technological improvements?

Right, they didn't. Because what kind of TV you have is a market decision. Enough people thought CDs were better than tapes and DVDs were better than VHS.

The other side 2: Digital is not always better
I'm becoming a Neanderthal about new technology, but many people didn't realize that better picture and sound aren't given for free (try fast forwarding that FBI warning on a DVD player). With digital TV, advertisers might not let us skip ads anymore and programmers might not let us record. Not to mention there's the ugly question of where Americans are going to dispose of 33-65 million analog TV sets that rely on over-the-air signals, each of which contains 4-6 pounds of lead.

What would you buy with a billion dollars?

Moneylenders receive comeuppance

A number of news sites are reporting on the rising incidence of late mortgage payments, as increasing interest rates push monthly mortgage payments higher. You can tell the language was crafted by the Mortgage Bankers Association:

Lenders to subprime borrowers — people with blemished credit histories — have been battered. Rising interest rates and weak home prices have made it increasingly difficult for these borrowers — especially those with adjustable-rate mortgages — to keep up with their mortgage payments. Delinquencies and foreclosures in the subprime mortgage market are spiking.

Battered is a term to use for women who are victims of domestic violence, not lenders who get their comeuppance when their poorest clients can't make payments. Especially not when these lenders crafted the adjustable rate mortgage to make more interest in the first place.

The Best/Worst Commercial Ever Made

From the I-needed-a-break-at-work dept...

Digg calls it the Best Commercial Ever, YouTube calls it the Worst. Only you can decide if it truly is just like a mini-mall...(sorry, I just can't embed this video on my blog. I just can't).


Warning: if you are susceptible to getting ridiculous songs stuck in your head, you will be repeating these lyrics for a week.

Taking credit for a new generation of Democrats

From today's Minneapolis Star Tribune:

"The Daily Show and now Stephen Colbert have taught a generation of college students that Republicans are ridiculous, absurd, hopelessly past it. And their work has had an effect: Today's 20-somethings are more Democratic than any equivalent cohort since World War II."

DAVID FRUM, writing at nationalreview.com

"Sorry, David, but this seems a little over-generous to the very talented [Jon] Stewart and Colbert. It is George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who have taught a generation of college students that Republicans are ridiculous, absurd, hopelessly past it. A comedian, however talented, is only as good as his material. It's been a good few years for comedians."

ANDREW SULLIVAN, writing at andrewsullivan.com

Daylight savings won't save energy?

Part of the justification for extending Daylight Saving Time (DST) in the United States was a reduction in energy costs by adding more daylight in the evening hours when citizens are home watching TV and otherwise being sloth-like and inactive (sorry, a little anti-TV prejudice eeking out). The legislation foresaw energy savings as much as 1% (a large number when averaged over all households and businesses in the country).

However, a recent study by two doctoral students at the University of California Energy Institute suggests that energy savings may be at best overstated and at worst nonexistent. Examining a DST-extension that took place surrounding the Olympics in Australia, the two students found that most models of energy savings vastly overstated the actual changes in energy use.

While DST extensions might not save energy, I'm definitely enjoying my "extra" hour of daylight in the evenings. Sunset today: 7:16pm!

Why carbon "offsets" aren't the answer to global warming

David Morris of the Minneapolis-based Institute for Local Self-Reliance writes on the increasing interest in carbon offsets - essentially paying someone else to reduce carbon emissions that you generate. In examining the role of other pollution-reduction techniques and the results of some of the early carbon trading schemes, Morris concludes that:

• Buying carbon offsets is like buying indulgences for sins - it just makes people feel good. In particular, the monitoring of offset programs is so lax there's no way to know if emissions are truly offset
  
• A global carbon offset market discourages people from taking responsibility for the local impacts of their behavior. Local offsets, on the other hand, mean that polluters have to do something in their community to improve their climate impact.
• A cap and trade market seems very capitalist and efficient, but evidence shows that good old regulation or a carbon tax could reduce climate change emissions far faster than a market mechanism. (Note: the much heralded success of the US-based sulfur dioxide cap and trade market owes much to the cost estimates of the polluters that proved to be massively inflated.)
  

Morris envisions a more stringent and accountable carbon reduction regime, where carbon emitters have to actually reduce their own emissions or offset them within their local community and where polluters can't simply buy a cleaner conscience on a world market.

I think a smaller-scale cap and trade (e.g. local offsets) could prove very effective, but only if the policy is set at a national scale and it sets stringent carbon reductions (no generous baselines, please).

Gun rights headed to the Supreme Court

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the first time, a federal appeals court has decided in favor of the individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Until now, the text of the amendment has been interpreted to support the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia (read: National Guard) and not an individual citizen. However, ongoing lobbying from the National Rifle Association, other gun rights organizations, and pressure from the Bush Administration's Justice Department appears to have convinced the court to reconsider.

The decision is not likely to stand, because the rift between Appeals Courts' decisions will send this puppy right up to the Supreme Court. This is what they like to call a "landmark case."

What do you think of the court's decision?

Peak Oil: Exhibit A

The folks studying peak oil issues at The Oil Drum have a fantastic chart posted regarding Saudi Arabia's oil production. Despite record high prices during the past two years and a history of helping to soften price spikes with increased production, Saudi oil production has fallen steadily.

It may be the "smoking gun" that the Saudis have reached their oil production peak - quite a concern given that they represent 1/8th of world supply.

Vacancy

From the looking at the GOP 2008 Convention with humor dept...in reply to an article describing the lack of available venues as GOP planners book most area hotels and convention halls...

One empty place

Thanks for the heads-up -- we may not be able to get a beer or have dinner out while the Republican National Convention is in St. Paul ("GOP's partying may push out locals," March 7).

But one place sure to be wide open is the Science Museum.

Peak Oil is not "empty"

Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson was recently interviewed on CNBC and from the summary in the Wall Street Journal's energy blog, it's clear that people still do not get what "peak oil" means.

Peak oil is when worldwide annual production of oil reaches its historical high and then declines. It means that we'll go from producing 80 billion barrels in 2009 to 79.8 billion barrels in 2010 (hypothetically), and then a little less each year thereafter.

The reason peaking production is just as problematic as if we were running out of oil is that world demand continues to grow steadily each year, and when supplies start declining the price will increase rapidly. Think of it like you would Dave Matthews Band. Before they were popular (low demand), there would have been no problem getting concert tickets (high supply). However, as their popularity grew, demand for tickets quickly outstripped even the largest concert venues (demand caught up to supply). Now imagine what would happen to the price of DMB tickets if they had to perform in a smaller venue each time they had a concert.

So that's Peak Oil. Here's what it isn't:

Peak oil is NOT "no oil." We'll continue to produce lots of oil, just a little less each year than before.

Peak oil is NOT "no new oil fields." We'll continue to discover new oilfields as technology advances, but just never enough to replace all that we're pumping out.

Peak oil is NOT "no new technology." We'll continue to find ways to extract more oil from existing fields and oil from shale, tar sands, and other weird places. But even as these become more feasible, they will still not be enough to replace existing oil production.

This chart gives a sense of why we're hitting peak oil. Note that the "peak" is actually the sum of many peaks. U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970s, Russia did around 1991, and Europe did in 2000. The worldwide peak will happen when the countries increasing production - like OPEC - can't make up for the declining supply from the rest of us, as well as increasing demand.



Image courtesy of Romaenergia, mirrored locally.

Getting to zero on climate change

Combating global warming is an enormous and nebulous task, but a few good folks over at Energista have decided to enlighten the rest of us on how we could achieve the Kyoto targets of 1990 carbon emissions in the United States by 2025, almost entirely through the electric sector. Energy efficiency gets the largest chunk, but nuclear, cleaner coal and renewable generation also contribute a substantial portion (there's a nifty chart showing how each technology could help).

The most challenging strategy might be the use of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) - grabbing the CO₂ from emissions and storing it underground - which is theoretically possible, but to date practically infeasible. The problem isn't getting the carbon, it's figuring out how and where store it (my vote is for Yucca Mountain...)

Overall, scientists suggest that a reduction in emissions of 80% is going to be required to stabilize the climate, and that might take even more action than suggested here. However, it's a good start and is achievable by 2025.

A commander who supports his troops?

There are many things that could be said about the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed army hospital and the subsequent sacking of the hospital head. In this case the Onion's three talking heads say it best.

It's disgusting to realize that our Commander in Chief's commitment to "supporting our troops" really was just a political slogan. He should take heed to Amy Lemeiux of Eagan, MN, whose letter to the editor earlier this week nailed the issue on the nose.

Donning a magnetic yellow ribbon or wearing red on Fridays to "show support for our troops" is as about as effective and supportive as spitting in the direction of a forest fire, pointing to the saliva as evidence of your support and condemning everyone who didn't spit.

Let's try supporting our troops in ways that are meaningful -- like trying diplomacy before resorting to more violence and providing medical care for them when they return.

Amen.

When the health of a hamburger trumps your own

The Washington Post has the story on cefquinome, a powerful, recently-developed antibiotic that "belongs to a class of highly potent antibiotics that are among medicine's last defenses against several serious human infections." With increasing numbers of bacteria developing antibiotic resistance, it might make sense to judiciously use this drug to treat the most serious human cases of E. coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and salmonella.

Or, if you're the government agency responsible for drug administration (FDA), you're on the verge of approving it for cattle. This decision notwithstanding that a) there are a number of existing, effective treatments for pneumonia in cattle and b) cefquinome represents the only drug in the medical arsenal against several highly resistant infections and c) that antibiotic use in livestock and poultry - typically done prophylactically - has consistently been linked with the transference of resistant bacteria to humans.

It will bring peace of mind the next time I have a hamburger, as the antibiotic-resistant E. coli twists my bowels, that the cow that provided it was spared pneumonia on its way to the slaughterhouse.

Animated snow depth!

For those of you who have likewise been digging out from the dual snow storms this week, get a full appreciation of the snowfall by watching this two-week snow depth animation from the National Weather Service.

Girls aren't much for commitment, either?

A Pew Research survey of women 18 to 29 finds that at least a third have no interest in a committed relationship and that "old fashioned" dating has nearly disappeared. While the story tries to overdramatize the numbers (60% of women are not in committed relationships and a majority don't want to be...), the interesting part is the attitudes toward love and relationships. The women surveyed often desire "hookups" instead of relationships and it's surprising to see how they fear the emotional attachment or the commitment a relationship will require.

I facilitate youth group with 9th graders and we discuss sexuality and relationships over the course of each year, and this is exactly what I've found. A lot of talk of hookups and very little interest in relationships.

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I remember being interested in being in love and feeling emotionally connected, not just trying out something I'd seen on MTV.

If Tax Cuts Don't Boost the Economy, What Do They Do?

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a very thorough analysis of state tax cuts during the latter half of the 1990s and the economic performance of those states since. While some of the tables and figures in the report are probably obscuring some contradictory data (note the comment about Michigan in the box on page 3), the overall analysis is startling. Tax cuts lead to slower economic growth, higher unemployment and bigger budget deficits.

A traditionally high-tax state like Minnesota should take note. A recent Minnesota Public Radio news story (I was unable to find a link) noted that Minnesota's advantage in the unemployment rate - versus the national average - is the smallest it's been in over 10 years. Is Minnesota becoming average by becoming average?

Waste

1. use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.
2. (usu. be wasted) fail to make full or good use of

By invading Iraq and failing to develop an adequate security plan, President Bush has carelessly expended American lives and failed to make good use of American military power that could have helped in Afghanistan.

When Republican John McCain (or Democrat Barack Obama) says we've "wasted lives" in Iraq, I don't think an apology is necessary.

Winter in the midwest: to hat or freeze?

Writing on a topic he's much more capable of than basic economics, the Chicago Tribune's Steve Chapman examines the winter hat dilemma: freeze fashionably or be a warm dork?

Al Gore's personal call to action

Before you hear the mainstream media account of Al Gore's energy usage, reported by the conservative Tennessee Center for Policy Research, here's a few thoughts offered by energy blogger Robert Rapier:

1. As the most prominent environmentalist in the US (and perhaps the world), it's a shame that Gore hasn't done more to reduce his ecological footprint. Even George W. Bush's Texas ranch is more environmentally sound.
   
2. Buying carbon offsets to combat global warming is like buying a hybrid SUV to reduce gas usage.
   
3. Gore's personal energy use should not detract from his message - global warming is going to be extremely costly and action is necessary now.
   

To Mr. Gore:
Preventing global warming starts at home - try some energy reduction.

To Matt Drudge and the rest of the conservative chattering class:
How's your energy usage? What have you done to solve global warming (other than accosting one leading activist for his hypocrisy)?

This hypocrisy call is valid, but let's not kill Paul Revere just because he bought some English tea, eh?

Congress: The Suggesting Branch of Government

President Bush recently submitted his fiscal request for Iraq - all emergency spending of course - for nearly $100 billion. Democrats were initially planning to set conditions on the war policy before giving the President his fat check, but have apparently been shamed into de-linking war funding from policy by Republicans, who are waving the bloody shirt again and accusing Democrats of trying to harm the troops in the field.

Aside: for the love of Pete, get a backbone! Is it worse for the troops to limit funds that will require them to be sent home or to keep funding this failed war?

So what's the bold move? The Democrats are going to require that troops are equipped and rested before Bush sends them off to Iran Iraq. Of course, this is already the policy, but it can be waived by the Defense Department. The new policy - the sum total of Democratic war-ending efforts - is that the new policy requires the President to waive the readiness requirement.

Newsflash 1: The Defense Department works for Bush. When they waive the requirement, they do so at his bidding. He is the Commander in Chief.

Newsflash 2: Bush has already taken the blame for Iraq (see Approval Rating and 2006 Elections).

In other words, this is posturing on the level of "you don't support the troops because you want to end a war!" (see Republican Party)

The Democrats need to do two things:
1) Exert Congress' muscles in wartime and tell the President that he can plan a war, but he can't pay for one without approval.
2) Do what they were elected to do - end the war - by putting heavy restrictions on the fiscal authorization such as:
a) no troop readiness certification can be waived, period.
b) no troop surge can be sent without Congressional approval.
c) no war in Iran without Congressional approval (and no money for it, period).
d) no more war funding without some way to pay for it - i.e. taxes
e) no more war funding without a comprehensive plan for caring for injured vets (and paying for such care).

Katrina, Mad Cow, GMO and "sound science"

It seems the US government likes to use "sound science" as a soundbite more than a decision philosophy.

In a 2005 column, agricultural economist Daryl Ray examined the similarity between US government policy on mad cow disease (BSE) and maintenance of the levees in New Orleans. The pressure on the Japanese to open their beef market to US exports after our positive BSE test mirrors the choice to delay levee repairs. The decisions are based on the "sound science" that the chances of a Hurricane Katrina (or a BSE-infected beef patty) are relatively rare and that the resources spent building 100-year levees or testing every cow are disproportionate.

Critics of this approach tend to favor the "precautionary principle." Under this philosophy, you prepare for the worst. This philosophy is embodied in the motherly advice "better safe than sorry" as well as Franklin's "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." More to the point, the preference of "sound science" versus precaution depends a lot on where you stand.

If you're a New Orleans resident, precaution sounds pretty smart. Same for a Japanese beef consumer, who's apparently willing to pay the premium to test every cow and certify that their beef is disease-free (whereas the US government explicitly opposes full testing). And ditto for European consumers who'd rather not take the risk that genetically modified (GM) food might prove harmful in some unanticipated way.

What really galls me is that the US government clearly is not representing the will of the people, but the will of the some other interest. Levee repair gets delayed so we can fund illegal wars and tax cuts. Government trade negotiators try to push US beef on Japanese consumers on behalf of beef producers, and not beef consumers. And GM crops tend to help crop producers by making food hardier, as well as more resistant to disease and pests; but when was the last time you heard of food being modified to be more healthy, tasty, or nutritious? (there are a couple examples, but not usually funded by corporations...)

Maybe our government needs some more motherly advice.

Government and technology - don't try to pick winners

This excellent post on Slashdot reminded me why letting government pick technology winners is dangerous. GE has just announced a more efficient incandescent light bulb, hoping to reap the benefits of increasing consumer focus on energy efficiency with an accepted technology. The bulb will allegedly approach the efficiency of a compact fluorescent over time.

So, instead of the recent proposals to ban the incandescent light bulb, an energy-conscious governing body could simply ban less efficient bulbs (as measured by lumens produced per watt consumed) or tax bulbs on a per watt basis. This lets the market help filter out the most effective way to meet the energy efficiency goal.

Lesson: let government set the goal and structure the market, not pick the market.

Other examples: renewable fuels mandates instead of ethanol mandates; renewable electricity mandates instead of wind mandates; higher CAFE standards instead of banning Hummers (though I'd be okay with banning those things anyway :-)

Update 2/27/07: Energista picked up the same story and came to the same conclusion - efficiency standards are better than bulb bans.

Unions: A look at the Employee Free Choice Act

With Democrats at the helm in Congress, labor is back on the table and legislation has been proposed to overhaul the way that unions get organized. The prime focus of the legislation is to simplify the ratification of a union by replacing the organizing drive and secret ballot with simple majority signup - 50% plus one employees approve and you are union. The legislation also asks for stiffer penalties for companies (read Wal-Mart) for interfering with union drives, a nice touch for the 31,000 people who were fired for participating in an organizing drive in 2005.

Some folks, such as Russell Roberts, downplay the importance of unions. He cites dropping unionization rates, few people being paid minimum wage, the ability of people to have employment empowerment by job switching, and the portion of GDP going to wages. Of course, he also thinks that cleaning people make $20/hour, which may be what he pays his Honduran help, but according to actual statistics is at least double the typical maid wage. He also dodges the fact that while wages are a growing part of GDP, the portion of income going to the middle class is shrinking. While Roberts' data is lacking, his conclusion is a nice tangent - let's fix public education!

Harley Shaiken wrote the pro-union column and his essay reflects it. He notes the large number of people fired for trying to unionize a workplace (30,000 a year), the failure of the Wagner Act to protect unions, as well as the slow increase of wages relative to productivity. His argument for eschewing the secret ballot part of the union drive is an interesting take - is a secret ballot meaningful in the coercive anti-union environment of most workplaces? Instead, he says that the simple signup will give union organizers a chance against the tactics of the modern corporation.

Read the 1-page bill summary (provided by the AFL-CIO).

Studies show that...

Pharmaceutical companies are constantly pushing the envelope on drug development and testing, because each new product proven safe and effective means more cash flow. So is it really surprising to anyone that industry-funded, published studies are 55% more likely to provide positive results than non-industry funded ones?

There are two things at work here. First, the pharmaceutical companies are less likely to want to publish unfavorable results. They're scientists with an agenda and that agenda is selling more product. Publishing studies that showed deleterious side effects or no therapeutic effect at all aren't worth the time to put the study to print.

Second, pharmaceutical-funded studies are also half as likely to use a control group to test their drugs. This is a major science no-no. A control group is necessary to ensure that your intervention - drug or otherwise - is not simply inducing the placebo effect. This still-not-understood effect often shows healing results in people who merely think they are receiving therapy, even if they just ingest sugar pills. Two-thirds of the drug companies' studies eschew the control group - and any change of ruling out the placebo effect.

What does this mean? Next time you see a commercial for Havidol touting how "studies show miraculous effects," just remember who paid the scientist.


Note: I also recall a fascinating tidbit about statistical significance in scientific studies. There are a disproportionate number of studies published with findings that are just over the threshold of statistical significance (here's a link to an analysis of political science studies). The study of peer-reviewed journals revealed a slight bias in scientific publications toward publishing findings that could "prove" something, although a little bit of mathematical tinkering is often the only barrier between "just significant" and "insignificant." This may be why 54% of all pharmaceutical studies found positive results instead of just half.

The four types of leadership after Iraq

The brouhaha over the Iraq War goes on, flowing naturally into the 2008 Presidential campaign (the one that started shortly after the 2006 elections). Columnist Debra Saunders is scathing in her assessment of the Democratic field because so many of the candidates voted for the Iraq War resolution but are now touting their opposition to the troop surge and the war itself. To her, this displays the best of the infamous "I was for it and then I was against it."

Leadership isn't so black and white. At the top you have Visionaries like Dennis Kucinich or Barack Obama. Kucinich opposed the war from the get-go and has this to say of his vote against the Iraq War resolution:

"You know, it must be really tough for candidates for president to come before the American people and to complain that they were tricked, deceived and misled by George Bush.

"Well," he deadpanned, "here's one person who wasn't."

Then there's the folks who voted for the war, but have withdrawn their support. I call these leaders Owners, because they take responsibility. John Edwards starts his Iraq War mea culpa with "I was wrong." He, among others, has the leadership skills to admit error and correct it.

Below them we have the Correctors. These folks can at least admit mistakes, though they're loathe to claim full responsibility. Hillary Clinton, for example, has been "misled by "false" intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration." As Dennis Kucinich pointed out, being fed moose ka ka didn't prevent him from voting the right way.

And at the bottom of our scale are the Idealogues, the marble statues of the intellect that continue pointing boldly in the same direction regardless of the changing landscape. President Bush and Vice President Cheney proudly stand on their Iraq record and now point the military finger at Iran, as though starting another military fiasco will repair the errors of the first. These stone edifices are pretty, inspiring, and completely nude.

Why coal is as dirty as ever

If you listen to public radio, you've probably heard one of the "clean coal" interludes. There's a bunch of hooey about domestic energy and then a lovely line about "increasingly clean" coal. Well, my good friend Chris over at Energista had something to say about "clean" coal.

No amount of technological improvement on the consumption end - scrubbers or electrostatic particulate removers - will improve the mining process. Terms like "sludge dam," "hilltop removal," and "black lung" come up frequently in a discussion of coal mining, an "ongoing dirty" technology.

Even the promised technologies to make coal "increasingly clean" on the back-end haven't really reached fruition. The biggest liability of coal in a global warming world is that it's the most carbon-intensive method of producing energy and technologies such as carbon capture sequestration - where we theoretically bottle up the CO₂ and inject it underground - aren't even commercialized.

The Energista analysis also points to a discussion of local justice in energy production, as wind projects are springing up in the same Appalachians that the coal mining has ravaged. While wind promises to have a significantly smaller impact on the environment, practically and aesthetically, the wind farms are all developments of energy companies from outside the area. The locals, screwed over so long by the coal mining, are naturally suspicious of someone else taking advantage of their local resource at their expense.

Bush Budget: Less Health Care, More Wal-Mart

In keeping with tradition, President Bush's submitted budget proposes extensions of all his tax cuts, including a repeal of the estate tax (costly war, what?). Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone excoriates the Bush plan, noting that the cuts to Medicaid - health care for the poor - are about the same as the bottom line boost to the Walton family, the Wal-Mart heirs.

That's right. Bush's budget would reduce funding to Medicare by $28 billion and guarantee a tax break worth $32 billion to the Waltons. Now that's what I call democracy!

Forget batteries, just use a freezer

One of the ongoing liabilities of wind power is its intermittency. When the wind doesn't blow, you don't have electricity. Battery storage systems are still much to expensive or inefficient to store electricity during the sometimes long periods when the wind doesn't blow. But the Netherlands may have come up with a solution - using refrigerated warehouses to store energy.

These massive buildings often store food and other perishable products and are already dotting the landscape of industrialized society. By having the warehouses drop the temperature by a single degree Celsius in the evening (when the wind blows but grid demand is low) and letting the temperature rise one degree Celsius in the daytime, the warehouses essentially act like large batteries, storing the energy from onsite wind turbines and reducing demand during peak daytime periods.

While initially cool to the idea, rumor has it that the warehouses are warming to it.

Helpdesk, circa 1200 AD

Senator Franken from Minnesota?

Comedian Al Franken announced his intention to challenge Norm Coleman (R) for his U.S. Senate seat in 2008. I've been a skeptic ever since rumors emerged that he was considering it, but his announcement statement was pretty darn good. I'll be interested to hear how he proposes to pursue many of these "bread and butter" Democratic issues as a senator.

Microsoft's excellent software support

I've never bothered to contact Microsoft about a software problem before, figuring that I would a) have to pay and b) be able to find a solution on the web somewhere. Well, it turns out neither were true when Microsoft Graph (the chart plugin for MS Word for Mac) recently went haywire on me.

Since I use this program daily at work, finding a solution was essential and I finally went looking for real help. It turns out that for each piece of MS software you own, you can receive two free technical assists. Fortunately, no previous user of the program had used any of them, so when I emailed for help last Friday, I was told to expect a response within one business day. Not bad at all!

It got better. Jack, the MS tech, responded with a solution on Saturday and even wrote back Sunday to ensure I had received his first email. By Monday when I came to work, I had the three emails from MS, including my solution - which worked perfectly.

That's exceeding expectations.

Star Wars: A New, Very Short, Hope

If you need that quick taste of nostalgia, try the 5-second Star Wars fix:

Seen on Slashdot: Sliced Bread

"There can be no question that sliced bread is the greatest invention of all time: it is the yardstick by which all inventions have since been measured."

Credit to Seenonslash.com

Trade does not solve hunger

Despite the economic theory that would encourage a country to pursue the manufacture of things for which it has a competitive or comparative advantage, some very preliminary analysis suggests that fighting hunger and malnutrition starts at home. Countries that develop stronger domestic agriculture are more likely to confront malnutrition effectively.

If you want to help countries pursue self-sufficiency, one person at a time, think of Heifer International. Nothing like giving a goat for Christmas!

Relationships, Chias, and Puzzles: Why I married a puzzler

Lately I've been thinking more about the meaning of friendship. I'm always fascinated with the process of making friends and the sometimes randomness in which friends remain close and which do not as time goes by. I'm also intellectually and emotionally intrigued by the depth of relationships. What makes a friendship deeper than others? What makes a friendship more lasting?

Such was the origin of my chia / puzzle piece theory of human relations. I'm an imagery guy, so I'd never make it as a social scientist or philosopher, since I have no ability to discuss cognition or ego or any of that. But I do have a gift for finding metaphors (or similies) for things.

I think that people are like puzzle pieces. Their personality is of a shape and size similar to that of other people, but uniquely crafted with slots and tabs that make other people particularly suited to connect or fit uncomfortably. Prejudices about race, or intellect, or even food all determine the shape of a person's personality puzzle piece.

However, due to social expectations and pressures, we often grow a chia-like fuzz around our puzzle piece. It helps to mask the unique features of our personalities (like prejudices and preferences) that we don't want people to judge us on. It also ends up masking some of the ideas and thoughts that make us unique, often burying core beliefs under a green carpet of sameness.

This chia fuzz is to some extent a social lubricant. It masks differences and lets people relate without having to acknowledge the underlying differences, the way person A's puzzle slot would not accept person B's tab. It helps us get along.

The chia fuzz is also an inhibitor. It's the use of humor to deflect a serious question or a conversational tangent to avoid an unwelcome query. It masks the unique features of a person's personality - who they are - in order to make them more agreeable to others.

Since I'm fairly heavy on chia fuzz, I have a particularly strong admiration for people who can shed that fuzz and invite other to do the same. That's why I married someone who can. These people, I feel, are willing to share something of themselves at risk of being judged. They offer to deepen a relationship by showing a bit of their puzzle piece and asking if it fits. These fuzz trimmers ask the same in return: to see beneath the masking chia and to understand the individual. These puzzlers have a gift for challenging people to have a relationship that's deeper than pop culture or even shared experience, to create a relationship based on the acknowledging and embracing differences.

In addition to exploring the underlying pieces of people, puzzlers are also willing to challenge people to live up to their beliefs, their standing. A chia is inclined to gloss over or simply ignore thoughts or comments or actions that seem uncomfortable. Not a puzzler.

When it comes to developing deep and lasting relationships with people, I think everyone needs a puzzler in their life; someone to question and challenge and really explore the innermost parts of who you are.

The difference in relationships is stark. This quote illustrates the chia:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

This quote exemplifies the puzzler:

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

+-/*: The Math Behind Beer Goggles

I love when scientists and mathematicians put their prodigious skills to work answering life's questions. I mean, the real important questions such as, can the beer goggle effect be quantified?

Yes. Yes, it can.

How accurate is that forecast?

A longstanding question finally answered by the Omninerd! Tracking 10 online weather sources for two months, the Omninerd tells you which weather service is most likely to get your forecast right. Tables 6 and 7 are probably the most useful.

Me: And the Quest for Mo Money

In a rare move, here's a post about me. I started a great job four months ago and agreed to a salary that I felt was a bit below my standard. However, the job seemed like exactly what I'd been looking for, so I thought - what have I got to lose? It has turned out to be just what I was looking for and as my thoughts turned to staying there long term, so did my thoughts about salary.

I've never asked for a raise before, but I thought it was worth a shot. Conversation with a coworker suggested that writing my thoughts down was good, and a memo might be just the thing. So I did it. I sent the memo last week and The Boss agreed! Voila, 10% raise!

Anyway, I'm no expert on bosses or raises or anything, but I thought I'd share my salary request memo (which was, as all good memos are, 1 page long) in case anyone is looking for inspiration for how to put down their thoughts on increasing their take home pay.

To: The Boss
From: jff

Re: Salary Request

Dear Boss,

Now that my probationary period is over, I was thinking about my career at [workplace] over the long haul. I’m extremely grateful for the opportunity to be working here – it’s a joy to look forward to work and to feel that my work complements my personal passions. Feeling comfortable here has also led me to evaluate how working at [workplace] fits in to the rest of my life, which is why I’ve been thinking more about my salary. I feel that I am worth more than we initially agreed upon and that my work, both completed and forthcoming, will continue to be of high value to [workplace].

Why Now?
Because of my characteristic reserve in asking for things for my own gain, I wouldn’t normally be addressing salary four months into a new job. But I feel that the level of work I’ve provided, the potential substantial increase in our funding, and the prospective hiring of two new employees make it more reasonable to evaluate right now.

Why Am I Worth It?
You knew from [professional reference], my work history, and my writing samples that I would be an asset to [workplace]. However, I feel that some of the skills I’ve demonstrated since arriving here were not ones that could be conveyed via my resume or interview. [List of several skills that have added value to workplace].

The Bottom Line
In the context of [workplace] as a small nonprofit, I’m not interested in pay equity with other places I’ve interviewed, whether [firm A] or [firm B]. But I feel that my work may be more valuable than my original starting salary suggests, and that I am worth [$new salary] a year. I’d love to discuss this with you when you’ve returned.

Thanks for your consideration,
-jff

Why "think of the children" means thinking about food

TriplePundit has a guest blogger who offers up a (very) long treatise on the implications of diet on academic performance and health.

Conclusions? Watch out for processed foods and food additives. Corn gets put into almost everything - thanks to government subsidized production - and the prevalence of corn syrup and corn oil in just about everything means that we're nutritionally out of whack. It means a greater chance of various diseases and ailments as well as poorer school performance.

But does it produce 1.21 gigawatts?

Scientists at Purdue have developed a mobile electricity generator that can run on biomass and garbage. Thanks to generous funding from the U.S. military, this portable generator is also "tactical." Using a digester and a gasifier, the system creates a crude biofuel that can power a diesel generator. Mr. Fusion is here!

If my blog was illustrated

Then I think I'd have cartoon like xkcd draws. I've not looked through the whole archive, but my two favorites are The Problem with Wikipedia and Nintendo Surgeon.

Why there's a "debate" over climate change

For $10,000, I might be persuaded to be skeptical, too. Originally from The Guardian.

A game simulation is lame, unless...

News folks have become obsessed with filling the news hole in the week prior to a major sporting event. In the digital age, this has led to the predictable simulation of the forthcoming match in the related EA sports program. For the Superbowl, Madden 2007 provides the reporter with too little real news to report a chance to create some.

The Chicago Tribune was the guilty party this time, sharing the results of their one simulation (which would never show up as statistically significant in any mathematician's book). However, while alienating most intelligent readers with this inane exercise, the reporter did have a nice tagline on how the Bears could "overcome" the video game's result:

Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A

Nice.

Nutritionism: going micro until it's no longer food

An excellent essay describing how Western science spends so much time deconstructing food that we no longer have as much to eat - and yet we're eating ourselves into poor heatlh.

Buffalo buffalo

Spending too much time on Wikipedia (and Slashdot) will help you discover grammatically correct sentences.

Incidentally, the scientific name for buffalo is Bison Bison, though I doubt that is a sentence.

Iraq pundits: where they are now

Radar Magazine online has an interesting look at eight political pundits, four who favored the Iraq War and four who opposed it, and where they are now. The conclusion? That there's not much of a meritocracy in the pundit world - in fact, being wrong can make you very rich.

"Put your money where your house is"

I'm just finishing a great book called Big Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America's Independent Businesses and I came across this quote near the end, though it could really be the rallying cry for the entire independent business movement. Author Stacy Mitchell rallies an inordinate amount of data to her issue, finding that local business beats chain stores in any number ways:

1. A substantially higher portion of dollars spent at an independent business stay in the local community.
2. Independent business owners are middle class with a connection to the community. They pay their employees better, customize their store the area's needs, and give double what a chain store gives to charity as a percent of their revenue.
3. Independent businesses frequently match or beat chain store prices, despite constant advertising suggesting that "always low prices" or "get more, pay less" only happens at a big box discount store.
4. Independent businesses tend to add to a community's tax base, whereas big box stores tend to get tax breaks and add substantial strain on public infrastructure such as water, sewer, roads, and the police (prosecuting all shoplifters).
   

It's not as hard as you might think to shop local. Cities like Minneapolis, MN, have an independent business association that lists its members, independent bookstores have a website called BookSense, and most local hardware stores (Ace, TrueValue) are independents but also part of buyer's cooperatives to get better prices.

Anyway, all these points kind of came together for me yesterday into that one phrase. If you are a homeowner and want to see your community thrive, then "put your money where your house is" and shop local.

What would you buy with $1.2 trillion?

You could buy a few of these things:

• A doubling of cancer research funding
• Treatment for heart disease and diabetes for every American needing it
• A global immunization campaign

Do these each for a decade and you've only spent half. You could still pay down a good 7 percent of the $8.6 trillion national debt.

Or, you could start and prosecute a war in Iraq.

To date, direct spending for the Iraq War has already reached $700 billion, with another $250 billion in anticipated costs to treat wounded and returned veterans, $100 billion to get the armed forces back to prewar fighting readiness, and other incidentals. All told, that's $1.2 trillion gone.

The author notes that it's not that $1.2 trillion is wasted, not if all goes well in Iraq. But it's to note that we need to evaluate whether the $1.2 trillion could have been better spent: on national security, fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or beefing up airport security. Any one of which would have had a higher success rate than this failed war.

State of the Union

In case you were too busy to catch the State of the Union, here's a quick analysis from your favorite progressive news source (for those that don't read Daily Kos, anyway).

Bush started with the domestic agenda, which was probably a good idea given that the foreign stuff isn't looking so good. So what's on his plate?

• Renewing No Child Left Behind
• Changing the tax code to make it easier for people to privately acquire health care
• Getting on the energy security/climate change bandwagon by...
• Quintupling the renewable fuels mandate to 35 billion gallons per year by 2017 (the equivalent of 15% of gasoline usage)
  
• Committing the U.S. to reduce gasoline usage by 20% by 2017
• Increasing CAFE fuel economy standards (starting in 2010) by 4% (or 1 mpg) per year
• Doubling the strategic petroleum reserve

NCLB is legislation with lofty goals (eliminating the racial achievement gap), but it has never been fully funded. I won't get into it here, but there are a lot of reasons why basing educational achievement on high-stakes testing might not be the best formula for success.

The health care stuff is just hand waving. Changing the tax code is a pittance compared to the efforts being made in states like Massachusetts or even Minnesota to guarantee universal health coverage.

The climate change proposals are a mixed bag. The renewable fuel mandate is a bold move, along with a commitment to reduce gasoline used by 20%. However, the Johnny-come-lately provisions are unlikely to even level off U.S. carbon emissions, which scientists have said may need to drop by as much as 80% to halt irreversible climate change. So, it's a good jumping off point for the Democratic Congress.

The foreign agenda involved three major items:

• Emphasizing the importance of the troop surge
• Covering the rest of the war on terror that we've put on hold (Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, etc)
• Discussing a few items of foreign aid, such as combating AIDS (something he talked about ages ago) and malaria in Africa.
  
• I lied - the fourth item was a proposed permanent increase in the size of the army and marines.
  

I won't even get into the futility of the surge, the lost war on terror, or the African two pence. Increasing the size of the army is beyond idiotic, however. First, it gives us more flexibility to stay in Iraq. Bad. It also frees up troops for other cockamamie freedom plans for countries like Iran or North Korea. But generally, it's a poor idea for a democratic nation to have a large standing army. It makes it too easy to get ourselves in more quagmires. I hope that someone with some sense stomps this idea like the cockroach it is.

Stealth sugar

Following up on my earlier post about China's rapidly rising caloric intake, I wanted to share a little surprise about sugar.

I love sugar. Skittles, for example, are among the tastiest things known to humankind. And I like sweet things. But like a good little FDA automaton, I also like a balanced diet and exercise. So when I get my sugar, I prefer it to be in pure form (Skittles) as opposed to hiding in foods I think are good for me. Like yogurt, "a great low fat snack."

It just so happens that when it comes to sugar,



Hmm, back to the drawing board.

How to be an asshole

I recently wrote a short analysis piece for work, which I then sent around to many of the folks who I'd spoken to in writing it. One such fellow had been the public relations person at a firm where I spoke to several employees. He'd been highly suspicious of my motives and clearly had no interest in helping me get the right answers, judging by his prior demeanor and his response to my request for comments:

Thank you. It appears your key points are wrong and the sources used/identified are uninformed.

P.S. I'm a dick

(postscript added for emphasis)

Saving the globe, one behavioral change at a time

Instead of always looking for the next technological fix for our ecological ills, this article explores how some minor behavior modification (such as recycling, dressing for the weather) can save a lot of energy for not a lot of money. The author also owns the Clean Break blog, an excellent source of environmental punditry.

Eat more, get big

I read a lot about agriculture for my job, since renewable energy production often involves conversion of biomass to fuel or electricity. One agricultural economist has become required reading for me, because he talks a lot about the price pressures things like corn (because of ethanol production). I just read a column he wrote in 2003, and this non-agriculture fact jumped out:

In 1976 China had a population of 948.6 million people and the per capita daily calorie consumption was 2,051. By 2000, China's population had grown to 1.282 billion people and the per capita calorie consumption had risen to 3,029. (emphasis added)

Whoa! It's not surprising that the obesity rate has doubled in the past 10 years. What's even more amazing is that while Americans get over 600 calories a day in sweeteners (read: sugar or HFCS), the Chinese only get about 65 calories from sugar. While calories are calories, the Chinese situation can only get worse as they adopt a more American diet with more meat and sugar.

AskPablo: my personal energy efficiency checker

This guy is great. He has an engineering degree and could probably spend weekends watching Indianapolis pull out a victory over New England. Instead, he answers the age-old question: is it more energy-efficient to wash dishes by hand or via dishwasher?

With the help of his handy third-grade assistant, Pablo discovers that a dishwasher causes about 4 times the energy use (and carbon emissions) as hand washing. So ditch the dishwasher and pull on those sexy yellow gloves!

(Note: Pablo did not factor in the other cost of hand washing, however - a good moisturizer to keep your hands silky soft after the brutal bite of dish soap :-)

Legislation proposes first cap on US carbon emissions

The Energy Blog has the scoop on the first legislation that may institute a carbon emissions cap for the United States. The cap doesn't take effect for several years, nor does it decline particularly quick, but it would be an enormous first step toward combating global warming to even admit we have a problem, which we do in spades...


Details of the bill:

• Would cap carbon emissions in the U.S. at 2004 levels starting in 2012.
  
• The cap would decline slowly to 2/3 of 2004 emissions by 2050.
  

One worry is that the legislation's sponsor, John McCain, said that it "must be bolstered by other assurances that costs will be minimized." This is ridiculous. The United States is responsible for one-quarter of the world's carbon emissions, and therefore at least one-quarter of the surging CO₂ and global average temperature. Scientists have said that emissions need to be reduced by 75-80 percent - immediately - to forestall additional climate change impacts. The irony is that trying to minimize costs of carbon reductions will just mean higher costs in trying manage climate change - such as moving all of Miami to higher ground.

Even more frustrating, the legislation ignores research by the Congressional Budget Office suggesting that a carbon tax would be much more efficient at reducing carbon emissions (not to mention it could provide a substantial sum of money with which to help reduce emissions). But taxes mean paying, something we're not used to doing under this administration.

And yet, for all its flaws, it's better than doing nothing.

Stick with mom, not pop

Can Americans really find yet another way to be less healthy?

A new report shows that more and more Americans are flaunting Mom's advice and having pop with breakfast. Here's the numbers on pop drinkers:

• 1 in 7 people who eat breakfast outside the home
• 1 in 42 people who eat breakfast at home
  

This rising interest in breakfast pop comes at the expense of coffee, which probably means folks are turning to sugared pop as their preferred caffeine delivery vehicle. The article notes that most of these pop drinkers are not going with diet pop, so it's not even a compromise on caffeine v. sugar.

The sad part is that breakfast pop drinkers are probably part of the population drinking multiple cans Big Gulps each day, increasing their risk of broken bones, osteoporosis and other bone diseases. Speaking of Big Gulps, here's a nice illustration of why pop consumption has doubled since 1973:

Stranger Than Fiction

Not only do I rarely make it to a movie in theaters, but I also rarely feel motivated to review the movie I see. Movies are movies, with a few exceptions such as Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and Office Space. This weekend I saw another film that might make the exceptions list - and quite unexpectedly.

When a movie has Will Ferrell in it, I generally expect that I will find it amusing, but that the humor will not be as amusing to my movie-viewing partner (K, a.k.a. Wife). Stranger Than Fiction showed some promise, though, with Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman providing some color. We left for the theater on Saturday with some hope of entertainment.

It was great. The movie was clever, Will Ferrell played his part perfectly with just enough of his trademark outer-inner monologue. Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson were hilarious, each perfectly capturing the essence of their roles as university professor and writer's-blocked author. The story of a boring IRS auditor suddenly narrated into a novel was a neat idea and well-executed. I laughed out loud at least a dozen times and left feeling like I had easily gotten my money's worth (which would have been true even if I'd paid more than $3.

Anyway, there's not a movie I saw in all of 2006 that I can recommend more than Stranger Than Fiction

Lean back for your lower back

How many times have we heard that lower back pain is related to poor posture? Well, entre the new research from Scotland, where scientists have found that slouching may actually put less stress on your back. So relax, slouch down, and enjoy your day!

Playing through injuries not just for the macho

The conventional wisdom is that muscle and joint sprains need to be rested to heal, but this may be changing as additional research uncovers the benefits of exercise in healing hurt muscles. In other words: no more excuses; get back to the gym!

1/4 in to the first 100 hours

Check out the progress the new Democratic majority is making on their First 100 Hours proposals.

Bush's new plan

In case you missed Bush's speech on the "new" Iraq strategy, you can find the transcript here. The big question left unanswered is whether 20,000 troops can make up for coming into Iraq with some 200,000 fewer troops than General Shinseki and others felt would be necessary to have adequate security. Bush notes most of these troops will go to Baghdad, to help secure the city. But what about the destabilized areas in the rest of the country?

The American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, just released a report that said that U.S. troops need to increase by 30,000 per year for the next two years to safely secure the country.

Ironically, the smaller surge proposed by President Bush could still put a strain on the army. To have 20,000 more troops in Iraq, the Army will either have to extend deployments or return troops before their leave is up.

The surge also goes against the advice of the Joint Chiefs, who feel that any surge in troops should be large and long-lasting, to guarantee an impact.

Conclusion? The surge was the most political palatable option for staying the course when so many Americans want to bring the troops home. And yet, it may be one of the dumbest ideas because it will put more troops in the line of fire without necessarily securing the country. Steve Sack (once again) may have said it best:

Prepare your mind for President Bush

Star Tribune political writer Eric Black poses a number of questions/issues to consider when watching President Bush give his speech on the proposed "surge" in American troops.

• What can a surge accomplish that the current 132,000 troops can't?
  
• Is there a timeline for getting out?
• Congressional Democrats - the majority party - have said a troop surge is a mistake. Will Bush do anything to convince or shame them into accepting his proposal?
• The Mahdi Army, causing much of the violence, is led by Muqtada al-Sadr, who also helped place Al-Maliki in the Iraqi premier's post. How will that complicate calming the city's violence?
• Will Bush redefine victory? More and more analysts seem to be saying that we can't win. But will we just lower our sights a bit?
• What benchmarks will Bush set for success? A fully democratic and peaceful Iraq? A calmer Baghdad? Five fewer attacks per month?

I'd add a few other issues:

• How will we pay for those 20,000 troops and their equipment?
• How will we account for the billions already spent (and any more proposed) for reconstruction?
• How will we pay for the rapidly increasing cost of caring for the wounded, many of whom have lost limbs or suffered significant permanent damage requiring lifelong care?

And last, but not least: how will this speech differ from the rest?

When capitalism meets electricity

For many years, so-called free marketers have insisted that the key to driving costs down, creating competition, and generally improving efficiency in the electric market means deregulation of energy companies. Of course, the Enron debacle and the 2000-01 California energy crisis have provided a sharp education that deregulation is not the best way about bringing free markets to electricity consumption.

Instead, it's time to try smart meters on a large scale. By allowing consumers to see the exact price they are paying for electricity at any given time, smart meters allow customers to tailor their electricity usage to off-peak hours, when utilities generally have excess capacity. The difference between peak and off-peak rates is 10 cents per kilowatt-hour for one Colorado utility, but can be as much as 40 cents per kwh (the average retail rate for electricity is around 11 cents/kwh).

In other words, consumers can choose to do laundry, wash dishes, or charge portable electronics at night, when rates are very low, and minimize their use during the day. Not only do households save money, but utilities can more effectively balance their load, reducing the need for new power plants. That's a win-win.

For the climate change skeptic: palm trees moving north

If watching An Inconvenient Truth was insufficient to convince you, then there's probably no hope for you. However, you can develop another spurious excuse after examining this interactive chart at Arborday.org. It shows the change in the Hardiness Zones in the continental United States - a lower number requires hardier trees - with a dramatic shift since 1990. Some of the Upper Midwest states have particularly strong shifts (made easier to see by the change from blue to green). If that's the change in just 16 years, what will 2022 look like? Palm trees in Iowa?

What a waste

• False pretenses
• Bungled reconstruction
• Growing civil conflict

Priceless?

More like $356 billion and counting

Tag, no backsies

I was tagged by my wife to tell five things people may not know about me. Since she also tagged many other people I know who blog, I will resort to trickery to pass on the tag. You are tagged if you read this before January 5th, 2007, at noon.

Five little-known things about me:
1. During family vacations to Yosemite and Yellowstone National Parks (among other less nationally known locations), I became separated from my parents and was sought out by park rangers. On one family trip to Judge CR Magney state park in Minnesota, my dad actually began searching the river for my body.
2. I have a porcelain front tooth, replacing a tooth I knocked out in a bike accident at age 7, had reinserted, and lost again in high school.
3. I was a "mathlete" in high school, competing on, captaining, and lettering in math team.
4. One of my fondest childhood memories is playing SNES Super Mario Kart* for dozens of hours during Christmas Break in 1992, while listening to Enya's Orinoco Flow. For some reason, this always triggers the memory of racing Koopa Beach in Star Cup. (If you lost track of this tidbit before the asterisk, you are not a real nerd.)
5. My favorite thing to do as a young child was to pretend to be the tin woodman from the Wizard of Oz, which involved wearing zip-up pajamas with footies, a Minnesota Twins batting helmet, and a large push-broom.

Is big boxing CFLs the future of green?

I've posted recently about Wal-Mart's newfound interest in environmentalism, but some of the news stories are starting to lose that veneer of skepticism about the company's motives. A recent clip from the New York Times notes that Wal-Mart wants to sell 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) by 2008. While that's still fewer than the 350 million regular incandescent bulbs sold in 2005, if Wal-Mart reaches their goal they'll have increased total sales of CFLs by 50% and save a bunch of energy to boot. Wal-Mart is pushing the bulbs by using them in in-store lighting fixtures, posting educational information near the bulbs, and even giving them prime eye-height real estate on the shelves. (no doubt that they're also applying their famous price pressure on suppliers to drive costs down and drive production to China).

While I sincerely applaud Wal-Mart's effort to make CFLs the primary lighting source for Americans, CFLs still contain some mercury, which makes them hazardous waste. And while Americans might be quick to embrace a cost-saving bulb, they may be less focused when it comes time to dispose of "burnt out" bulbs. 10 years from now, assuming that about half of bulbs are disposed of properly (which may be optimistic), we'll be dumping about 200kg of mercury into landfills.

This EPA fact sheet (pdf) points out that the relative level of mercury is small compared to other household sources. Furthermore, by reducing electricity use (which typically comes from coal power in the U.S.), overall mercury exposure is actually less using a CFL than an incandescent bulb because we burn less coal. But as CFL use increases - as no doubt it will - I hope Wal-Mart tells its suppliers to cut the mercury as well as the costs.

Like football? Want a tasty 2-minutes?

I don't spend much time watching full football games, and the availability of highlight reels like this on YouTube could explain why I don't need to:

More on phantom load

Here's another blogger who took a Kill A Watt electricity use tester around his house in search of phantom load.

Pricking privacy to "protect children."

If the Justice Department can already track your internet activity via a court order, then why do they want ISPs to collect and store web surfing habits for every American? Ostensibly this will help us catch child pornographers. After all, the more vile the crime, the greater the sacrifice of liberty required to catch the criminal...