I’m not sure if I’ve linked to this before, but you can type in your zip code and get a list of native plants and the birds they support. It’s a long list, but there are various filters like the type of plant and type of bird you are interested in.
Here are some disturbing statistics on child mortality worldwide.
Child mortality refers to the death of children before their fifth birthday. We live in a world in which 5.4 million children die every year. That’s ten dead children every minute.
Imagine what it means for a child to lose his or her life; imagine what it means for a family to see their child die. Ten families will experience that in the next minute. This will repeat every minute for the rest of the year. That is the horror of child mortality.
These daily tragedies do not receive the attention they deserve. Comparing it with those tragedies that do receive public attention makes this clear. A large jumbo jet can carry up to 600 passengers.3 The number of child deaths is equivalent to a crash of a jumbo jet with only children on board, every hour of every day of the year.
Max Roser, Our World in Data
It suggests a few points to me. One is that we are most scared and pay the most attention to new threats, like Covid or murder hornets. Meanwhile, old threats like car accidents, heart disease, and malaria cause suffering and death on a much larger scale. We are complacent and accepting of them either because they happen to other people far away (from the perspective of a prosperous country like the U.S.) or because they are so common we assume nothing can be done about them (traffic deaths).
Second, the enormous disparities between countries make it clear that something can be done about child mortality, and that it is a moral imperative to do so. It is not even high tech, it is just a failure of our civilization to recognize the problem, feel the responsibility, organize and act.
The plots of per capita income vs. child mortality are worth staring at. As the article drives home, there are no poor countries with low child mortality rates, suggesting that economic development is necessary in addition to direct interventions (nutrition, vaccination, sanitation, and health care are mentioned.) The U.S., of course, is in the group of richer nations with much lower child mortality rates than the poorer countries. But within its group, the U.S. is the clear laggard compared to the rest of the developed world. We are not applying our wealth and know-how effectively to keep our young children from dying.
Two simple measures of park access are the total area of parks in a city and the average distance of residences from a park. You can divide the former by population to get a normalized stat that can be compared across cities or tracked over time, and you can look at various stats on the latter such as the percent of households within 10 minutes of a park. Here are a few more ideas from a guy in Singapore.
This all makes some sense to me. I might add some measure of tree canopy. None of this does anything about the weather in Singapore. If you want to enjoy parks there, I recommend getting up very very early. Then take a nice long afternoon nap, stop by the pool if you have access to one (but if you are light skinned realize you are at the equator and you still need sunscreen late in the afternoon), and go enjoy the more urban amenities (like food, very large bottles of beer which are meant to be shared, and a variety of less family friendly entertainments I have only heard about) after dark, which is around 7 p.m. year round. One thing about Singapore is it is safe to be out at any time of night, and street food is available all night.
Well, the EU is apparently instituting a “carbon border tax”.
The EU plan is controversial because it contains an extra-territorial dimension – the much-foreshadowed and very controversial carbon border tax that would impose a carbon tax on imports from countries with lesser emissions reduction targets and carbon prices…
The EU already has arguably the world’s most ambitious response to climate change. It launched its emissions trading system in 2005 and has reduced its emissions, from 1990 levels, by nearly 25 per cent.
Sydney Morning Herald
Not all industries have been covered by the emissions trading scheme, but going forward the system would add steelmakers, power generators, shipping, transport, buildings, carmakers and eventually agriculture to some extent.
Meanwhile, China is starting a new emissions trading scheme, and the U.S. Congress is at least talking again about some kind of carbon pricing, trading, and/or border tax. If all this happens, it would cover a lot of the world’s people, economic production, and pollutant production. I suppose developing countries could be at a disadvantage initially if they can’t continue to grow by expanding dirty industries, but in theory the clean technologies and processes that will result should filter through to them. They certainly will not be well-served by a world of famines, fires, and floods that will result if nothing is done.
July 2021 is in the books. In current events (I’m writing on Sunday, August 1), the Delta variant of Covid is now ripping through the unvaccinated population in the U.S. and predictably leaking out into the vaccinated population. I wasn’t too focused on Covid in July though, looking at the posts I have chosen below.
Most frightening and/or depressing story: The western-U.S. megadrought looks like it is settling in for the long haul.
Most hopeful story: A new Lyme disease vaccine may be on the horizon (if you’re a human – if you are a dog, talk to your owner about getting the approved vaccine today.) I admit, I had to stretch a bit to find a positive story this month.
Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: “Cliodynamics” is an attempt at a structured, evidence-based way to test hypotheses about history.
Bill Gates has an idea for how to accelerate research, innovation, and adoption of new technologies.
Through BE Catalyst, the airline will be able to invest in a large refinery that produces a high volume of sustainable fuel. As the refinery gets going, the airline can start buying fuel there. Even better, once the plant’s design is proven to work, the cost of building subsequent plants will drop. With more refineries in operation, the volume of available fuel will go up and the price will come down, which will make it more attractive to buyers, which will draw more innovative companies into the market. The virtuous cycle will accelerate.
Gates Notes
So if I understand correctly, once you have a promising technology, this is a way to try to accelerate the learning curve. Often promising technologies don’t catch on because the initial unit cost is to be commercially viable. Bringing the technology to market at scale will drive down the price both because the up front investment is spread over a large number of units, and because manufacturers and users will learn by doing and the technology will improve. But there is a chicken and egg problem where somebody has to stick their neck out and make that up-front investment to get the process started, then be patient while it plays out possibly over many decades, and be willing to take at least some risk that it may not work out. So the idea behind this non-profit group seems to be to share enough of that risk so commercial entities are willing to invest.
Four specific technologies are mentioned for this process: long-duration energy storage, sustainable aviation fuels, direct air capture (of greenhouse gases), and green hydrogen.
This sounds good to me. Maybe a model like this could work in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry, where technological progress is painfully slow and the payoff of technology is likely to be over multiple decades at least.
Here’s some math on U.S. poverty.
A few points/opinions, which I hope will not be too controversial.
Terminator 2 was released 30 years ago this week (I’m writing this on Sunday, July 11, 2021). Here’s a TLDR article. I would have been 15 turning 16 at the time, so I was at just the right age to be awed by it, and I was. (and probably just barely old enough to be allowed to watch it, although I don’t remember.) I don’t recall if I saw it in the theater for the first time or by operating a VHS video disk player machine. Luckily the events in the movie have not actually come to pass in the last 30 years. Not that we need an evil computer to risk nuclear war. Fingers crossed.
Richard Branson is going to space. Which doesn’t particularly interest me. But what I find interesting is how his spaceship works. First, it is strapped to the bottom of a normal (but big) plane which takes off from a normal runway.
Once Unity reaches an altitude approaching 50,000 feet (15,200 meters), it will detach from Eve and ignite its single rocket motor. It will go supersonic within eight seconds and power up to 2,600 miles per hour (4,200 kilometers per hour), or beyond Mach 3.
After 70 seconds the engine will cut out, with the spacecraft coasting to its peak altitude, which for Sunday’s mission will be a height of 55 miles or almost 300,000 feet, according to Virgin Galactic.
MSN
When it is ready to come down, it spreads its wings into a sort of “feather” which sounds like a parachute, drifts back into the atmosphere (which starts at 50 miles according to NASA, but closer to 60 miles according to some international standards), then folds its wings back into airplane mode and returns to the runway as an unpowered glider.
Jeff Bezos’s version takes off as a rocket, apparently. Like I said, I don’t particularly care about the egos of these men, but it does appear that the era of private space flight is upon us.
Somehow, startup companies have heard about my idea for robotic bees. (This is a Wall Street Journal article, which I don’t subscribe to, but I can get the idea from the first couple paragraphs. Sorry guys, I can’t afford to subscribe to anything, and if I have to pick one thing it will probably be to support my local paper. Except, if I lived in New York, it would not be the New York Times because weapons of mass destruction.) More likely, it’s a fairly obvious idea. And probably a good idea, if the pollinators really are disappearing worldwide. Then again, it’s a partial technological solution to replace a lost ecosystem service. Trucking around hives of domesticated honeybees to replace or supplement natural pollinators in farm fields is already a technological solution, if you think about it. Important questions: Do they sting? (I hope the answer is an obvious no.) Are we going to release clouds of robot pollinators into natural ecosystems? Probably not, this seems focused on agriculture. Are they going to be solar powered? It seems like it would be safer to have them return to a charging station, or else drop dead if their batteries run out.
This also brings up all the usual questions about valuing ecosystem services. Pollination is absolutely essential to life on earth, so pollinators are incredibly valuable in an economic sense. If we replace them with technology, does their value drop? In an economic sense, yes. In a moral sense, I would say no, at least to me.