Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

a new dust bowl

Leave a reply

Sure, the U.S. has problems, and we are not doing a great job solving or even acknowledging all of them. Still, soil conservation is something we have had figured out since the 1920s, right? Not so fast, my friends. As we keep pushing for increased production, the amount of dust in the air (this is something we measure) keeps increasing. Warming and drying trends are not going to help.

This is Geophysical Research Letters.

Climate change and land use are altering the landscape of the U.S. Great Plains, producing increases in windblown dust. These increases are investigated by combining coarse mode aerosol observations from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor in addition to the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) and Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) aerosol monitoring networks. Increasing trends of up to 5%/year in MODIS aerosol optical depth for dust observations are observed throughout the Great Plains (2000–2018). Cropland coverage has increased 5–10% over the majority of the Great Plains (2008–2018), and positive monthly trends in IMPROVE (1988–2018) and AERONET (1995–2018) coarse mode 90th percentile observations coincide with planting and harvesting seasons of predominant crops. Presently, results suggest increased dust due to agricultural expansion is negatively influencing human health and visibility in the Great Plains. Furthermore, results foreshadow a future where desertification becomes an increasing risk in the Great Plains.

what’s really going on with the food supply?

Leave a reply

The USDA, the UN, and Bloomberg say there is a “food inequality crisis…sweeping the globe”. It sounds like supplies of soybeans and wheat are down somewhat due to drought in some places (South America and Europe) and storms in others (Iowa specifically is mentioned in the article.) In this environment, prices are up, and because incomes are down due to the pandemic, poor countries and poor people are outbid and going hungry.

Of course, no specific flood, drought, or pandemic can be attributed to climate change…blah blah yada yada. Looking at the FAO Food Price Index, the current mini-spike is well below the major spikes of 2008 and 2011. Well, climate change is a long term signal embedded in a lot of short term noise, but dealing with food supply and food price issues in the short term could be a trial run for how we deal with the creeping long term problem before it is too late. The long term problem will gradually keep creeping up on us, embedded in lots of noise, and then some big event or series of events will be the straw that breaks the global food supply camel’s back. Let’s do something about it now.

What should we do? Well, I’m not an expert, but it starts with water. We need to stop overexploiting groundwater, and we probably need to think about shifting food production away from areas that rely primarily on glaciers and snowmelt, coastal areas that may experience saltwater intrusion or outright inundation, and areas expected to experience increasingly severe droughts. We need to pay attention to soil conservation. We need to pay attention to biodiversity, both to protect ecosystem services such as pollination and to make crops themselves more resilient (crops are subject to their own pandemics). We need sustainable fisheries. Maybe we need to move more production indoors under lights powered by renewable energy (or, I hate to say it, nuclear reactors). That might also help us control the nutrient pollution that is choking our coastal ecosystems. Recovering more nutrients from wastewater and farm waste might play a role. We may need to encourage people to eat more plants and less meat. Maybe we need more urban gardens and rooftop gardens and food forests. Finally, biotechnology probably has a role to play, but in my opinion we shouldn’t rely on this but should think of it as icing on the cake made of a mix of all the low-tech ingredients I mention above.

aerosols

Leave a reply

A group of academic scientists has put together a long paper with scientific information intended for the public on Covid-19 aerosol transmission. I think this is pretty nice science communication. It is not dumbed down, but it avoids jargon. The graphics they include are mostly helpful. Here are a few takeaways:

  • Secondhand cigarette smoke is a useful analogy to think about. If you are around smokers outside, you are inhaling much less of their poison than if you are around them inside. The amount of time you are around them makes a huge difference – however, this group says the 15 minute CDC guidance is not supported by good evidence. Outside, distance makes a big difference. Inside, being closer is probably worse, but if you are in an enclosed space with them for any period of time you are at pretty high risk. Opening a window should help, but not as much as being outside.
  • Scientists disagree on the relative importance of the three pathways – surfaces, droplets, and aerosols. In the face of uncertainty, it is probably prudent (this is my opinion) to treat them as roughly equal and take precautions against each. Someone coughing or sneezing in your face is a big problem – stay 6 feet away for that reason alone, especially from anyone un-masked.
  • Aerosols probably persist for 1-2 hours. (My thought – this suggests staying in a hotel should be relatively safe. The room has been cleaned, hopefully the maids were wearing masks, and hopefully they cleaned the room in the morning and you are checking in in the afternoon.)
  • Sun and wind tend to reduce risk. All other things being equal, low temperatures and low humidity seem to aid transmission. (Don’t count on the opposite helping you in a sealed room, though. But I am a proponent of humidifying in the winter anyway.)
  • The time it takes air in your house to turn over varies widely – “30 minutes to 10 hours”. For commercial buildings, 12 minutes to 2 hours. Hospitals around 5 minutes!
  • A carbon dioxide concentration of 800-950 ppm is indicative of good ventilation indoors. A carbon dioxide meter costs about $150.
  • Air filters should help, and yes you can tape a furnace filter to a box fan. (I knew it!)
  • “There is no evidence that COVID-19 has been transmitted when people walk past each other outdoors. (But I’m using the bandanna system just because people are scared and confused out there.)
  • Taxis and rideshare are not zero risk, but reasonably probably, maybe reasonably low risk if everyone is masked and windows are open. If it is too cold to open windows, it is better to be drawing in outside air than just recirculating air.
  • Airplanes have very good ventilation, so it is a myth that one infected person on an airplane can infect everyone. If they are sitting right next to you, not wearing a mask, and/or coughing/sneezing, they can infect you. The airport itself is also probably higher risk than the plane. (But let’s remember people are working in all these places.)
  • They say “schools should operate in person only if the levels of infection in the community are low.”
  • Elevators are also actually quite well ventilated, and you are not in there for very long. Again, you don’t want people unmasked and/or coughing/sneezing on you. No singing allowed in elevators.
  • The dental office is suspect. Technology exists to ventilate them safely (but I didn’t see anything obviously new or high tech at my dentist recently.)
  • Masks still help with aerosols. Even though the particles are tiny, they are still inside droplets, which are tiny but not as tiny. Nothing in the air moves around in straight lines, it is turbulent and random, so even if particles are smaller than the openings in the fabric many of them will hit the sides and the risk will be significantly reduced. (Also suggests one reason having multiple layers is better.)
  • Masks work better if they fit well. (I’m a little tired of this, my family has about 100 masks now and not one of them fits well. If there are 1 or 2 I think fit pretty well, they are always in the dirty laundry when I need them. The same gremlins that steal one of each of my favorite socks also steal masks on occasion.)
  • Face shields and plexiglass barriers don’t help a lot with aerosols. You need a mask.

Living Planet Report

Leave a reply

This year’s Living Planet Report paints a bleak picture of ongoing ecological collapse. I think this is an organization that has some incentive to be on the bleak side of average, but still I tend to buy into the message. The alarm is sounding, but not reaching the general public or our political leaders. People just don’t understand this like they do the simplistic concept of carbon emissions, and of course even that we are failing to address in an adequate way. What’s the elevator pitch for why it matters, even for people who don’t value or have much emotional connection with nature? In a word, it’s the food, stupids.

bad things that happen in Philadelphia

Leave a reply

Well, as a certain leader said last Tuesday (I am writing on Friday, October 2), bad things happen in Philadelphia. Like several people getting shot every day. And it’s happening in cities all over the country. There are all kinds of debates about what is causing it, but what I see is escalating cycles of revenge and counter-revenge among young men in certain neighborhoods. Add in a culture that glorifies gun violence, and what could have been fist fights in more innocent times becomes fatal. Add in lack of education and economic opportunity which leads young men to get involved in the illegal drug trade to earn a living. The fact that drugs are illegal is what makes them valuable enough that young men can earn a living by getting involved. The fact that they are illegal means turning to the civil authorities to settle disputes is not an option. Add in violent repression by said civil authorities. Now you have a self-perpetuating and escalating cycle of violence. In a cycle, there is no true “root cause”. What you need to do is de-escalate the cycle of violence. The good news is you can tackle any link in the cycle. You can try to tackle the culture that glorifies violence by reaching out to young men at risk, providing better role models, reaching them at school, etc. You can try to do something about the guns. That all sounds good but the evidence is mixed. You can try to break the cycle by tackling child care, education, and economic opportunity. That is admirable, it is important, it is absolutely necessary, but it is a long, long game and you have to be prepared to stay at it for a long, long time before you see results. You can try to break a cycle quickly by tackling its weakest link. In a much shorter time frame, you can de-escalate the violence by taking away the value of the drugs. Just legalize them, and they will not be so valuable. Victims of violence will be able to turn to the civil authorities, without fear that they themselves will be punished. Drug addiction may increase and may cause suffering that wouldn’t have occurred before. This is a problem for the health care system, both physical health and mental health. Well, let’s get that figured out, but that is another long, long game…

Health care. Child care. Education. And goddamnit, LEGALIZE DRUGS NOW!!!

Ralph Nader on R&D

Leave a reply

I’m still thinking about innovation – Ralph Nader says the U.S. government invests plenty in research and development, but only wealthy and powerful interests reap the benefits.

We send our tax dollars to Washington, D.C., and the federal government gives trillions of these dollars to companies in the form of subsidies and bailouts.

Trillions of dollars are devoted to government research and development (R&D), which has built or expanded private companies. These include such industries as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, military weapons, computers, internet, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and containerization.

Our taxpayer-funded R&D is essentially given away free to these for-profit businesses. We the People receive no royalties nor profit-sharing returns on these public investments. Worse, we pay gouging prices for drugs and other products developed with our tax dollars.

Counterpunch

Maybe, but if this means an obsession with patents and copyrights and other forms of “intellectual property rights” designed to capture value for investors, I think it can go too far and actually limit innovation. It might make more sense for the government to make the investments, institute a value added tax to recoup the benefits of increased progress economy-wide, and return some combination of benefits and services to the people. This would be a pretty obvious win to the private sector and the public at large. Of course, the illogical pro-business, anti-tax ideology U.S. corporations have spent decades manufacturing and imposing on the population makes this combination of policies politically almost impossible.

“innovation driven industrial policy”

Leave a reply

I’m still on the topic of innovation. Slate has an article on what an “innovation driven industrial policy” would look like.

It is not—and has never been—that the U.S. does not have a de facto industrial policy. Through regulation, foreign investment rules, trade barriers, and even subsidies (think ethanol), the federal government has found ways to support U.S. industry. And even the most ideological appropriators have not succeeded in removing millions of dollars of research funding channeled through the long-standing research agencies like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or through programs established to support development of that research, such as the Small Business Research Innovation program (now branded as “America’s Seed Fund”).

Slate

So the idea is that an industrial policy would take all this and put it under some kind of central management intended to spur progress in key areas. Then it would pump out more funding and encourage private industry to do the same.

a new “science of progress’

Leave a reply

This article in the Atlantic says we need a “new science of progress”. It’s an interesting philosophical question – the universe is all around us, its secrets there for us to reach out and understand. The knowledge that exists to discover is not changing, and yet we seem to only be able to discover it in fits and starts. Are there things we could do to discover it faster? Well, there is something called the scientific method. There is something called technology. The field of economics certainly tries to study progress in a systematic way. How best to educate and train human beings is a perennial field of research. Maybe we need to mash all these together somehow, then add hefty doses of system thinking and data science? Or maybe we just need to find the really smart, innovative, unconventional thinkers and figure out how to harness their genius better?

This is exactly what Progress Studies would investigate. It would consider the problem as broadly as possible. It would study the successful people, organizations, institutions, policies, and cultures that have arisen to date, and it would attempt to concoct policies and prescriptions that would help improve our ability to generate useful progress in the future.

Along these lines, the world would benefit from an organized effort to understand how we should identify and train brilliant young people, how the most effective small groups exchange and share ideas, which incentives should exist for all sorts of participants in innovative ecosystems (including scientists, entrepreneurs, managers, and engineers), how much different organizations differ in productivity (and the drivers of those differences), how scientists should be selected and funded, and many other related issues besides.

The Atlantic

BP Statistical Review of World Energy

Leave a reply

BP has put out its Statistical Review of World Energy 2020. I’m a little short on time so I’m going to quote CNN’s coverage of it. (At least I think this is the report CNN is referring to. I have noticed a trend recently where journalists talk about a “recent report” without naming it or linking to it.) At least, I’m going to try to quote it. WordPress’s block editor is getting harder and harder to use.

In a “business-as-usual” scenario, in which government policies and social preferences evolve in the same way as in the recent past, oil demand picks up slightly following the coronavirus hit, but then plateaus around 2025 and starts to decline after 2030.

In two other scenarios, in which governments take more aggressive steps to curb carbon emissions and there are significant shifts in societal behavior, demand for oil never fully recovers from the decline caused by the pandemic. That would mean that oil demand peaked in 2019…

”As difficult steps go, BP’s pirouette from traditional oil company to green energy giant ranks among the more challenging,” Susannah Streeter, a senior investment and markets analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown said in a note to clients.

CNN

What exactly is a “green energy giant”? Carbon capture might be a thing, eventually, but that seems like a risky bet as the only business strategy. If most things are going to electrify, it seems like the green energy giant will be the regulated electric utility business, at least in the United States, and it seems unlikely BP is trying to go there. They can try to supply that industry with things to burn, I suppose, like natural gas and liquid natural gas (coal and oil seem to be on their way out), but I am not sure that is a growth industry. Aviation might move toward hydrogen fuel cells eventually. There must be some tiny demand for rocket fuel. Chemicals, drugs, and plastics will continue to exist, of course, but I am not sure that would be a huge source of annual revenue growth for decades. They can manufacture solar panels, windmills, efficient transportation and electrical equipment of various sorts, get into the smart grid, smart buildings and materials, batteries, etc. But doing all sorts of little bits and pieces like this would seem to get them into industrial conglomerate territory, and there are plenty of companies already there. Maybe that is where they are headed – just make forays into lots of different markets and see if anything sticks.

nuclear weapons are still out there

Leave a reply

Stephen Cohen, a well-known Russia scholar, has died. His last book (I think) was called War with Russia? and was basically a reminder that nuclear war with Russia is still a distinct and very dangerous possibility. Not only have treaties and arms control agreements been broken and abandoned under Trump, but U.S. and Russian troops are engaged in violent conflicts dangerously close to each other in Ukraine and Syria, among other places. I can’t help noting that these locations are very close to Russia’s borders, not close to ours. Remember how we reacted to Russian missiles in Cuba? We have a double standard. Biden hasn’t talked much about nuclear weapons, which disappoints me, but at least he is a knowledgeable, responsible adult and things can’t get much worse under his leadership.