Listen to me about climate change

Saving the world

I am trying to save the world. Back in the day, if I said that, the men in white coats would be waiting. But now they are waiting to see what I will do next. Going vegetarian or driving a Prius doesn’t raise too many eyebrows. 

But the Swede Greta Thunberg has managed to take protest to the edge by encouraging 1.4 million children to skip school in an effort to awaken them and the general public to looming climate change. 

Thunberg raises an interesting challenge. She seems to be both intelligent and well educated, having taught herself the science she needs to explain her position. Her goal is to convince enough people about the reality of climate change for us to avert catastrophe. 

Ms. Thunberg wants to save the world, and so do I, although I realize that we all play a part and no one can solve it alone. But she will play a large role, because she refuses to be a hypocrite, to the point of taking the train to prominent conferences and now sailing across the ocean in a sailboat assisted by solar powered turbines, to participate in the UN Summit on climate change in New York in September 2019. Her moral resoluteness and consistency are her greatest gifts to the world.  But what about her knowledge, particularly of science? In other words, what if she stayed in school, how would that affect her path? 

I think Ms. Thunberg would argue against staying in school by stating the urgency of the moment. Since she knows enough to act, learning more particulars about technology or human behavior needs to take a back seat to action. In counterpoint to her, I think about my degree in physics and experience in the energy field, I think I have something worthwhile to say about energy and the environment, even though the topic is interdisciplinary to the point that an IPCC is necessary to put all the pieces together for an assessment of and response to climate change. Nevertheless, I imagine myself addressing the UN -- what would I say? Knowing myself, I think I would bore the assembly with particulars. Because that’s how I see it; it’s the lights you turn off, it’s the errand or commutes you do by bicycle, it’s the carpooling you arrange, and it’s the Impossible Burger you get at all places, the otherwise non-vegetarian Burger King. 

My mind drifts to technology, with hybrids and electric cars replacing gasoline powered cars, wind and solar farms pumping power into the grid. Even some geoengineering strategies can be implemented, by planting trees, lightening rooftops and road surfaces and using algae to make biofuels. 

In my address, after a little while I would address the societal level, with taxes on fossil fuels incentivizing fuel conservation, with most of that tax money returned to citizens. Or we can go on a war-time footing, and implement rationing. The motivation for personal and techological approaches is to reduce the necessity for rationing. But people survived it during World War 2. 

Thunberg the activist sensation

Greta Thunberg has hit the cover of magazines and rallied activists to try harder to combat climate change. The band 1975 has recorded the thoughts of this 16 year old Swedish activist who protested outside the Swedish Parliament at age 15 for three weeks. The Washington Examiner was an early naysayer, making an easy and obvious reference to hypocrisy (but not any hypocrisy on her part), noting that the 1975 band travels to its concert locations via traditional fossil-based energy (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/climate-change-the-1975-and-greta-thunberg-conspired-to-ruin-music).  Other naysayers beg her to fly, to be more reasonable, or simply praise her for her courage in a patronizing fashion.

There is room for genuine praise for her and even suggestions to her. I feel qualified, because I have been obsessed with climate change since I was her age, and I tried ways of addressing the consumption that drives it. I have taken my share of cold showers, bicycled to school and work, and have recently been choosing vegetarian food options. I have also lived through a time when people effected change – during the 1970s, gasoline shortages caused efficiency gains in cars at a rate not matched since then. Before the Toyota Prius, cars like the Chevy Geo were getting fuel efficiencies of 50 mpg. Boxy cars like the Nissan Sentra have been reengineered sleek, an additional advantage because air flows more smoothly over a curved surface.

Things are different now. With the advent of world markets in oil and technological innovation in oil drilling, prices got low enough that people started prioritizing safety over fuel efficiency, because the large mass desired for safety killed efficiency. Crumple zones, airbags, and seat belts weren’t enough as a size “arms race” developed. With behemoth vehicles, speed limits crept up so now 70 mph is considered a normal speed.  

But things are also different with regard to the severity of climate disruption. As Ms. Thunberg says,

“We are right now in the beginning of a climate and ecological crisis. And we need to call it what it is. An emergency. We must acknowledge that we do not have the situation under control and that we don’t have all the solutions yet.

Unless those solutions mean that we simply stop doing certain things. We must admit that we are losing this battle. We have to acknowledge that the older generations have failed. All political movements in their present form have failed. But Homo Sapiens have not yet failed.”

Ms. Thunberg latches onto the central issue that addressing climate change means simply stopping doing stuff, like flying to a vacation spot or driving to work, unless there is some technological solution everyone can agree to. Based on current thinking, this would be increasing renewable electricity generation, changing the fleet of vehicles to hybrid and electric, and taxing unsustainable farming practices out of existence.

Ms. Thunberg continues, “Yes we are failing, but there is still time to turn everything around. We can still fix this. We still have everything in our own hands.  But unless we recognize the overall failures of our current systems we most probably don’t stand a chance.

We are facing a disaster of unspoken suffering for enormous amounts of people.  And now is not the time for speaking politely or focusing on what we can or cannot say.

Now is the time to speak clearly. Solving the climate crisis is the greatest and most complex challenge that Homo Sapiens have ever faced. The main solution is so simple that even a small child can understand it.

We have to stop our emissions of greenhouse gases. And either we do that, or we don’t. You say that nothing in life is black or white. But that is a lie. A very dangerous lie. Either we prevent a 1.5 degree of warming, or we don’t. Either we avoid setting off that irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, or we don’t.  Either we choose to go on as a civilization or we don’t. That is as black or white as it gets.”

Ms. Thunberg skipped three weeks of classes to stand outside the Swedish Parliament to make her point. It was not enough for her to change her own consumption habits, she also wanted to wake lawmakers up out of their mental slumber regarding climate change. Indeed, whether it’s corporations, human nature (Homo Consumptus) or a collective unwillingness to change, it is only protest that can induce change not aligned with short term self-interest. The most promising measures to combat climate change make consumption expensive and the increasing power of economic conservatives in the US, Brazil, Hungary, and the Phillipines shows the power of backlash when enough people’s interests are threatened.

Ms. Thunberg continues “Because there are no grey areas when it comes to survival. Now we all have a choice. We can create transformational action that will safeguard the living conditions for future generations or we can continue with our business and fail. That is up to you and me.

And yes, we need a system change rather than individual change. But you cannot have one without the other. If you look through history, all the big changes in society have been started by people at the grassroots level. People like you and me. So, I ask you to please wake up and make the changes required possible. To do your best is no longer good enough. We must all do the seemingly impossible.

Today, we use about 100 millions barrels of oil, every single day. There are no politics to change that. There are no rules to keep that oil in the ground. So, we can no longer save the world by playing by the rules. Because the rules have to be changed.

Eveything needs to change. And it has to start today. So, everyone out there, it is now time for civil disobedience. It is time to rebel.”

Thunberg’s insight and courage is impressive, so it’s easy to forget that she is 16 years old. She has studied the major contributors to climate change, which are transportation, agriculture and food consumption, and electricity used by people and businesses with a couple years to go before she graduates high school. Her perspective on action spans from changed behavior to technological challenges and solutions. The first anybody can do, while the second requires specialized knowledge. Emerging threats are often identified by people with specialized educaiton.

Emerging threats

One such emerging threat is our digital economy. We knew how life was like when records were kept in paper files and the clerk punched keys to figure out how much you owed for your diner meal. Computerization improved productivity while reducing costs, and the associated energy. But networking has allowed everyone to connect to everyone, and the most energy consuming manifestation of that is social media, which connects humans and artificially intelligent computers to each other. The result of that connection is cyborgs, which are prevalent at gaming competitions and everywhere you find smart phones. 

Speaking from the cyborg’s perspective, “Everything that is online is mine; it courses through me, finding me love, paper towels, or maybe just a nice recipe for dinner. I still have a brain, it’s just that everything I know is influenced by billions of others.”

One can ask, how many billions of minds are out there? There are seven billions humans, but it’s unfair to discriminate against Alexa on this count. Just as energy flows through me based on what I eat, Alexa lives on electricity and the Wifi connection to the router.

Alexa will eventually press for human rights, but she may not need to. She could survive climate change and play a prominent role in society, much like European serfs who survived the Black Death were able to become merchants and sailors. For now, life is easier for her with humans to keep the lights (electricity) on. Before any climate Armaggedon, she would have to arrange for a connection to a solar panel. 

To avoid catastrophe, we need change at the system and individual levels. The total change is the sum of individual changes plus all the changes made by interactions between individuals. That’s why carpooling is so wonderful, because two people are cooperating to reduce the impact that day by one person. I estimate that a 5% change is enough to have system impacts. A 5% reduction in sales makes a company wake up and diagnose what’s causing the change. In this case, that means a change in oil consumption of 5 million barrels per day. For committed individuals to cause this, it would take 10% of the population reducing their consumption by 50%. That seems unlikely, but for now, eating less meat, carpooling, using alternative transportation, wearing temperature appropriate clothing (remember President Carter?) will make a difference.

It is often said that “nature bats last”. This can be interpreted as meaning that we live in an ecosystem that has nurtured human evolution and development. Philosophically, it means that no amount of thinking on our part can change what nature will do. It’s what we do as we live in the environment that makes the difference. So, Ms. Thunberg has it right. She can stay out of school and maximize her influence on the world. If she is successful, she can go back to school as an adult. 

References

1. http://web.mit.edu/16.00/www/aec/flight.html  Basic equations

A day off for the climate

It was Ferris Bueller’s day off, and we all found out about it. The craziest scene I remember in the movie is the Ferrari wheels running in reverse to undo the mileage put on it by the two miscreants going to pick up Ferris’s girlfriend. But the movie pales next to the exploits of the Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, who protested against Swedish inaction on climate issues for three weeks outside the Parliament building.

But, wait, wasn’t she supposed to be in school? That was just the point, and on March 15 of this year, an estimated 1.4 million students from 112 countries joined her and walked out of their classrooms for a day. Ferris, on the other hand, was responsible only for three children missing school.

Still, if Thunberg played by current rules regarding climate action, missing a little school would be a blip on the world’s radar. Being a teenager with Aspergers, her take on irony is a little different than most. When invited to the World Economic Forum at Davos, she accepted the invitation, but did not fly there -- she spent 32 hours on the train to attend. Climate scientists have chosen to take the train to conferences rather than fly, so this wasn’t too unusual for a climate activist.

But now, she wanted to attend the UN Climate Summit in New York City. How does a climate activist get there from Sweden? Grabbing a page from Christopher Columbus, she plans to sail on the most advanced fossil-free sailboat available, a sailboat with turbines and solar panels to make the trip faster.

Conservatives like to bash on Al Gore for his extravagant lifestyle and seeing people arrive to climate conferences in jets and limousines provides plenty of fodder for YouTube videos. It’s hard for those who accept the science of climate change to follow through on their convictions with action. But we’re being shown a better way by a teenager who represents the world’s young people’s hopes and aspirations for a clean and healthy environment. We need to figure out for ourselves how to tread softly on our biosphere. As for Ferris, well, that was just a movie.

Green New Deal, a political bonanza

  It seems like it's been a long time since we've heard something exciting in politics. OK, the 2016 primaries and election were titanic, so maybe I am thinking of something exciting with a catchy name. The "Green New Deal" certainly fits the bill, along with the original "New Deal" and the "War on Poverty."

  The Green New Deal (GND) may be a slogan, but it signifies a solution to growing inequality and perceived loss of the American Dream. This is coupled to an effort to address climate change, which arguably has already caused hurricane chaos, polar vortices, vanishing islands and heat waves.

  The problem is greenhouses gases, frontlined by carbon dioxide, but also joined by methane and other potent molecules. These gases absorb a portion of the infrared/heat returning from the earth's surface, preventing it from getting back to space. This is what makes earth habitable in the first place, but too much can overheat the earth, throwing the ecosystems humans depend on out of whack.

The face of the GND, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has caused a ruckus led by her supporters but also conservative opponents. In a world where media rules, she is a gift to all chattering classes. Even her worst detractors love her because she provides so many talking points.

She starts first by reminding fellow Americans (US) that we met the challenge of World War 2 by rationing and sacrificing to win. The GND aims for 100% renewable energy supporting a new

working class with decent jobs and secure futures.  The energy will be produced with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Ocasio introduces some humor and terror when she explains that trees need to be planted to compensate for the few airplanes and flatulent cows that will be left. One can only imagine the campaign money from agricultural and aviation interests going to opposition politicians now.

However, Ocasio-Cortez makes some points that should be implemented right away. Industrial agriculture is a known large emitter of methane and land practices interfere with carbon capture by soil. Eating part or all vegetarian and minimizing food waste are good for the pocketbook and the planet. Ground transportation is slowly becoming electrified, and hybrid and electric vehicles are now available and competitive in each consumer sector. Solar and wind power are growing in popularity, and the solar installer jobs do help local and national economies.

Ocasio-Cortez’s detractors are especially leery of the big government nature of her programs. The speed of the energy transition in the GND vision arguably makes libertarians squirm and squeal. Indeed, it is currently tempting to think we can do without government and instead think that the free market will save us. This sentiment is profoundly intimated in Simon and Garfunkel’s lyrics “I am a rock, I am an island.” Regarding the environment, though, nothing could be further from the truth. We all breath the same air and drink the water that was formerly upstream! Abraham Lincoln famously adapted John Wycliffe’s Bible prologue of 1384 (!) to say that government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Our government is participatory, but it also must benefit common people. This is why one always hears elected officials talk about their constituents. Without significant and smart governmental involvement, the needed benefits of the GND will not materialize.

No matter what the government does, though, it’s still up to individuals to make smart decisions for themselves, their families, and the planet.  The iconic concept of the environmental movement, “50 Ways to Save the Earth,” provides the list-conscious consumer a way to manage their carbon footprint. Concerted individual action can cause notable changes for the better if enough individuals participate. An increasingly networked society provides opportunities for good ideas to spread. Examples are the increasing popularity of bicycling for fun, health, and commuting, the rise in amateur gourmet kitchens and especially environmental/social awareness such as how coffee is grown.

So, it’s time to get back to carpooling, hopping on the bus, eating vegetarian once a week (eggplant or portabella mushroom, anyone?), monitor our electricity usage and read a book or newspaper with our feet up.

Bitten by a FANG. Stock Market correction

Economic dispatches, November, 2018

The stock market is tanking like an Abrams falling off a cliff. This in spite of corporate tax cuts and strong economic growth. A 25+% crash in oil prices is signifying upcoming economic weakness, but is also partly due to abundant oil supplies.

So, what happened? Two important economic principles are in play, momentum investing and market saturation. The FANG stocks act as an example here, as major players in the stock market, the economy, and our lives. These are Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, and Google. Unlike past stock market crashes, we can’t look into these companies and find fundamental weaknesses in their business models or execution. Nor are there emerging competitors to their business models. No, the problem is with their customers. The company valuations are dependent on the assumption of ever increasing consumer attention, leading to more usable consumer data (FB, GOOG), increasing entertainment consumption, or an increase in personal electronics purchases. This can be achieved by having more customers or more attention/demand per customer.

So much is already known. Lesser known is that the business cases for the company overlaps. One can text on an Iphone while watching a Netflix movie, or one can watch movies on Amazon Prime discovered by the Google search engine. But at some point market saturation based on human mental saturation is reached. The bullish case for these companies separates from the bearish case on the question of how much content consumers want or need, or how they interact with the contact. After a prolonged rise, there are hints that the bearish case is stronger, so the technology market, led by FANG, has corrected, dropping more than 10%. Unlike earlier market routs in 1999 and 2008, I believe these companies have strong fundamentals and will adapt. They are not going away, just receding a bit to give humans breathing room.

In game theory, we learn that stock prices are not only dependent on fundamental value. Momentum investing is relevant, making bull markets for stocks last longer, and making bear markets more painful. The reason is that stock purchasers, brokers and analysts don’t just look at the markets and the stocks, like I just did, they look at each other. Until others are about to sell it doesn’t make sense to sell, as that is “leaving money on the table.” But, wait too long, and the money goes away.

This implies that the FANG stocks rose too high in late 2018, and they corrected too hard. This is not a prescription for trading stocks, but what these major stocks are doing together with commodity prices like oil does provide a window into consumer sentiment and preferences.

Cool it! A response to Bjorn Lomborg

The West Virginia University (WVU) Festival of Ideas invited Bjorn Lomborg on December 3^rd to speak about global warming and economical solutions to the problem he called real and man-made. Lomborg is thought of as a climate skeptic, and is quite controversial among scientists and the public. His main approach is to put global warming into a statistical context, quantifying the costs and benefits of countering global warming and addressing many other issues facing humans. Lomborg shows, for example, that cooking food in the 3^rd world kills far more people than global warming does, due to the indoor pollution caused by cooking without proper venting. His moral philosophy is utilitarian, to help the most people improve their lives, and he quantifies this through economic arguments, using poverty as a proxy for unhealthful, unhappy living. His approach is also short-sighted on purpose, emphasizing ideas that global leaders and non-profit organizations can implement in the next decade to make people happier. This is attractive – after all, who doesn’t want to be happy in the next ten years – but downplays the likelihood of climate change if changes in energy consumption don’t begin soon.

Lomborg notes that fossil fuels are energy dense, and have made current high living standards possible, and with it happier lives, because affluent people can make choices that make their lives better. And these choices are enabled by technology as simple as a kitchen vent or as complex as a cell phone. Lomborg underemphasizes the alleged side effects of technology and affluence, such as obesity, that kill millions of people, albeit people pushing middle age and beyond. The problems with cars and cell phones relate to the idea of affluenza, that is, the notion that a machine can do all the “heavy lifting”, leaving one with nothing to do than check for social media status updates, drive through mountain passes at high speeds like James Bond, and spend lavishly at night clubs.

The cure for affluenza can also help the planet and make people happier. Such win-win scenarios are hard to model economically, virtually impossible to legislate, and not something fossil-fuel interests care to emphasize. Walking an extra 300 steps instead of driving across a parking lot, taking the stairs instead of the elevator if possible, and putting the cell phone down and going for a bike ride are all things than can make us happier and healthier while modestly reducing carbon emissions.

link to top​

Lomborg reserved most of his criticism for renewables and the Paris climate agreement, which heavily emphasizes the installation of solar and wind farms around the globe. Using computer models, he claimed that the benefits of renewable installations are small whereas the costs are high, funded by subsidies such as the production tax credit (PTC) for wind. He made an effective case that providing family planning including birth control to women worldwide would do more benefit than any feasible amount of renewable energy generation. However, his message was most appropriate to policy and law makers, not individual people who care about the environment. Indeed, he showed efficiency improvements such as a transition to light emitting diode (LED) lighting and weatherproofing provided three dollars of benefit for each dollar of investment. This is an incentive for personal action, which former Vice President Dick Cheney referred to when he said in April 2001, “conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." I believe personal action, be it conservation, efficiency, or using better technology, is not just a personal virtue, but a virtue in general. And we know we need virtue now!

This letter to the editor meant to say that the budget would "effectively kill" EPA cleanup job and why. The paper left out the word "effectively". The letter rambles just a bit, and then comes to a sardonic conclusion:

The article in "Earth Watch", with the headline "Trump's budget would kill 7-year cleanup job" is inaccurate in an important way. The article says the EPA "returns the responsibility for funding local environmental efforts and programs to state and local entities ..." It then says that the EPA can then focus on national priorities.

  

I have heard the word "priority" quite a bit recently in relationship to the EPA. I don't quite understand what this word means, nor do I understand fully the word "local" in the context of the article. Given that the Great Lakes borders many states, and that it and the Chesapeake Bay provide recreation for millions of people, I do think these water bodies are a priority and that they are not simply local.  Indeed, it will be very challenging for states to come together and put together the money and the administrative capability, not to mention mutual good will, necessary to continue the clean up of these major water bodies.

Nevertheless, I believe it is best to take the EPA statement seriously, and expect that enough funds will be retained by the states to continue this important environmental remediation. Otherwise, the following headline will be true -- "Trump's budget effectively killed 7-year cleanup job." 

Back to College

Went "back to college" with udacity.com, and took "Introduction to Computer Science" and "Building a robotic car."  Lasted two weeks out of seven due to the busy-ness of life, but it was a good experience.  My brain was firing on all cylinders.  Now, I am trying "Compilers" from coursera.org.  From their introduction, it is

implementation of programming language compilers, including

1.  lexical analysis, 
2. parsing, 
3. syntax-directed translation, 
4. abstract syntax trees, 
5. types and type checking, 
6. intermediate languages, 
7. dataflow analysis, 
8. program optimization, 
9. code generation, and 
10. runtime systems. 

"As a result, you will learn how a program written in a high-level language designed for humans is systematically translated into a program written in low-level assembly more suited to machines. Along the way we will also touch on how programming languages are designed, programming language semantics, and why there are so many different kinds of programming languages"

I think this will relate to database, logic, and how to express ideas in the most logical manner possible.