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.

Stakeholder acceptance, equipment siteability in a Smart Grid

Siteability (acceptance)

Siteability is one aspect of stakeholder acceptance in the electric industry.  Others are consumer acceptance of demand response and pricing programs, utility acceptance of smart grid technology, and the investment challenges created (debt market), and so on.

Project management tools address increasing technology complexity

Technology readiness assessment is part of a suite of project management tools to deal with the increasing complexity of technology projects.  As projects get more complex, the tools to manage the complexity become more capable and sophisticated.  This is good and necessary as the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked.