Tag Archives: biodiversity

beech leaf disease

Leave a reply

A new disease is threatening beech trees (Philadelphia Inquirer, paywalled) in the U.S. We don’t want to lose our beeches like we did our chestnuts. Beeches have some similar features in that they make up a significant amount of our eastern forest canopy (like chestnuts used to), produce fatty nuts that feed birds and other species, and their leaves serve as host plants for insects that feed birds and other species. It is not clear yet what is causing this disease, but hopefully we can learn from the cautionary tale of the chestnut and try to get out in front of it.

Living Planet Report 2022

Leave a reply

WWF’s Living Planet Report is out. They mean this at least in part as a report card on the UN’s “Decade on Biodiversity”, and the grade is a failing one. A few things caught my eye:

  • They have a discussion of “connectivity conservation”, which is intended to reduce fragmentation by connecting protected areas.
  • They determined there is an average 69% global decline in abundance of monitored vertebrate populations between 1970 and 2018. The situation in the tropics is much worse than this average.
  • Populations of corals and sharks in particular are crashing.
  • The “Amazon as we know it” may cease to exist in less than a decade.
  • They give an update on the global ecological footprint from the “National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts, 2022 edition”. Maybe I’ll have a more detailed look at this another day. The value they give is in hectares per person and I find it hard to interpret given that the population is not constant. They seem most interested in showing that people in more developed countries are using more than their fair share of the planet’s “biocapacity”. Previously, I understood the unit to be the number of planet Earths needed to sustain humanity’s current level of consumption and waste production long-term. A value less than 1 would be sustainable long term, while a value greater than 1 indicates a drawdown of natural capital, creating a debt that will eventually come due.

city biodiversity

Leave a reply

This paper in Urban Forestry and Urban Greening suggests three ways to increase biodiversity in cities.

Consideration of the three key factors influencing biodiversity identified here (grassland extent, land-use in the surroundings, and management intensity) would provide the optimal options for maintaining city biodiversity. Protecting current urban grasslands from development and restricting construction in their surroundings, restoring city wilderness areas using urban spatial planning, and setting up butterfly-friendly management regimes (e.g., mowing in mosaic) could all be future options to help enhance biodiversity in cities.

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

These sound like measures the average U.S. homeowner’s association will gleefully embrace (#irony).

How much ecological function can urban green space provide?

Leave a reply

This is an important research question, I think, as the world becomes even more urbanized. Here’s a new study:

Vegetation Type and Age Matter: How to Optimize the Provision of Ecosystem Services in Urban Parks

As cities grow, urban greenspace assumes a more central role in the provision of ecosystem services (ESS). Many ecosystem services depend on the interactions of soil-plant systems, with the quantity and quality of services affected by plant type and age. The question, however, remains whether urban greenspace can be included in the same ecological framework as non-urban greenspace. Our previous studies have contributed towards filling this knowledge gap by investigating the effects of plant functional type (evergreen trees, deciduous trees and lawn) and plant age on soil characteristics and functionality in urban greenspace, offering also a comparison with non-urban greenspace. A total of 41 urban parks and five non-urban forest sites within and adjacent to the cities of Helsinki and Lahti (Finland) were included in this project. Path analyses presented in this contribution, combined with a synthesis of previous findings, offer strong evidence that urban greenspace functions similarly to non-urban greenspace. In particular, plant functional types lead to soil environmental modifications similar to those in non-urban ecosystems. Therefore, vegetation choice upon park construction/implementation can improve the quality and quantity of ESS provided by urban greenspace. However, although vegetation modifies urban greenspace soils with time in a fashion similar to non-urban greenspace, the vegetation type effect is greater in non-urban greenspaces. To conclude, our synthesis of previous studies provides science-based guidance for urban planners who aim to optimize ESS in urban greenspaces.

Urban Forestry and Urban Greening

Ecosystem services and ecological function are not exactly the same thing. Ecological function just is. Ecosystem services are what ecological functions do for people, and fit into the mainstream economic analysis framework. Part of the issue in studying this, I think, is scale. If you look only at one site, block, or park in a city, you might conclude that ecosystems services are negligible or un-measurable. If you look at the entire network and how it is connected, you might conclude that the effects are measurable and that there are policy and design choices that could make them better.

Biodiversity is something else again. More biodiversity is not always better, if it consists of more species of rats or coronaviruses, for example. But biodiversity may be a reasonable proxy measure for how the structure of a designed urban ecosystem translates to ecological function. This is useful if ecological function itself turns out to be difficult to measure. And I think the most useful measures might be biodiversity of animals such as insects (bees, butterflies) and birds. Because the plants in urban areas are mostly the ones that people put there. Biodiversity of plants can be improved through design choices, which is a good thing but in measuring that you are largely measuring inputs to the system rather than the resulting state of the system. Measure the animals, and you are measuring the resulting state of the system.

Measuring things that flit and flutter around might seem daunting. Well, you could try to do it with cameras and image processing of some sort. Or if you are interested in insects you can focus on larva, aka caterpillars. Tracking down bee and wasp nests seems a bit more risky, and you might also have a public relations problem trying to explain why more bee and wasp nests would be a good thing. But caterpillars don’t move fast, so trained people should be able to cordon off an area and find and identify them periodically. Let’s say you did this once a week for a year at several defined points in an urban area, especially if land use changes are occurring (or maybe some places they are occurring and some places they are not occurring.) Doing the same thing in nearby forests and/or farm fields might also add worthwhile data. Now you can do some data analysis and modeling, and maybe figure out design or policy choices that would help the little critters while also benefiting or at least not pissing off people or costing them any money. If you want to fund my half-baked research proposal, let me know.

John Philip Grime

Leave a reply

Trends in Ecology and Evolution has an obituary on John Philip Grime, a giant in plant ecology. Not being well educated in plant ecology, I had not heard of him, but I like to learn.

Two seminal publications of the early 1970s would come to define Phil’s approach to finding universal patterns in the structure of vegetation. ‘Competitive exclusion in herbaceous vegetation’ [1.] introduced the ‘hump-backed’ model, which predicted that plant species richness peaks in communities that produce an aboveground biomass of about 600 g m–2 year–1. The model was one of the first to make specific recommendations about the management of local biodiversity. ‘Vegetation classification by reference to strategies’ [2.] introduced ‘competition-stress-disturbance’ (CSR) theory. CSR would become synonymous with Phil’s approach to studying vegetation; because he chose to present the concept as a triangle of three opposing selection pressures, many would come to refer to CSR theory as Grime’s triangle. Although not obvious from these papers, each was based on extensive vegetation datasets of the Sheffield region compiled by the UCPE team (particularly longtime associate John Hodgson). Although many would come to know Phil as a theorist and provocateur (a role he would assume often in the 1980s and 1990s), Phil would always argue that his insights were born of detailed field observations and a UCPE research team with expertise in both field botany and physiology.

Trends in Ecology and Evolution

Biden’s “30 by 30”

Leave a reply

According to Yale Climate Connections, “30 by 30” is an ambitious plan to protect 30% of the USA’s land in a natural state by 2030. There is also a less ambitious part of the plan to protect 30% of the USA’s ocean area. I say the ocean part is less ambitious because, according to this article, 26% is already protected. And all you really have to do to protect the ocean (on paper) is draw a box on a map and pass a law saying that box is now protected.

The article refers to E.O. Wilson’s book Half Earth, which argues for protecting…I forget how much of the Earth, I am not good at math. But you get the idea. The moral and rhetorical case here is biodiversity-based, but it’s pretty clear that the practical case is carbon sequestration. There must be a cost-benefit calculation somewhere in there that this is the cheap way to make some progress on blunting the droughts, fires, floods, famines and abandoned coastal cities that are headed our way if we do nothing, and maybe even if we do something but not enough.

Land is different. This article says about 12% is now protected. So how would we actually get to 30? There must be 30% of land out there that is just not legally protected yet.

Achieving 30 by 30 will require action on numerous fronts. “A national program to enact 30 by 30 won’t just be a series of new national parks declared by the President, but will include things like national wildlife refuges, national monuments, state-level protected areas, conservation easements on private land, and co-management with tribal leadership,” wrote marine conservation biologist David Shiffman in Scientific American last October. “Local consultation and support will have to be part of it from the beginning, but it won’t be successful without support and leadership from the federal government.”

And it won’t be enough just to protect any land; it will matter significantly which 30 percent is protected. “Conserving a giant, undeveloped stretch of land where little lives and that no one wanted to develop anyway is not especially helpful to biodiversity conservation or climate resilience,” Shiffman wrote. At least some part of every major ecosystem needs to be protected, he wrote…

More than half of the country’s forests – critical carbon sinks, places that absorb more carbon dioxide than they release – are privately owned. U.C. Berkeley environmental science professors Arthur Middleton and Justin Brashares in the New York Times in December 2020 wrote that “private lands also connect our public lands, providing seasonal habitat for wide-ranging wildlife and clean drinking water, crop pollination, and flood control.” With about 12 percent of the privately land now meeting the 30 by 30 goals, they wrote, protecting the remaining 18 percent “means protecting an area more than twice the size of Texas.”

Yale Climate Connections

For this to be viable, it almost has to be easier than it sounds. I know large private forests are owned by university endowments and other wealthy institutional investors. They can either log them, or they can leave the trees in the ground to get more valuable until they log them later. Or they can sell them, or for all I know buy and sell complicated derivatives based on them. These investors are probably open to the idea of conservation easements which give them an additional payoff in return for agreeing not to develop (i.e. pave or build buildings) the land, which they are probably not interested in doing anyway. This is all speculation on my part.

There’s a lot of farmland out there that farmers would probably be happy to sell for reforestation (or restoration of grassland or wetland habitats) if the government were willing to pay. But I assume we need most of our cropland for growing crops, and taking cropland out of production doesn’t seem like a politically likely solution. Soil conservation is always good, but counting farms engaging in soil conservation practices as “protected natural land” would seem a bit sneaky. If that is what they are thinking, the 30% wouldn’t sound ambitious at all, it would just be a practical common-sense soil conservation program. Again, all speculation on my part. It will be interesting to hear more about this, and interesting to see if the administration can communicate it in a way that avoids conspiracy theories about the government coming for our sacrosanct private property.

diversity and resilience

Leave a reply

Here is an example from economics and urban planning of how a diverse system can be a resilient system.

At its peak in 1950, the Coca-Cola bottling plant in Indianapolis employed 250 workers and turned out two million fizz-filled bottles of Coke a week. Now, it is home to the Bottleworks Hotel, the center of a mixed-use development that opened in late 2020 with the hopes of rejuvenating a neighborhood.

The developer of the site, Hendricks Commercial Properties, said the pandemic had shown the value of diversification as a bulwark against shorter building life spans. No one could have predicted that a havoc-wreaking pandemic would make gathering places so unappealing, at least in the short term. But by having a mix of offices, retail, hotel and other uses, the risk for Hendricks is spread out. The Bottleworks development has an eight-screen movie theater, for instance, but also a tech incubator.

New York Times

This is not really the main point of the article, but I think a useful lesson to learn from the pandemic is that mixed-use neighborhoods where people can live, work, shop, study, and recreate seem to have been more resilient. I don’t have data to back this up, and it should be studied, but it is pretty obvious that the central business district in my city has been hard hit. Very few people live there. The office towers normally fill up each morning with thousands (tens or hundreds of thousands?) of suburban train and car commuters. Restaurants and other services are full of these people on weekdays and often close early on weekday evenings and sometimes are closed on the weekend. Hotels and other businesses that are open in the evening serve business travelers, convention goers, and tourists. There is some shopping, but more luxury goods aimed at these tourists and convention goers rather than basic grocery and household goods. So take away the office workers, business travelers, convention goers, and tourists, and the place is empty. Businesses are devastated. Financially, the city depends on wage, sales, and business tax revenues from the central business district to fund its services throughout the rest of the city. So getting more people to live within walking distance of downtown, and having more “normal” businesses that serve normal people there, could make it more resilient.

The same principle applies to natural ecosystems and agricultural systems too. Diversity might make a system a bit less efficient in terms of production, but you have a variety of organisms waiting in the wings to step in and fill functions if a dominant species that used to fill those functions is lost due to disease, disaster or environmental change (or combinations of these.)

I am thinking about this as I read a book called What’s So Good About Biodiversity by Donald Maier. The author has some reasonable points about biologists using the term biodiversity as a sort of lazy shorthand for ecosystem function or specific benefits. But overall, I find the author to someone without an ounce of understanding of how systems function. He literally can’t see the forest for the trees. He also seems to be a person with zero emotional connection to nature, which I find sad and abnormal. I’m going to call him a biopath – like a psychopath, a person who does not have normal emotions toward other people and is not really aware of what those emotions would feel like. I think there is a normal range of strength of emotion people feel about nature, and I accept that for some people the feelings are not all that strong compared to their feelings about, say, constructed environments or manufactured goods. But to feel nothing is not normal, and the 500 pages of verbal diarrhea in Mr. Maier’s book do not make it any more normal. (I haven’t finished the book – perhaps it will get better towards the end, when Mr. Maier promises to explain what “better reasoning about nature’s value” would look like. If the book has a fantastic ending, I promise to come back and sing its praises in this blog.)

February 2021 in Review

Leave a reply

Most frightening and/or depressing story: For people who just don’t care that much about plants and animals, the elevator pitch on climate change is it is coming for our houses and it is coming for our food and water.

Most hopeful story: It is possible that mRNA technology could cure or prevent herpes, malaria, flu, sickle cell anemia, cancer HIV, Zika and Ebola (and obviously coronavirus). With flu and coronavirus, it may become possible to design a single shot that would protect against thousands of strains. It could also be used for nefarious purposes, and to protect against that are ideas about what a biological threat surveillance system could look like.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both: At least one serious scientist is arguing that Oumuamua was only the tip of an iceberg of extraterrestrial objects we should expect to see going forward.

Our planetary ecological support system is dying. Why aren’t we doing anything?

Leave a reply

That’s my summary (in my own words, not theirs) of this paper from Frontiers in Conservation Science.

Underestimating the Challenges of Avoiding a Ghastly Future

We report three major and confronting environmental issues that have received little attention and require urgent action. First, we review the evidence that future environmental conditions will be far more dangerous than currently believed. The scale of the threats to the biosphere and all its lifeforms—including humanity—is in fact so great that it is difficult to grasp for even well-informed experts. Second, we ask what political or economic system, or leadership, is prepared to handle the predicted disasters, or even capable of such action. Third, this dire situation places an extraordinary responsibility on scientists to speak out candidly and accurately when engaging with government, business, and the public. We especially draw attention to the lack of appreciation of the enormous challenges to creating a sustainable future. The added stresses to human health, wealth, and well-being will perversely diminish our political capacity to mitigate the erosion of ecosystem services on which society depends. The science underlying these issues is strong, but awareness is weak. Without fully appreciating and broadcasting the scale of the problems and the enormity of the solutions required, society will fail to achieve even modest sustainability goals.

This is not a paper about solutions. One thing they suggest is “for the scientific community to be more vocal”. I’m not sure. We need well-trained, well-funded scientists to do good science while talking amongst themselves, and then I think we need good science and risk communicators (some of whom might be scientists, but especially journalists and teachers and other types of people who write and speak in public, I think), along with engineers and technologists and economists and many other specialists (and generalists!) to help get through to our political and bureaucratic decision makers on the best courses of action. Facts and evidence don’t just speak for themselves, unfortunately. I certainly agree with the authors of this paper that we are failing to get through.

I’m always looking for that elevator pitch about why Uncle Lou (a fictional hard-headed relative, I don’t actually have an Uncle Lou) should care about biodiversity. Here is their attempt:

With such a rapid, catastrophic loss of biodiversity, the ecosystem services it provides have also declined. These include inter alia reduced carbon sequestration (Heath et al., 2005; Lal, 2008), reduced pollination (Potts et al., 2016), soil degradation (Lal, 2015), poorer water and air quality (Smith et al., 2013), more frequent and intense flooding (Bradshaw et al., 2007; Hinkel et al., 2014) and fires (Boer et al., 2020; Bowman et al., 2020), and compromised human health (Díaz et al., 2006; Bradshaw et al., 2019). As telling indicators of how much biomass humanity has transferred from natural ecosystems to our own use, of the estimated 0.17 Gt of living biomass of terrestrial vertebrates on Earth today, most is represented by livestock (59%) and human beings (36%)—only ~5% of this total biomass is made up by wild mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians (Bar-On et al., 2018). As of 2020, the overall material output of human endeavor exceeds the sum of all living biomass on Earth (Elhacham et al., 2020).

Frontiers in Conservation Science

I don’t think this paragraph will convince Uncle Lou. I think the message for the public is one where floods and fires threaten the value of their homes, and the future of the food supply we have taken for granted over the last century or so comes into doubt. The loss of natural ecosystems and animals is an epic tragedy to some, me included, but not to Uncle Lou down at the racetrack betting on the ponies (I’m not sure exactly who this character is I’ve just created, maybe we can interview him sometime and find out).

2020 in Review

Leave a reply

2020 has been quite a year for the U.S. and the world, but you don’t need me to tell you that! My work and family life was disrupted, but I have been lucky enough not to lose any family members or close friends to Covid-19 so far. If anyone reading this has lost someone, I want to express my condolences.

Now I’ll get right down to some highlights of my 2020 posts.

Monthly Highlights from 2020

Most frightening or depressing stories:

  • JANUARY: Open cyberwarfare became a thing in the 2010s. We read the individual headlines but didn’t connect the dots. When you do connect the dots, it’s a little shocking what’s going on.
  • FEBRUARY: The Amazon rain forest may reach a tipping point and turn into a dry savanna ecosystem, and some scientists think this point could be reached in years rather than decades. Meanwhile, Africa is dealing with a biblical locust plague. Also, bumble bees are just disappearing because it is too hot.
  • MARCH: Hmm…could it be…THE CORONAVIRUS??? The way the CDC dropped the ball on testing and tracking, after preparing for this for years, might be the single most maddening thing of all. There are big mistakes, there are enormously unfathomable mistakes, and then there are mistakes that kill hundreds of thousands of people (at least) and cost tens of trillions of dollars. I got over-excited about Coronavirus dashboards and simulations towards the beginning of month, and kind of tired of looking at them by the end of the month.
  • APRIL: The coronavirus thing just continued to grind on and on, and I say that with all due respect to anyone reading this who has suffered serious health or financial consequences, or even lost someone they care about. After saying I was done posting coronavirus tracking and simulation tools, I continued to post them throughout the month – for example here, here, here, here, and here. After reflecting on all this, what I find most frightening and depressing is that if the U.S. government wasn’t ready for this crisis, and isn’t able to competently manage this crisis, it is not ready for the next crisis or series of crises, which could be worse. It could be any number of things, including another plague, but what I find myself fixating on is a serious food crisis. I find myself thinking back to past crises – We got through two world wars, then managed to avoid getting into a nuclear war to end all wars, then worked hard to secure the loose nuclear weapons floating around. We got past acid rain and closed the ozone hole (at least for awhile). Then I find myself thinking back to Hurricane Katrina – a major regional crisis we knew was coming for decades, and it turned out no government at any level was prepared or able to competently manage the crisis. The unthinkable became thinkable. Then the titans of American finance broke the global financial system. Now we have a much bigger crisis in terms of geography and number of people affected all over the world. The crises may keep escalating, and our competence has clearly suffered a decline. Are we going to learn anything?
  • MAY: Potential for long-term drought in some important food-producing regions around the globe should be ringing alarm bells. It’s a good thing that our political leaders’ crisis management skills have been tested by shorter-term, more obvious crises and they have passed with flying colors…doh!
  • JUNE: The UN just seems to be declining into irrelevancy. I have a few ideas: (1) Add Japan, Germany, India, Brazil, and Indonesia to the Security Council, (2) transform part of the UN into something like a corporate risk management board, but focused on the issues that cause the most suffering and existential risk globally, and (3) have the General Assembly focus on writing model legislation that can be debated and adopted by national legislatures around the world.
  • JULY: Here’s the elevator pitch for why even the most hardened skeptic should care about climate change. We are on a path to (1) lose both polar ice caps, (2) lose the Amazon rain forest, (3) lose our productive farmland, and (4) lose our coastal population centers. If all this comes to pass it will lead to mass starvation, mass refugee flows, and possibly warfare. Unlike even major crises like wars and pandemics, by the time it is obvious to everyone that something needs to be done, there will be very little that can be done.
  • AUGUST: We just had the 15-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, a major regional crisis that federal, state, and local governments failed to competently prepare for or respond to. People died, and decades later the recovery is incomplete. Coronavirus proves we learned nothing, as it is unfolding in a similar way on a much larger and longer scale. There are many potential crises ahead that we need to prepare for today, not least the inundation of major cities. I had a look at the Democratic and (absence of a) Republican platforms, and there is not enough substance in either when it comes to identifying and preparing for the risks ahead.
  • SEPTEMBER: The Covid recession in the U.S. is pretty bad and may be settling in for the long term. Demand for the capital goods we normally export (airplanes, weapons, airplanes that unleash weapons, etc.) is down, demand for oil and cars is down, and the service industry is on life support. Unpaid bills and debts are mounting, and eventually creditors will have to come to terms with this (nobody feels sorry for “creditors”, but what this could mean is we get a full-blown financial panic to go along with the recession in the real economy.
  • OCTOBER: Global ecological collapse is most likely upon us, and our attention is elsewhere. The good news is we still have enough to eat (on average – of course we don’t get it to everyone who needs it), for now.
  • NOVEMBER:  It seems likely the Clinton-Bush-Obama-Trump U.S. foreign wars may just grind on endlessly under Biden. Prove us wrong, Joe! (I give Trump a few points for trying to bring troops home over the objections of the military-industrial complex. But in terms of war and peace, this is completely negated and then some by slippage on nuclear proliferation and weapons on his watch.)
  • DECEMBER: The “Map of Doom” identifies risks that should get the most attention, including antibiotic resistance, synthetic biology (also see below), and some complex of climate change/ecosystem collapse/food supply issues.

Most hopeful stories:

  • JANUARY: Democratic socialism actually does produce a high quality of life for citizens in many parts of the world. Meanwhile, the hard evidence shows that the United States is slipping behind its peer group in many measures of economic vibrancy and quality of life. The response of our leaders is to tell us we are great again because that is what we want to hear, but not do anything that would help us to actually be great again or even keep up with the middle of the pack. This is in the hopeful category because solutions exist and we can choose to pursue them.
  • FEBRUARY: A proven technology exists called high speed rail.
  • MARCH: Some diabetics are hacking their own insulin pumps. Okay, I don’t know if this is a good thing. But if medical device companies are not meeting their patient/customers’ needs, and some of those customers are savvy enough to write software that meets their needs, maybe the medical device companies could learn something.
  • APRIL: Well, my posts were 100% doom and gloom this month, possibly for the first time ever! Just to find something positive to be thankful for, it’s been kind of nice being home and watching my garden grow this spring.
  • MAY: E.O. Wilson is alive and kicking somewhere in Massachusetts. He says if we want to save our fellow species and ourselves, we should just let half the Earth revert to a natural state. Somewhat related to this, and not implying my intellect or accomplishments are on par with E.O. Wilson, I have been giving some thought to “supporting” ecosystem services in cities. When I need a break from intellectual anything, I have been gardening in Pennsylvania with native plants.
  • JUNE: Like many people, I was terrified that the massive street demonstrations that broke out in June would repeat the tragedy of the 1918 Philadelphia war bond parade, which accelerated the spread of the flu pandemic that year. Not only does it appear that was not the case, it is now a source of great hope that Covid-19 just does not spread that easily outdoors. I hope the protests lead to some meaningful progress for our country. Meaningful progress to me would mean an end to the “war on drugs”, which I believe is the immediate root cause of much of the violence at issue in these protests, and working on the “long-term project of providing cradle-to-grave (at least cradle-to-retirement) childcare, education, and job training to people so they have the ability to earn a living, and providing generous unemployment and disability benefits to all citizens if they can’t earn a living through no fault of their own.”
  • JULY: In the U.S. every week since schools and businesses shut down in March, about 85 children lived who would otherwise have died. Most of these would have died in and around motor vehicles.
  • AUGUST: Automatic stabilizers might be boring but they could have helped the economy in the coronavirus crisis. Congress, you failed us again but you can get this done before the next crisis.
  • SEPTEMBER: The Senate Democrats’ Special Committee on the Climate Crisis had the courage to take aim at campaign finance corruption as a central reason for why the world is in its current mess. I hate to be partisan, folks, but right now our government is divided into responsible adults and children. The responsible adults who authored this report are the potential leaders who can lead us forward.
  • OCTOBER: We have almost survived another four years without a nuclear war. Awful as Covid-19 has been, we will get through it despite the current administration’s complete failure to plan, prevent, prepare, respond or manage it. There would be no such muddling through a nuclear war.
  • NOVEMBER: The massive investment in Covid-19 vaccine development may have major spillover effects to cures for other diseases. This could even be the big acceleration in biotechnology that seems to have been on the horizon for awhile. These technologies also have potential negative and frivolous applications, of course.
  • DECEMBER: The Covid-19 vaccines are a modern “moonshot” – a massive government investment driving scientific and technological progress on a particular issue in a short time frame. Only unlike nuclear weapons and the actual original moonshot, this one is not military in nature. (We should be concerned about biological weapons, but let’s allow ourselves to enjoy this victory and take a quick trip to Disney Land before we start practicing for next season…) What should be our next moonshot, maybe fusion power?

Most interesting stories, that were not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps were a mixture of both:

  • JANUARY: Custom-grown human organs and gene editing and micro-satellites, oh my!
  • FEBRUARY: Corporate jargon really is funny. I still don’t know what “dropping a pin” in something means, but I think it might be like sticking a fork in it.
  • MARCH: I studied up a little on the emergency powers available to local, state, and the U.S. federal government in a health crisis. Local jurisdictions are generally subordinate to the state, and that is more or less the way it has played out in Pennsylvania. For the most part, the state governor made the policy decisions and Philadelphia added a few details and implemented them. The article I read said that states could choose to put their personnel under CDC direction, but that hasn’t happened. In fact, the CDC seems somewhat absent in all this other than as a provider of public service announcements. The federal government officials we see on TV are from the “Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases”, which most people never heard of, and to a certain extent the surgeon general. I suppose my expectations on this were created mostly by Hollywood, and if this were a movie the CDC would be swooping in with white suits and saving us, or possibly incinerating the few to save the many. If this were a movie, the coronavirus would also be mutating into a fog that would seep into my living room and turn me inside out, so at least there’s that.
  • APRIL: There’s a comet that might be bright enough to see with the naked eye from North America this month. [Update: It wasn’t. Thanks, 2020.]
  • MAY: There are unidentified flying objects out there. They may or may not be aliens, that has not been identified. But they are objects, they are flying, and they are unidentified.
  • JUNE: Here’s a recipe for planting soil using reclaimed urban construction waste: 20% “excavated deep horizons” (in layman’s terms, I think this is just dirt from construction sites), 70% crushed concrete, and 10% compost.
  • JULY: The world seems to be experiencing a major drop in the fertility rate. This will lead to a decrease in the rate of population growth, changes to the size of the work force relative to the population, and eventually a decrease in the population itself.
  • AUGUST: Vehicle miles traveled have crashed during the coronavirus crisis. Vehicle-related deaths have decreased, but deaths per mile driven have increased, most likely because people drive faster when there is less traffic, absent safe street designs which we don’t do in the U.S. Vehicle miles will rebound, but an interesting question is whether they will rebound short of where they were. One study predicts about 10% lower. This accounts for all the commuting and shopping trips that won’t be taken, but also the increase in deliveries and truck traffic you might expect as a result. It makes sense – people worry about delivery vehicles, but if each parcel in the vehicle is a car trip to the store not taken, overall traffic should decrease. Even if every 5 parcels are a trip not taken, traffic should decrease. I don’t know the correct number, but you get the idea. Now, how long until people realize it is not worth paying and sacrificing space to have a car sitting there that they seldom use. How long before U.S. planners and engineers adopt best practices on street design that are proven to save lives elsewhere in the world?
  • SEPTEMBER: If the universe is a simulation, and you wanted to crash it on purpose, you could try to create a lot of nested simulations of universes within universes until your overload whatever the operating system is. Just hope it’s backed up.
  • OCTOBER: There are at least some bright ideas on how to innovate faster and better.
  • NOVEMBER: States representing 196 electoral votes have agreed to support the National Popular Vote Compact, in which they would always award their state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Colorado has now voted to do this twice. Unfortunately, the movement has a tough road to get to 270 votes, because of a few big states that would be giving up a lot of power if they agreed to it.
  • DECEMBER: Lists of some key technologies that came to the fore in 2020 include (you guessed it) mRNA vaccines, genetically modified crops, a variety of new computer chips and machine learning algorithms, which seem to go hand in hand (and we are hearing more about “machine learning” than “artificial intelligence” these days), brain-computer interfaces, private rockets and moon landings and missions to Mars and mysterious signals and micro-satellites and UFOs, virtual and mixed reality, social media disinformation and work-from-home technologies. The wave of self-driving car hype seems to have peaked and receded, which probably means self-driving cars will probably arrive quietly in the next decade or so. I was surprised not to see cheap renewable energy on any lists that I came across, and I think it belongs there. At least one economist thinks we are on the cusp of a big technology-driven productivity pickup that has been gestating for a few decades.

That’s a lot to unpack, and I’m not sure I can offer a truly brilliant synthesis, but below are a few things that are on my mind as I think through all this.

We Americans affirmed that we care about our parents and grandparents (then failed to fully protect them).

One thing I think we learned is that we still value human lives more than a cold, purely economic calculation might suggest, including the lives of our elderly parents and grandparents. (Though we had significant failures of execution when it came to actually protecting people – more on that later.) We have had this debate before in the U.S., for example when thinking about how much to invest in environmental and safety regulations as I was reminded of by this Planet Money podcast. At one point, politicians (can you guess from which party) proposed valuing the lives of senior citizens at lower rates than everyone else. The backlash was fierce and instant, and the proposal was withdrawn. This year, we did not really have that debate – it was simply accepted, for the most part, that we would be willing to endure significant economy-wide pain to try to protect our parents and grandparents.

I kind of liked how Mr. Money Mustache put it back in April. He gave a “worst case scenario” with 3 million deaths and a “best case scenario” with 200,000 deaths, and the reality is on track to be somewhere in between.

In the worst case, our public officials would all downplay the risk of COVID-19, and we’d keep working and traveling and spreading it freely. We’d maximize our economic activity and let the disease run its course…

In the more compassionate case which we are currently following, we drastically reduce the amount of contact we have with each other for a few months, which cuts the number of deaths in the US down from 3-6 million, down to perhaps 200,000. In exchange, our economy shrinks by several trillion dollars (it was about 21 trillion in 2019) for a year or more.

Assuming we are preventing 3 million early deaths, this means our society is foregoing about one million dollars of economic activity for each person’s life that we extend and frankly, it makes me happy to know we are capable of that.

Mr. Money Mustache

The leaders of some countries like Russia, Brazil, and even Sweden seem to have chosen to accept the consequences of business as usual. Most other countries have chosen to try to save human lives at the expense of short-term economic activity, and some executed this strategy much more effectively than others. In the U.S. and UK, we seem to be bumbling idiots who feel some compassion for one another.

The United States has been slipping for awhile, and in 2020 we faltered.

The U.S. continues to slip below average among its developed country peers in many statistical categories like life expectancy, violence, incarceration, suicide, poverty, and public infrastructure. I picture us like a horse that used to be leading the race, then slipped into the middle of the leading pack, and has now drifted toward the back of the leading pack and is continuing to lose ground. Keep slipping and we would no longer be part of the leading pack.

But then came Covid-19, our horse faltered, and all the other horses went thundering past, leaving us in last place. With the possible exception of the UK, we had the least effective response in the world. Like I said, I think a few countries like Russia, Brazil, and Sweden basically chose to accept the consequences of a limited response, and that is different than a failed response (though not to the people who died or whose loved ones died). We tried to respond, and it turned out our government was unprepared and incompetent even compared to developing countries.

So what happened? Some particular failing of the Anglo-American countries doesn’t explain it, because Canada and Australia both did pretty well. Our lack of a public health system (or even universal access to private care) doesn’t explain it, because the UK, Canada, and Australia all have similar systems to each other and divergent outcomes.

The difference between the extraordinary low rates in Asia, and the higher rates in Europe and the Americas is particularly stark. There are a couple things that I think may explain it. First is good airport screening. I traveled in Asia during the swine flu pandemic, and the screening is robust. The U.S. obviously has to beef up its health infrastructure at international airports and other border crossings (yes, there is a certain irony here that is lost on anti-immigrant types.) Part of this is also beefing up the data systems that track who is coming in from where, where they are going and what their status is. It became obvious within weeks that the CDC’s databases were a complete failure.

I think beyond border screening and data management, the other big difference between East and West is that Asian countries were willing to restrict physical movement and enforce quarantine, whereas western countries mostly were not. Had I exhibited symptoms while I was traveling in Singapore or Thailand during the swine flu, either country would have detained me in a government facility (with three meals a day and wi-fi, one would hope) for 14 days. Asian countries have also been willing to shut down domestic airports, train systems, and highways at times. Most western countries are simply not willing to do this. In the U.S., I think it is partly a matter of law and politics, but also a stupid idea that it would be “too expensive” when quite obviously it would have saved trillions of dollars in the long run. We simply don’t have the political will, the institutional mechanisms, or the basic competence. Covid-19 was a borderline crisis – a lot of people will lose cherished parents and grandparents but it is not an existential threat to our country’s survival. The U.S. needs to plan now to quarantine effectively in an even worse pandemic or god forbid, an incident involving biological weapons.

A few words on government agencies. Hurricane Katrina came up a few times in the monthly picks above. That was a major failure of federal, state, and local governments in the U.S. to plan, respond, and rebuild after a disaster. Before that, I would have assumed FEMA was up to the task, as they seem to have been in the past. Most people’s faith in the CDC was similar or even greater, and they turned out to be bumbling fools. The U.S. will need to fund its public agencies, stock them with competent, well-trained technocrats, and appoint talented political leaders to integrate them with the rest of society if they are going to function competently in the future.

In a hurricane, FEMA basically rolls into your city and takes charge, for better or worse. Early on, there was speculation that the CDC might try to do something similar in a disease outbreak. That didn’t happen. We will also need to adequately fund and train state and local agencies, if we are going to continue to put the lion’s share of the burden on them in a decentralized disaster like this. We could just get rid of the states and have the federal government work directly with metro areas, but this seems like a pretty pie in the sky idea politically.

What other government agencies do we have faith in that might have turned into rotten hollow logs while we weren’t paying attention? The Treasury and Federal Reserve do in fact seem to know what they are doing, which has saved us a couple times now in the last couple decades. We assume the military can fight a war if they need to. We assume the Department of Agriculture can feed us. Are we sure?

The democratization of propaganda.

Governments in general, and the U.S. government in particular, are having trouble getting messages out to their citizens. We used to worry about governments and big business controlling the media to put out purely ideological or purely profit-driven messages. Now anyone in the world can pretty much say anything anytime. People have trouble telling which messages are truthful and which are more reliable than others. In the U.S., this is combined with low trust in government and low trust in experts, and the result is that people either didn’t receive important messages about public health, or received a variety of conflicting information and noise and didn’t reach reasonable conclusions reading to reasonable decisions.

We hear a lot about “following the science” and “listening to scientists”, but this is really about policy communication not science communication. Scientists are trained to communicate uncertainty to each other. Often though, the uncertainty is low enough that it is clear one course of action has better odds of a good outcome than others. Media do not communicate this well – they tend to focus on the uncertainty statements scientists make, even when uncertainty is low and the best course of action is clear. The public is not prepared to process this information in a way that will lead to reasonable conclusions and decisions.

So we need to try to educate children to evaluate the source of information and think critically about whether it makes sense in the context of what they know. We need to educate them about uncertainty and decision making. We need to train journalists better to communicate scientific information but especially policy choices. Regulating social media companies might play some small role in this, but in the U.S. at least we don’t want to see a move toward censorship.

Back to the CDC. When Covid-19 hit, I was expecting the CDC to step in and dominate communications from the beginning on the issue. They needed to use all the tools modern advertising has to get messages across. I would have trusted what they said, and I think a lot of people would. If they had seized the initiative, it would have been hard for other voices to compete, and we might be in a better place now. Unfortunately, they have probably suffered a permanent loss of credibility both through poor communication and inadequate action, but better communication would definitely have helped. Make this one more U.S. institution that has lost credibility in my eyes as I have gotten older – Congress, the State Department, and the New York Times after weapons of mass destruction (I never trusted intelligence agencies), the military after the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq (I’m not saying I trusted them per se, but I thought they were good at fighting wars), FEMA after Hurricane Katrina (and more recently the horrific non-response in Puerto Rico), and now the CDC and federal public health establishment.

I have come to respect local public health authorities more through all of this. I actually work in the same building as my local public health agency, and know some people who work there, but I never really saw the connection to the larger health care system or my daily life before this. Part of the federal government’s communication strategy should be to package crystal clear messages for delivery by trusted local individuals like public health workers, family doctors, and school nurses.

Preparing for the big (and small) risks

Covid-19 has caused me to think even more about risk management. A major pandemic was something we knew was virtually certain to happen at some point, and we knew the consequences could be severe. And yet we still failed to adequately plan, prepare, and respond. There are a few other things in this category, like (obviously) another pandemic, a major earthquake, and sea level rise. Then there are risks where we are not sure of the probability, but the consequences could be catastrophic, like nuclear and biological war, ecological collapse, and major food shortages. (Alien invasion? No, I’m not really taking this seriously, but along with things like “gray goo” it should be on the list and discussed, providing a rational basis for taking action or not.) Then there are things that are certain to happen but are geographically limited (storms, fires, floods) or steadily kill a few people here and there adding up to a lot over time (car crashes, air pollution, poor nutrition). I am not sure where some risks fit in, for example cyberattacks or antibiotic resistance – but this is the point of gathering the information and having the discussions in a rational framework. In a rational world, a risk management framework provides a way to allocate finite resources (money, effort, expertise, research) to planning, preparing, mitigating, or simply choosing to accept each of these.

The state of scientific and technological progress (is the Singularity near yet?)

I had a decent technology list under “most interesting post” for December, so I won’t repeat it here.

Above, I find myself referring to the Covid vaccine as a “moon shot”. It is clearly an example of how a big government push can get a new technology over the finish line and bring it into widespread use quickly. I am wondering though if it is a true example of accelerating a scientific breakthrough, an example of accelerating application of a scientific breakthrough to new technology, or simple a case of government correcting a market failure. We had been hearing about mRNA vaccine technology for awhile, and we know a vaccine was developed for SARS but not widely deployed. We have also been hearing for awhile that drug companies were still growing basic childhood vaccines in chicken eggs, and not investing heavily in the mRNA technology, because the market demand and profit potential was not there in the rich countries to make it worth their while. So this was at least partially a case of the U.S. and other governments making that market failure go away by simply paying for everything and simply transferring the profits to those companies. I am not saying this is bad – we do it for arms manufacturers all the time, so why not vaccines?

Vaccines for HIV, dengue fever and other similar mosquito-borne diseases would be nice. One solution to antibiotic resistance might be bacteriophages – viruses tailored specifically to infect and kill specific bacteria. It seems like this technology could be applied to this. If antibiotic resistance is really the medium- to long-term emergency some say it is, maybe this should be a top priority.

This technology is also scary. It is the ability to create a custom organism that can go into a person’s body and have a specific desired effect. Vaccines are obviously a benign application, but somebody, somewhere, sometime will use this technology for evil. This seems like a near-existential risk on the horizon that needs to be dealt with.

I am going to say no, the Singularity is not imminent in 2021. Then again, the idea is that if at some point we hit the knee of the curve on technology and productivity, it will seem to accelerate all at once, because that is the nature of exponential change. If that happens, we will shrug and say we knew it all along. The trick is to find ways to drive innovation and progress while managing the risks that could temporarily but repeatedly set back or permanently derail that path, and without destroying our planetary ecosystem in the process. I am not ready to put odds on what outcome we are headed for, but I am hoping 2021 will at least bring a gradual return to the pre-Covid status quo, and allow us to set the stage for the future.

If anyone has actually read my ramblings all the way to this point, or just skipped to the end, Happy New Year!