Author Archives: rdmyers75@hotmail.com

more on climate change and U.S. farming

This NPR article says that climate change is allowing North Dakota farmers to switch from wheat to corn.

“Especially the increase in moisture has allowed for better yields and more profit in corn than, say, if we had some of the lesser moisture we had in the ’70s and the ’80s,” Ritchison says.

Corn and soybeans, which also like the moisture, now cover about 15 percent of North Dakota’s cropland, says Ritchison, and the number of acres keeps expanding. The Slabaugh farm is a prime example of corn’s advance. They will plant at least 1,500 acres this year — compared to none 10 years ago.

Changes in weather patterns aren’t the only reason for the move to corn. The crop is also more lucrative: Corn produces much bigger yields per acre than wheat.

All well and good for those farmers, but this doesn’t strike me as an upbeat story in the larger context. If we are in danger of losing productive farmland in many states due to a combination of heat, drought, and groundwater depletion, is it really so helpful that productive farmland in other states is now able to switch from one crop to another? Even if biotechnology helps and yields get higher, it seems like it would be a net loss. This is the United States. What is the story in the tropics, where there is generally less farmland and more people?

genuine progress indicator

Vermont is going to have a go at the Genuine Progress Indicator, a GDP alternative:

Estimating the GPI begins with household consumption, the major component of Gross Domestic (or State) Product (GDP), followed by twenty-four separate adjustments including:

  • Additions for benefits not included in GDP, for example the values of volunteer and household work, and non-market benefits from the services of forests (e.g. water purification) and wetlands (e.g. buffer storm events);
  • Deductions for depletion of our environmental assets, harm to human health, costs of underemployment, and loss of leisure time; and
  • Adjustment for the distribution of income received by citizens, more accurately measuring the ability of the economy to provide for all.

The website explains in detail how the calculations are done.

you know nothing, snow

From Wired Science:

The western United States is undergoing a major shift in precipitation patterns. Large swaths of the West that have historically been dominated by snow in the winter months are starting to see a lot more rain instead. A new study that maps out the predominant form of precipitation shows that this trend could result in an average reduction in snow-dominated area of around 30 percent by the middle of this century.

The western US depends heavily on snowpack to sustain its water supply through the dry summertime, but the new research, published in Geophysical Research Letters in July, suggests this may have to change.

Hmm…here’s the abstract of the paper…not quite so sensational sounding although it still clearly says there is going to be a lot less snow:

This approach identifies areas most likely to undergo precipitation phase change over the next half century. At broad scales, these projections indicate an average 30% decrease in areal extent of winter wet-day temperatures conducive to snowfall over the western United States.

climate change, water, and corn

Here are a couple stories on U.S. corn yields:

From the “Risky Business Project“:

Shifting agricultural patterns and crop yields, with likely gains for Northern farmers offset by losses in the Midwest and South.

  • As extreme heat spreads across the middle of the country by the end of the century, some states in the Southeast, lower Great Plains, and Midwest risk up to a 50% to 70% loss in average annual crop yields (corn, soy, cotton, and wheat), absent agricultural adaptation.

  • At the same time, warmer temperatures and carbon fertilization may improve agricultural productivity and crop yields in the upper Great Plains and other northern states.

  • Food systems are resilient at a national and global level, and agricultural producers have proven themselves extremely able to adapt to changing climate conditions. These shifts, however, still carry risks for the individual farming communities most vulnerable to projected climatic changes.

From Ceres:

  • 87% of irrigated U.S. corn is grown in regions with high or extremely high water stress, meaning there is limited additional water available for expansion of crop irrigation. The most vulnerable regions are in Nebraska, Kansas, California, Colorado and Texas.
  • 27% of rainfed corn is grown in regions with high or extremely high water stress, meaning that there is limited water available should climate change make irrigation necessary. The most vulnerable regions are in Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan.
  • Twelve ethanol refineries above the High Plains aquifer – with nearly $1.7 billion in annual corn ethanol production capacity – are sourcing corn in areas experiencing cumulative declines in groundwater levels. Six of these refineries are in regions of extreme water-level decline (between 50-150 feet).

To me, this sounds like a lot of today’s productive farmland may not stay that way due to a combination of higher temperatures and drought. Can we really open up enough farmland and/or increase yields in “Northern States” to make up the difference? I suppose maybe there are areas of Canada that could go from ice-covered to prime farmland, as long as they stay wet enough.

Elon Musk

Elon Musk says he is trying to put people on Mars in 10-12 years, put sustainable colonies on Mars longer term as a hedge against human extinction, build cheap batteries for cheap electric cars and houses, build cheap solar panels to charge the batteries, and protect us against killer artificial intelligence. He also thinks other people should advance the Hyperloop and figure out how we can live forever. I think this is a pretty good to-do list.

alternative energy

This article (in the descriptively name journal Energy) describes how California could move to an all-renewable energy future, then tries to put an economic value on that. It is always the link between air pollution and health that surprises me. Why don’t people get more upset that power plants and vehicle exhaust are literally taking years off all our lives when there are other alternatives out there?

This study presents a roadmap for converting California’s all-purpose (electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry) energy infrastructure to one derived entirely from wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) generating electricity and electrolytic hydrogen. California’s available WWS resources are first evaluated. A mix of WWS generators is then proposed to match projected 2050 electric power demand after all sectors have been electrified. The plan contemplates all new energy from WWS by 2020, 80–85% of existing energy converted by 2030, and 100% by 2050. Electrification plus modest efficiency measures may reduce California’s end-use power demand ∼44% and stabilize energy prices since WWS fuel costs are zero. Several methods discussed should help generation to match demand. A complete conversion in California by 2050 is estimated to create ∼220,000 more 40-year jobs than lost, eliminate ∼12,500 (3800–23,200) state air-pollution premature mortalities/yr, avoid $103 (31–232) billion/yr in health costs, representing 4.9 (1.5–11.2)% of California’s 2012 gross domestic product, and reduce California’s 2050 global climate cost contribution by $48 billion/yr. The California air-pollution health plus global climate cost benefits from eliminating California emissions could equal the $1.1 trillion installation cost of 603 GW of new power needed for a 100% all-purpose WWS system within ∼7 (4–14) years.

more on corporate social responsibility

Just thinking some more about yesterday’s post on the profit motive and shareholder value as the only responsibilities of business. I remembered a recent interview with Noam Chomsky where I thought he explained very well why profit maximizing entities do not automatically serve the greater good:

In market systems, you don’t take account of what economists call externalities. So say you sell me a car. In a market system, we’re supposed to look after our own interests, so I make the best deal I can for me; you make the best deal you can for you. We do not take into account the effect on him. That’s not part of a market transaction. Well, there is an effect on him: there’s another car on the road; there’s a greater possibility of accidents; there’s more pollution; there’s more traffic jams. For him individually, it might be a slight increase, but this is extended over the whole population. Now, when you get to other kinds of transactions, the externalities get much larger… Destruction of the environment is an externality: in market interactions, you don’t pay attention to it. So take tar sands. If you’re a major energy corporation and you can make profit out of exploiting tar sands, you simply do not take into account the fact that your grandchildren may not have a possibility of survival — that’s an externality. And in the moral calculus of capitalism, greater profits in the next quarter outweigh the fate of your grandchildren — and of course it’s not your grandchildren, but everyone’s.

What makes the gospel of shareholder value so insidious is that it gives the human beings inside corporations a shield to hide behind – an excuse to not ask any questions about right and wrong in their daily actions. I think Milton Friedman has it right that a business corporation on paper is a completely amoral entity. Now it appears that business corporations are evolving and molding a whole new species of human beings in their image! As children we are taught to think about right and wrong every day, but then as adults we don’t have to any more. This is not human at all, and we can reject it – the managers and employees at the car companies and energy companies have a responsibility to think about right and wrong every day and to make choices that are consistent with what they think is right. If the only thing that is right is not working for that company, then so be it. Consumers can do the same. The political system can provide somewhat of an ethical framework for society from the top down, but we individual humans need to take responsibility for our daily actions and meet it halfway.

the gospel of shareholder value

This article from the Boston Globe talks about the idea that maximizing profits and shareholder value (which hypothetically is the present value of all future profits) is the sole function of a corporation.

Experts on the history of business say the Market Basket saga is a window onto something deeper than a power struggle among the Demoulas clan that owns it. They see it as emblematic of a war over the future of the American corporation—what its purpose is, how it should be run, and whom it should be engineered to benefit. They argue that maximizing profit and shareholder value—an approach to running companies that drives investment on Wall Street and serves as the closest thing to modern management gospel—is only one way of defining corporate success, and a fairly new one at that…

Post and others argue that a well-run company can—and should—be managed in a way that benefits not just the investors who own its stock, but a wide range of constituents. As opposed to “shareholders,” they call these people “stakeholders”: a group that includes employees, customers, suppliers, and creditors, as well as the broader community in which the company operates, and even the country that it calls home. According to that view, Market Basket’s employees and customers are essential to the firm’s success and, thus, rightful beneficiaries of its prosperity.

It also links back to a 1970 Milton Friedman article in which he argued that it is unethical for a person employed by a corporation to try to be ethical on the company dime:

In a free-enterprise, private-property sys­tem, a corporate executive is an employee of the owners of the business. He has direct re­sponsibility to his employers. That responsi­bility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while con­forming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom.

The main problem I have with this is that the ownership of corporations is so diffuse these days that it is almost impossible for shareholders to exercise any sort of ethical control. Many shareholders are large institutions that collectively have no motives beyond the profit motive, even if individuals among them are ethical. No, the only way for society as a whole to behave ethically is for the vast majority of individuals to consciously act ethically every day – be they shareholders, employees, or customers. I don’t see that happening today.

more on Ebola

Spillover: Animal Infections and the Next Human Pandemic

NPR has an interview with the author of this book. An excerpt:

How did we go from a virus that’s found largely in animals to a virus that can be deadly for humans — and spread across four countries?

Human behavior is causing this problem. More and more, we’re going into wild, diverse ecosystems around the world, especially tropical forests.

Some scientists believe that each individual species of animal, plant, bacterium and fungus in these places carries at least one unique virus, maybe even 10 of them.

We, humans, go into those wild ecosystems. We cut down trees. We build mines, roads and villages. We kill the animals and eat them. Or we capture them and transport them around the world.

In doing that, we expose ourselves to all these viruses living around the world. That gives the viruses the opportunity to spill over into humans. Then in some cases, once the virus makes that first spillover, it discovers that it might be highly transmissible in humans. Then you might have an epidemic or a pandemic…

The experts I talk to say the next big one will almost certainly be caused by a zoonotic virus, coming out of animals. And it’s likely to be one that is transmissible through the respiratory route — that is, through a sneeze or cough.

Ebola is not an easily transmissible virus. It requires direct contact with bodily fluids. It doesn’t travel on the respiratory route.

Viruses such as the and SARS are much more of a concern to scientists that study these things than Ebola because they are already transmissible through the respiratory route. They are also highly adaptable, and they mutate quickly.

In terms of the next big one, SARS and MERS stand higher on the watch list than Ebola.