Another thing Axios is worried about is a “crippling cyber-attack”.
Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said this week that the U.S. is in “crisis mode,” comparing the danger of a massive attack to a Category 5 hurricane looming on the horizon. Intelligence chiefs from the last three administrations agree, and told Axios there is no graver threat to the United States.
Axios says it could be Pakistan, if the extremist elements the military has cultivated as weapons against neighbors India and Afghanistan ever gain control at home.
Pakistan has the world’s 5th largest population, 5th largest military and 6th largest nuclear arsenal. The danger begins, Morell says, with a dysfunctional economy and a rapidly growing population of young people without education or job prospects. Add to that a military that continues to call the shots as though war could break out at any moment.
Noam Chomsky’s take on Trump and Russia is interesting. He is contrarian, as usual. To summarize, he is worried that climate change and nuclear weapons are existential threats to our civilization, and he thinks our political system is failing to deal with these threats regardless of who is nominally in charge.
So, of all Trump’s policies, the one that is the most dangerous and destructive, in fact poses an existential threat, is his policies on climate change, on global warming. That’s really destructive. And we’re facing an imminent threat, not far removed, of enormous damage. The effects are already visible but nothing like what’s going to come. A sea level rise of a couple of feet will be massively destructive. It will make today’s immigration issues look like trivialities. And it’s not that the administration is unaware of this. So, Donald Trump, for example, is perfectly aware of the dangerous effects, in the short term, of global warming. So, for example, recently he applied to the government of Ireland for permission to build a wall to protect his golf course in Ireland from rising sea levels. And Rex Tillerson, who was supposed to be the adult in the room before he was thrown out, as CEO of ExxonMobil, was devoting enormous resources to climate change denial, although he had, sitting on his desk, the reports of ExxonMobil scientists, who, since the ’70s, in fact, were on the forefront of warning of the dire effects of this accelerating phenomenon. I don’t know what word in the language — I can’t find one — that applies to people of that kind, who are willing to sacrifice the literal — the existence of organized human life, not in the distant future, so they can put a few more dollars in highly overstuffed pockets. The word “evil” doesn’t begin to approach it. These are the kinds of issues that should be under discussion. Instead, what’s being — there is a focus on what I believe are marginalia…
And I think we find this on issue after issue, also on issues on which what Trump says, for whatever reason, is not unreasonable. So, he’s perfectly right when he says we should have better relations with Russia. Being dragged through the mud for that is outlandish, makes — Russia shouldn’t refuse to deal with the United States because the US carried out the worst crime of the century in the invasion of Iraq, much worse than anything Russia has done. But they shouldn’t refuse to deal with us for that reason, and we shouldn’t refuse to deal with them for whatever infractions they may have carried out, which certainly exist. This is just absurd. We have to move towards better — right at the Russian border, there are very extreme tensions, that could blow up anytime and lead to what would in fact be a terminal nuclear war, terminal for the species and life on Earth. We’re very close to that. Now, we could ask why. First of all, we should do things to ameliorate it. Secondly, we should ask why. Well, it’s because NATO expanded after the collapse of the Soviet Union, in violation of verbal promises to Mikhail Gorbachev, mostly under Clinton, partly under first Bush, then Clinton expanded right to the Russian border, expanded further under Obama. The US has offered to bring Ukraine into NATO. That’s the kind of a heartland of Russian geostrategic concerns. So, yes, there’s tensions at the Russian border — and not, notice, at the Mexican border. Well, those are all issues that should be of primary concern. The fate of — the fate of organized human society, even of the survival of the species, depends on this. How much attention is given to these things as compared with, you know, whether Trump lied about something? I think those seem to me the fundamental criticisms of the media.
I’m intrigued by these high-tech camp stoves from Biolite (note there may be other, similar products/companies out there, and I am not selling anything on this site.) They use fans and electronics to burn wood or other types of biomass very efficiently for cooking, supposedly produce minimal smoke, and can charge electronic devices. Some of them can charge their own batteries and/or hook up to solar panels to charge them.
It should be obvious that you can’t just stop using plastic straws and pat yourself on the back for saving the earth. The much bigger problem is packaging, and this article in Scientific American has some ideas for how it could be tackled, and how it has been in a few countries not called the United States.
Legislators could make laws that incentivize and facilitate recycling, like the national bottle deposit and bag tax bills that were proposed in 2009. These bills would have created a nationwide five-cent deposit on plastic bottles and other containers, and a nonrefundable five-cent charge on plastic bags at checkout. The U.K. launched a similar charge on all single-use grocery bags in 2015 and announced a nationwide bottle deposit requirement in March of this year. Within six months of the plastic bag charge being in place, usage dropped over 80 percent. Similarly, in Germany, where a nationwide bottle bill was put in place in 2003, recycling rates have exceeded 98 percent. In the U.S. these actions would go a long way toward recovering the estimated $8 billion yearly economic opportunity cost of plastic waste.
Other actions could include a ban or “opt-in” policy on single-use items like plastic straws. That is, single-use plastic items would not be available or only upon request. A small tweak like this can lead to huge changes in consumer behavior, by making wastefulness an active choice rather than the status quo. Such measures were recently adopted by several U.S. cities, and are under consideration in California and the U.K.
Another, somewhat obvious, idea would be to tax packaging. This would raise some revenue while also nudging companies toward solutions that reduce, reuse, or recycle the packaging to avoid the tax. Some other tax could be reduced to offset this new one, if that seems critically important.
This article describes how an old home was retrofit into an extraordinarily energy efficient “passive house“.
I’m guessing the owners are not poverty-stricken. Then again, there must be some payback period and I wonder if it is measured in years or decades. If it pays back reasonably, there should be some kind of financial arrangement that would allow ordinary people to do this.
The UK is considering allowing gene editing of heritable, or “germline” genes. This report lays out some of the ethical considerations and concludes that research should continue.
Der Spiegel describes the Chinese government’s surveillance of a minority population in the western part of the country.
Beijing is equipping the far-western province with state-of-the-art surveillance technology, with cameras illuminating every street all over the region, from the capital Urumqi to the most remote mountain village. Iris scanners and WiFi sniffers are in use in stations, airports and at the ubiquitous checkpoints — tools and programs that allow data traffic from wireless networks to be monitored.
The data is then collated by an “integrated joint operations platform” that also stores further data on the populace — from consumer habits to banking activity, health status and indeed the DNA profile of every single inhabitant of Xinjiang.
Anyone with a potentially suspicious data trail can be detained. The government has built up a grid of hundreds of re-education camps. Tens of thousands of people have disappeared into them in recent months. Zenz estimates the number to be closer to hundreds of thousands. More precise figures are difficult to obtain. Censorship in Xinjiang is the strictest in China and its authorities the most inscrutable.
Later the article talks about reeducation camps and a point system that rates how “trustworthy” families are.
Here are the world’s 10 best-performing urban economies according to Brookings.
- Dublin, Ireland
- San Jose, USA
- Chengdu, China
- San Francisco, USA
- Beijing, China
- Delhi, India
- Manila, Philippines
- Fuzhou, China
- Tianjin, China
- Xiamen, China
Here is a brief explanation of the methodology:
This Global Metro Monitor employs several key variables to assess the economic performance of metropolitan areas: gross domestic product (GDP), employment, population, and GDP per capita, all from 2000 to 2016. For static analysis and cross-border comparison, this study employs nominal GDP at purchasing power parity rates. For trends analysis, it uses GDP data at 2009 prices and expressed in U.S. dollars. Data availability and comparability at metropolitan level precluded expanding the economic analysis to other indicators of interest, such as housing prices, employment rates, unemployment rates, and income distributions.
Clearly, there is no consideration of health, ecosystem services, or sustainability here.
This Reuters article suggests the current U.S. housing bubble may be starting to deflate, if not pop. I don’t quite follow the logic, because it seems to suggest at the same time that the rate of housing starts is not sufficient to meet demand, and that the cost of construction is rising due to rising material, land, and labor costs. In basic economics 101 class, if there is an unmet demand, prices are supposed to rise until supply equals demand. But maybe people are just not willing or able to buy houses they want at the current market prices. What do they do instead? Again in textbook economics land, they should move to less expensive locales, buy smaller houses, live with roommates, rent extra rooms on AirBnB, etc. I guess there are all sorts of legal and cultural reasons these things don’t happen enough or fast enough for the market to equilibrate. Still, even knowing that the real world is not the textbook economic world, it’s hard to buy the argument that developers aren’t building houses because there aren’t as many houses for sale as people who want to buy houses.