May 2018 broke a heat record last set during the 1930s Dust Bowl. I’m trying to think of some clever Grapes of Wrath reference to illustrate how clever and well-read I am. Nothing is coming. Well, let’s just point out that last time it was this hot, a segment of the U.S. population was living in poverty as a result.
Category Archives: Web Article Review
China passes U.S. in healthy life expectancy
- U.S. citizens still live a bit longer than Chinese citizens on average, but Chinese citizens have drawn even and slightly surpassed us in health.
https://www.axios.com/chinese-people-now-healthy-longer-than-americans-6dc7235f-e057-45ee-a975-c433611edabf.html
This would be perfectly fine if it just represented China catching up, but I suspect it represents the U.S. stalling as both our peers and developing countries continue to progress.
Vicar of Bray
Michael Liebreich at Bloomberg New Energy Finance describes renewable energy investments some oil and gas companies are making, which he calls the “Vicar of Bray”. I don’t quite get the reason for that name.
Under the first strategy – which we could call the Vicar of Bray – oil and gas companies attempt to maintain leadership of the commanding heights of the energy industry as it shifts away from fossil fuels to clean energy, through a perfectly-timed and elegantly-executed redirection of capital and human capacity.
Early attempts at the Vicar of Bray include BP’s famous “Beyond Petroleum” rebranding under Lord Browne in 2000 – which was followed by the investment of $8 billion in clean energy, some of which was later written off. Similarly, Shell tried to gain a leadership position in the nascent solar sector by buying Siemens Solar in 2002; six years later it sold the sub-scale and failing operation. David Crane, former CEO of NRG, famously failed in his attempt to turn it into a clean energy company.
Today, it looks like all the major European oil companies are planning on some variant of Vicar of Bray. Shell (disclosure: whose New Energies Advisory Board I recently joined) has announced its intention to invest $2 billion per year in its New Energies division until 2020, out of its total capital spending of $25-30 billion; BP is investing a more modest $0.5 billion out of its $15 billion capex budget. French oil giant Total has committed to 20 percent low-carbon businesses within 20 years (although this includes mid-stream and down-stream gas). Statoil has been investing in floating offshore wind as well as carbon capture and sequestration, and this year announced its relaunch as Equinor, removing “oil” from its name, if not from its cash flows.
MIT makes crazy AI on purpose
A group at MIT showed an AI algorithm really disturbing pictures and then asked it what it saw in some inkblots.
When a “normal” algorithm generated by artificial intelligence is asked what it sees in an abstract shape it chooses something cheery: “A group of birds sitting on top of a tree branch.”
Norman sees a man being electrocuted.
And where “normal” AI sees a couple of people standing next to each other, Norman sees a man jumping from a window.
The psychopathic algorithm was created by a team at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as part of an experiment to see what training AI on data from “the dark corners of the net” would do to its world view.
The software was shown images of people dying in gruesome circumstances, culled from a group on the website Reddit.
Then the AI, which can interpret pictures and describe what it sees in text form, was shown inkblot drawings and asked what it saw in them.
Personally, I’m afraid of the people who spend their time seeking out photos of people dying violently and posting them on Reddit. As for the algorithm, I suppose it could be trained to identify and block violent images like the ones it has been shown, or kiddie porn, or ads targeting minors, etc. Or in the wrong hands, it could be used to block political speech or repress certain people or groups. Or the highest bidding company could get to use it to repress competitors’ ads.
Trump may bail out obsolete coal-fired power plants
According to Bloomberg, the Trump administration is about to subsidize obsolete, inefficient, and polluting coal-fired power plants. Remember the Republican sound bite about “picking winners and losers”? Hypocrites.
The plan cuts to the heart of a debate over the reliability and resiliency of a rapidly evolving U.S. electricity grid. Nuclear and coal-fired power plants are struggling to compete against cheap natural gas and renewable electricity. As nuclear and coal plants are decommissioned, regulators have been grappling with how to ensure that the nation’s power system can withstand extreme weather events and cyber-attacks…
The Energy Department would be relying partly on the Federal Power Act — the so-called Section 202 authority — that lets the administration order guaranteed profits for power plants that can store large amounts of fuel on site. And the Energy Department would be tapping the 68-year-old Defense Production Act, a Cold War-era statute once invoked by President Harry Truman to help the steel industry…
The issue is a priority for some of the president’s top supporters, including coal moguls Robert E. Murray and Joseph Craft of Alliance Resource Partners, who donated a million dollars to the president’s inauguration. The move would be one of the most direct efforts by Trump to make good on campaign promises to revive the nation’s shrinking coal industry…
flat earth
I thought the flat earth thing was just sort of a joke. Apparently not. People believe it, and the way they convince themselves and dismiss any evidence to the contrary is instructive. If people can believe this because it seems to them like “common sense”, they can very easily convince themselves not to try to grasp and understand the more complex science and system interactions that govern so much of our lives.
how about a war tax?
Part of the reason the U.S. public accepts continuous war as normal is that we don’t realize how much we are paying for it. The idea of a war tax sounds politically crazy, but is is? It used to be pretty standard. Congress would declare war, ordinary people would be drafted and taxed, and people would generally be supportive but expect the war to end and things to go back to the way they were.
Until the Vietnam War, American presidents regularly introduced war taxes, seemingly less worried about offending the people than about financing the war. In some cases, the government had to work to elicit fiscal sacrifice, for example, with a pro-tax Disney cartoon in 1943 that touted “Taxes to Beat the Axis” during World War II. In most cases, the taxes did not actually offend the people…
In 2009, during debates about the Afghanistan surge, House Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey proposed a tax that would require homes with incomes between $30,000 and $150,000 to pay 1 percent on top of their existing taxes, and higher levels for the wealthier. Veterans of both Iraq and Afghanistan would be exempt: “We’re just trying to keep in the forefront what the financial costs are.”
Indeed, a study of the costs of these wars showed that the public is blissfully disconnected. In 2014, I surveyed 350 Americans and asked them to estimate the costs of the Afghanistan war to that point. Responses ranged from a million dollars to “probably $10 trillion. A lot more than we can afford.” The typical response was “I have no idea — $100 million?” The real answer at that point was $686 billion. Americans cannot make sense of such enormous figures. They can, however, make sense of their own budgets, which is why the connection with taxes is so much tighter, and why individuals become invested in the conduct of the war when war taxes are levied. As both Tilly and Smith observed, the visibility and intrusiveness of taxes are exactly what make individuals scrutinize the service for which the resources are being used. In the case of war, it means paying more scrupulous attention to its duration, goals, and cost.
running out of bombs?
The military-industrial complex needs to engage in continuous war so it can be ready in case a war starts. Or so I interpret the logic. Is this part of some vast, hidden conspiracy? Well, no, apparently they put a report out about it periodically.
The Pentagon plans to invest more than $20 billion in munitions in its next budget. But whether the industrial base will be there to support such massive buys in the future is up in the air — at a time when America is expending munitions at increasingly intense rates.
The annual Industrial Capabilities report, put out by the Pentagon’s Office of Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy, has concluded that the industrial base of the munitions sector is particularly strained, something the report blames on the start-and-stop nature of munitions procurement over the last 20 years, as well as the lack of new designs being internally developed…
All this is happening as the U.S. is expending munitions at a rapid rate. For instance, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction concluded that 1,186 munitions were dropped in that country during the first quarter of 2018 ― the highest number recorded for the first three months of the year since tracking began in 2013; that number is also more than two and a half times the amount dropped in the first quarter of 2017.
Interesting, and I thought the Afghanistan war was more or less over. It seems like wars don’t really end any more, and the public now accepts ongoing regional wars as normal.
@RealObamaCareForecast
The Congressional Budget Office has a new forecast of the fate of Obama care over the next 10 years. And the verdict is…the system is not in a death spiral. Premiums are forecast to rise faster than inflation, which is bad, and the number of people without insurance is forecast to rise slightly, which is bad unless you believe for some reason that these people are not entitled to the same human rights you are entitled to, for whatever reason, but that system is “stable”, i.e. not in a “death spiral”
The paragraph below caught my eye for a couple reasons. First, Obama care is only 10% of all government health care expenditures. Medicare is also only about 10%, which is amazing and I suspect almost everyone has the wrong idea about that. Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program are a whopping 40%. Subsidies for corporate health insurance are the remaining 40%.
Net federal subsidies for insured people in 2018 will total $685 billion.
That amount is projected to reach $1.2 trillion in 2028. Medicaid and the
Children’s Health Insurance Program account for about 40 percent of that
total, as do subsidies in the form of tax benefits for work-related insurance.
Medicare accounts for about 10 percent, as do subsidies for coverage
obtained through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act
or through the Basic Health Program.
So what surprises me is that we are covering the elderly pretty thoroughly and pretty cost-effectively, while coverage for the poor seems to be both inadequate and extremely cost inefficient. And certainly, the system of hidden tax subsidies for corporate workers is grossly inefficient. So why does the public put up with all this? First, old people love to complain but at the end of the day they are reasonably well taken care of at a reasonable price. Upper-middle-class professional workers receive high quality care and don’t realize how heavily-subsidized and cost-inefficient that care is. These two groups make up a lot of the swing voters. The majority of those swing voters have bought into the decades of neo-fascist propaganda that the poor are undeserving for one reason or another, and therefore their sense of natural human empathy is damped down. and the poor themselves are not politically mobilized. Big business in general might be just as happy for government to take the responsibility for health coverage off their shoulders, but they are not really disadvantaged financially by the present system so they don’t fight it. The big exception of course is the insurance/finance industry which benefits directly from the inefficiencies of the current system, and certainly is politically mobilized.
self-flying urban helicopters
Here’s a new entry in the genre of self-flying urban helicopters, brought to you by the military industrial complex.