Category Archives: Web Article Review

American Made: The New Manufacturing Landscape

NPR has this series called American Made. It has a variety of interesting articles/interviews but there is a common theme. We are making and selling a lot of stuff, and it has a lot of economic value to be captured. But manufacturing is now a tech industry. It is more capital- and technology-intensive all the time, and less labor-intensive. So favoring manufacturing over other industries is not going to be a path to full employment and sharing the wealth with low- and medium-skilled workers like in the U.S. of the 50s and 60s, or the Asia of the 80s and 90s and 00s. By default the value is going to be captured by a small elite who own the capital or have the skills to create and operate the technology, unless we think of something better.

Also related to this topic, be sure to check out this Dilbert.

 

IPCC AR5

IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report is out. It’s a long, exhausting document that I will probably slog my way through little by little. I’ve pulled out just a couple passages here about food production and fisheries, which are two risks I tend to think about. I think humans can generally deal with higher temperatures and more frequent storms and coastal flooding, because there is such a wide range of these things now and we deal with them. Food production is the intersection of water, energy, and ecosystems.

Assessment of many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops shows that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence). The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with a median change of zero across all available data, which are fewer for soy compared to the other crops. (See Figure 1.11C) Observed impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather than access or other components of food security. Since AR4, several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence)…

Global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions, under climate change, will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services, especially at low latitudes (high confidence). By the mid-21st century, under 2 °C global warming relative to pre-industrial temperatures, shifts in the geographical range of marine species will cause species richness and fisheries catch potential to increase, on average, at mid and high latitudes (high confidence) and to decrease at tropical latitudes and in semi-enclosed seas (Figure 2.6A) (medium confidence). The progressive expansion of Oxygen Minimum Zones and anoxic ‘dead zones’ in the oceans will further constrain fish habitats (medium confidence). Open-ocean net primary production is projected to redistribute and to decrease globally, by 2100, under all RCP scenarios (medium confidence). Climate change adds to the threats of over-fishing and other non-climatic stressors (high confidence).

We talk so much about the atmosphere, but our oceans, forests, and soils are absorbing a lot of the carbon emissions, and are the reason our planet and current civilization are as resilient as they are. We better take care of them.

1989

“We’ve got to do more to ameliorate the violence and suffering that afflict so many regions in the world, and to remove common threats to our future. The deterioration of the environment, the spread of nuclear and chemical weapons, ballistic missile technology…”
-George H.W. Bush, December 3, 1989

Hmm…how are we doing on this stuff now?

Russell Brand vs. John Oliver

I enjoy Russell Brand’s take on American social issues here. His show is a little bit like John Oliver’s show, in that it is insightful yet delightfully hilarious commentary interspersed with real facts, figures and news clips. The main difference is that Russell is in his bedroom rather than a television studio, and does not appear to have taken a shower or put on a clean shirt yet.

houses and cars

This article from Atlantic Monthly saying Millennials are not interested in houses and cars has been talked about a lot. The car companies think they just haven’t hit on the right propaganda yet:

Don’t blame Ford. The company is trying to solve a puzzle that’s bewildering every automaker in America: How do you sell cars to Millennials (a k a Generation Y)? The fact is, today’s young people simply don’t drive like their predecessors did. In 2010, adults between the ages of 21 and 34 bought just 27 percent of all new vehicles sold in America, down from the peak of 38 percent in 1985. Miles driven are down, too. Even the proportion of teenagers with a license fell, by 28 percent, between 1998 and 2008.

In a bid to reverse these trends, General Motors has enlisted the youth-brand consultants at MTV Scratch—a corporate cousin of the TV network responsible for Jersey Shore—to give its vehicles some 20-something edge. “I don’t believe that young buyers don’t care about owning a car,” says John McFarland, GM’s 31-year-old manager of global strategic marketing. “We just think nobody truly understands them yet.” Subaru, meanwhile, is betting that it can appeal to the quirky eco-­conscious individualism that supposedly characterizes this generation. “We’re trying to get the emotional connection correct,” says Doug O’Reilly, a publicist for Subaru. Ford, for its part, continues to push heavily into social media, hoping to more closely match its marketing efforts to the channels that Millennials use and trust the most.

I think Millennials have encountered a tough economy. If economic conditions improve and they have more money, they will find ways to spend it. But not necessarily on cars. I think cars are just fundamentally different from all the other things we can buy with our money. No other good just completely saturates the physical environment, and drives the entire way our physical world is set up, the way cars do. Cars have physically saturated our world to the point that there is no room to squeeze any more of them in. Getting around our car-oriented world is just not convenient any more, and people are smart enough to realize that no matter how much advertising is thrown at them. Advertising messages that cars represent “freedom” are just not going to resonate with most people any more. And as far as status and sex appeal, I don’t believe for a second that our species has fundamentally changed – those things still matter to our species of large hairless ape but they are moving on to new forms.

Cars kill, pollute, waste our space and waste our time – good riddance.

shale bust?

This article casts doubt on the U.S. government’s predictions of domestic oil and gas production. Granted, it is from something called the Post Carbon Institute which may have a point of view.

This report finds that tight oil production from major plays will peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Bakken or Eagle Ford, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Tight oil production from the two top plays, the Bakken and Eagle Ford, will underperform the EIA’s reference case oil recovery by 28% from 2013 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from the Bakken and Eagle Ford will be less than a tenth of that projected by the EIA. Tight oil production forecast by the EIA from plays other than the Bakken and Eagle Ford is in most cases highly optimistic and unlikely to be realized at the medium- and long-term rates projected.

Shale gas production from the top seven plays will also likely peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Marcellus, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Shale gas production from the top seven plays will underperform the EIA’s reference case forecast by 39% from 2014 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from these plays will be about one-third that of the EIA forecast. Production from shale gas plays other than the top seven will need to be four times that estimated by the EIA in order to meet its reference case forecast.

nanotech “pill”

According to Wired, Google X is working on nanotechnology that can swim around in your blood and tell you what it finds:

“Because the core of these particles is magnetic, you can call them somewhere,” Conrad said, indicating that you could use a wearable device to gather them in the superficial veins on the inside of your wrist. “These little particles go out and mingle with the people, we call them back to one place, and we ask them: ‘Hey, what did you see? Did you find cancer? Did you see something that looks like a fragile plaque for a heart attack? Did you see too much sodium?”

Naomi Oreskes

From the New York Times, here are some attention grabbing quotes:

driverless vehicles and displacement of drivers

Here is a continuation of the Economist‘s musings about automation:

The possibility of a world in which a rather large share of the population works as drivers, simply because human labour has gotten too cheap to automate out of the job, should focus minds on the nature of the policy challenge economies are beginning to face. Is work—and the link between work and the earning of an income sufficient to live on—so important to society that we should want millions of people to function as meatware: doing jobs sensors and computers could and would do if only there were not an excess supply of humans needing to work in order to afford food and shelter?

That’s not a rhetorical question. It’s a genuine puzzle that societies will find themselves confronting in coming decades. It will be obvious to many people that the answer is no and just as obvious to many others that the answer is yes. I cannot begin to say which side will win the argument.

The idea is that as automated vehicle technology becomes more effective and inexpensive, it will start to put more drivers out of work. But having more drivers available will reduce wages for drivers, possibly below what the automated technology costs and reducing the incentive for further development of the technology. It’s logical, but this sort of thing must have happened throughout history, and technology tends to win even if it takes a while. Take agricultural technology like diesel-powered tractors – when they got cheaper and more effective, they put enormous numbers of agricultural workers out of work. For the most part, those people didn’t accept lower wages and continue as agricultural workers, they migrated and tried to find better jobs in manufacturing, jobs that were also unfortunately drying up due to globalization and automation. The result, in the U.S. at least, was formation of a (seemingly, so far) permanent new underclass. So not only are these issues about technology vs. jobs, they are about how (whether) the wealth created by the new technology is going to be shared throughout society. In theory, we could retrain people and better educate their children, while also working less and sharing income more broadly. But that doesn’t sound like the American way, does it?