Category Archives: Web Article Review

What’s new with “decoupling”?

Decoupling is the idea that environmental impact per unit of economic growth is declining. If it were to decline fast enough, in theory, it would be possible for growth the continue indefinitely at the same time absolute impact is declining. This article tries to measure the rate this may or may not be happening, and concludes the long term trend is not even close to being on a path where we could turn the corner and see absolute impact stabilize, let alone decline.

While globally, CO2 emissions per unit of GDP are declining, the decoupling rate from 1995 to 2018 was only -1.8 percent annually. To achieve net zero by 2050, the rate would have to accelerate to -8.7 percent, assuming population and GDP growth projections as given, or by a factor of almost five.

Bruegel.org

This seems about right to me. The idea that we need to choose between “growth” and sustainability in the long term, of course, is logically flawed. If impacts continue to grow, there will come a point where the system breaks and human welfare is no longer able to increase.

There are a few flaws in the decoupling argument. “Growth”, as usually measured by GDP, is a measure of gross economic activity, which includes both benefits and costs to humanity. So in comparing impacts (costs) to GDP (sum of benefits and costs), you have an equation with too many unknowns, unless you can come up with some agreed-upon reasonable measure of costs. If you can do that, you would simply subtract costs from benefits to get net benefits, and figure out whether those are growing or not. They may or may not be growing right now. Even if they are, you need to consider whether they can continue to grow in the future, or whether the underlying system is eventually going to break and no longer be able to support further growth. You also need to consider risks of really bad things happening, as well as the odds of really good things like major technological breakthroughs happening. I would also point out that at the moment we are using carbon emissions as a proxy for sustainability more generally, but there is a lot more that should be considered in a holistic view of a sustainable long-term human-planet system.

Philadelphia homicides in 2021

The Philadelphia Inquirer has a decent piece of data journalism on the shocking number of homicides in our city in 2021. Here are some numbers:

  • 557 homicides as of Wednesday, December 29, so we will probably add a few more by midnight on New Year’s Eve.
  • This eclipses the previous record of 500 in 1990. The period 1989-1997 consistently had over 400 homicides per year. We have now had two years in a row in the 500+ range (499 in 2020). During the 2009-2019 decade, the range was 246-356.
  • Guns were the cause of death in 89% of homicides. Nationwide, this number is around 75%.
  • Of the 557, 111 (20%) were considered retaliatory, 166 (30%) were drug related, and 42 (8%) were domestic violence related. It is not entirely clear to me if these percentages overlap or not – hence my giving this article a grade of only “decent”.
  • 8 of the 10 most populous cities in the U.S. recorded more homicides as of December 29, 2021 than they did in 2019. New York City has had 479 murders this year and Chicago “nearly 800”. The article doesn’t normalize these by population for us but I can do that.
    • Philadelphia: 557 homicides / 1.579 million people = 352 per million
    • New York City: 479 homicides / 8.419 million people = 57 per million
    • Chicago: ~800 / 2.71 million people = 295 per million

Philadelphia Inquirer, to go from decent to good, just put these numbers in a nice table or bullet list for us and normalize by population. Bonus points for some kind of bar chart of “tree map” that makes it crystal clear what the categories are and whether any overlap. “Communities of color” are mentioned but there are no numbers on the breakdown of victims or perpetrators by race or by age (they do mention that the number of female victims has increased, although victims remain overwhelmingly male).

So despite the eye-popping numbers in Chicago, Philadelphia is a bit worse although the two are similar. New York is doing much better.

There is a lot of hand wringing over the causes of violence. It is crystal clear though that plentiful guns make disputes and arguments much more deadly than they otherwise might be. Beyond that, we know the pandemic resulted in a large population of teenage boys out of school for a year and a half. We know the pandemic led to an increase in the unemployment rate.

Those are some facts. Now to speculate. The unemployment rate measures the formal economy, but we know that people who are unemployed in the formal economy are not necessarily economically idle. We can speculate that more people, particularly young men, became involved in the drug economy during the pandemic. Mix together young men, drugs, cash, guns, and a culture that leads to cycles of retaliation and revenge, and it is easy to picture a feedback loop that could get out of control.

It’s interesting that many categories of crime are down. This is at least partly because the police are not pursuing nonviolent crimes as much, particularly drug use and drug possession. Many people are drawing a link between decreased enforcement and increased homicides. “Homicide” and “crime” are often used interchangeably in the media, but this is wrong. Homicides are a tiny fraction of crime as a whole, and crime as a whole is down. Reduced enforcement could easily be a reason that crime as a whole is down.

How would you break the homicide loop? Media coverage focuses on guns, and reducing the number of guns might help, but that is very hard to do in our “exceptional” country. Legalizing drugs would take away the profits and economic incentive to traffic drugs and deal drugs, reduce the amount of cash changing hands, and very likely reduce the level of violence caused by drug dealers defending themselves from each other. Assuming this is what touches off many of the retaliation cycles, those should also decrease. Drug addiction might or might not increase, I am not sure, but that could be treated as the medical/behavioral problem it is. The violence on our city streets (not to mention horrific violence to get drugs across our international borders) is just not an acceptable price to pay to reduce the social problems caused by drug use, if the prohibition and law enforcement strategy was even working, which it is clearly not.

So longer term, after legalizing drugs, logical strategies would be an actual public health care system able to help people with addiction, and education and training of young men so they have economic opportunities in the formal economy. Our political system has repeatedly failed to provide these things, partly because rural politicians and voters have disproportionate political power and like to believe poverty, drugs, and violence affect only the mythical “inner city”.

the midterm curse

2022 will be a midterm election year in the U.S. The incumbent political party usually loses seats in the midterm election, and since the Democrats have a majority of 1 in the Senate, losing any seats will mean losing what little control they have. Here are the historical facts according to Alternet:

  • The party that controls the White House has lost seats in 19 of the 22 midterm elections since 1932.
  • The first exception was 1934, when FDR was in office. His New Deal was popular and seemed to offer hope during the pain of the Great Depression.
  • The second exception was 1998, when Bill Clinton was in office. The economy was growing quickly and the Clinton impeachment had just happened.
  • The third exception was 2002, when George W. Bush was in office. 9/11 had happened about a year earlier, and the response to 9/11 including the Afghanistan invasion was popular.

So what will probably happen is the Democrats will lose seats in 2022, because that happens 86% of the time. The Republicans will say the Democrats did everything wrong and that explains the result. The Democrats will say they did everything right and it still just happens 86% of the time. The media will more or less side with the Republicans because they like to give explanations, like when they give an “explanation” every day for why the stock market went up or down when it is clearly much more than 86% random.

To have a shot at bucking the trend, the Democrats would need (1) a big, popular, perceived to be successful policy agenda, (2) a war or other major acute crisis perceived to be handled well, and/or (3) fast economic growth.

On (1), I just don’t buy the idea that policy success is going to get Biden very far. He has done objectively well on pandemic rescue and direct payments to taxpayers, and he seems to be getting little or no credit for it. I don’t think people are even aware of these successes. The pandemic is grinding on and people are in a generally sour mood. They do not judge politicians on how much worse things could be if actions hadn’t been taken, or how much less sour the mood could be. It is just the sour mood that counts. I do think there was one mis-step, which was giving people enormous amounts of money without making sure they appreciated it. Doing this as electronic tax refunds, even on a monthly basis, does not seem to have worked well politically. I saw one poll where many people said they had not received the payments, even though most of them demonstrably, factually had! This is the flip side of the phenomenon companies are well aware of, where charges that show up in our bank accounts or credit card statements after the fact and with minimal fanfare “feel” less painful than when we open our wallets and fork over cash or write a check. Payroll deductions also take advantage of this psychology. So I think the optimal political strategy would have been for the Democrats to mail people paper checks, even if that would have been less efficient economically than the way it was done. Some sort of debit card, as is typically done for food stamps, could also have worked. Imagine if it had Biden’s face on it, like a Roman emperor stamping their face on a gold coin. And the big infrastructure and social “spending bills”, even if they pass, do not seem to be scoring the Democrats any points. People don’t understand the long-term benefits of these critical investments and the Republicans are just winning the narrative by screaming incoherently about debt and inflation and socialism. It’s a meme, not a rational argument, and it’s resonating with where our heads are as a society right now.

On (2), it seems like Covid has become too much of a long-term, grinding, slow-burn crisis for Biden to get much credit for managing it reasonably well. Like I said, things are going moderately badly, and there is no credit given because things could be going much more badly. That said, it seems entirely plausible that Covid could largely burn itself out in 2022, as almost every (surviving) human on Earth will have some immunity from vaccination, infection, or both. This is in the absence of a major new killer variant, of course. Things could also improve to near-normal over the summer, and then a new fall wave could hit just at the wrong time (politically speaking, for the party in power.) A major terrorist attack or a war over Taiwan, Ukraine, or Iran could be good timing for the mid-term elections, and disastrous for life on Earth. I’m not sure anyone knows what a major meltdown of the communication, financial, and/or electrical systems would mean politically. Please no on all of these.

On (3) it seems entirely plausible that the economy could pick up and inflation could moderate throughout 2022. Things are definitely getting off to a rocky start, and if they steadily improve and seem to be going really well in the late summer and fall, the public will give the party in power credit for that whether they deserve it or not. If inflation seems to be spiraling out of control, it will be the political kiss of death and could lead to a landslide against the party in power.

I’ll go out on a limb and give a prediction of what I think is most likely: Economic growth will pick up, inflation will moderate, and Covid will recede into the background by late summer into fall. The world will avoid major geopolitical turmoil and nuclear war. The public will be in a pretty good mood and the President’s approval ratings will be relatively high. The Democrats will still lose a handful of seats in the Congress because that just happens 86% of the time. This will be the end of Biden’s big, bold legislative policy agenda. In the second half of his term, he will focus on unglamorous administrative policy and foreign policy because those will be the options left to him. The Republicans will say their gaining a handful of seats spells certain doom for Biden in 2024, and they will be wrong, because Presidential elections seem to be tossups lately no matter what else is happening.

Big History

I hadn’t heard of Big History, and this article in Aeon is actually critical of it, but it sounds interesting as an attempt to fuse natural and social science into a curriculum.

The Big History narrative itself is given shape by the interplay between the forces of entropy and complexity that are represented, respectively, by the second law of thermodynamics and evolution. The second law of thermodynamics postulates that there is a finite amount of energy in the Universe that is slowly dissipating, but evolution shows that there are moments when a particular threshold is reached and overcomes entropy by the creation of new forms of complexity. Big History proposes there are eight ‘threshold moments’, when profoundly new forms of complexity appear in the past: (1) the Big Bang; (2) stars and galaxies; (3) new chemical elements; (4) the Earth and solar system; (5) life on Earth; (6) the human species; (7) agriculture; and, our currently proposed geological epoch, (8) the Anthropocene.

Aeon

A lot of thinkers I admire, among them Howard T. Odum (not mentioned in this article), have focused on entropy as a sort of defining principle to understand the universe we find ourselves embedded in. Our universe is spirally toward disorder and randomness, but that process is very slow and somehow we find ourselves in a tiny pocket of increasing order within that universe. It starts with the Earth somehow orbiting the sun, and continues with life, the purpose of which seems to be to continue creating order out of chaos where mere physics and chemistry leave off, and then it seemingly culminates in intelligent life and the things intelligent life is able to create.

That’s my quick take from a skim of the article, but this article references a number of articles and books by the Australian developer of the Big History idea (the somewhat ironically named David Christian, because this is a system of belief at least somewhat intended as an alternative to traditional religion.) There is also a TED talk out there for people who like that sort of thing (give me a book, please), and apparently a middle- to high-school curriculum developed by the Gates Foundation.

the Thwaites glacier

The Thwaites glacier in Antarctica is roughly the size of Florida, according to USA Today. It is held back by a Game of Thrones style ice wall (seriously, I wouldn’t be surprised if pictures of this or similar structures inspired the visuals in the show, if not the original concept. I always thought George R.R. Martin’s original concept might have been inspired by Hadrian’s wall, although I think a sprightly child could jump or climb over that.) Over the next few years to decades it could slide off the continent, float away, melt, and raise average sea levels by a foot. Or “up to 10 feet, if it draws the surrounding glaciers with it.”

I have in the back of my mind that we are looking at “a meter of sea level rise over a century”. This is bad, but it leaves a few decades for me to take my children on beach vacations not too different from the ones my parents took me on in my own childhood, wrap up raising said children to adulthood in my home not too far from the Atlantic coast, eventually sell my coastal real estate empire (consisting of the family home and a small condo I have hung on to for an older relative) at a reasonable market price, and advise the adult children not to buy property anywhere near the coast. I myself would not live to see the worst effects, and as much as I care about my children and their hypothetical children on down the line, it is just human nature that I don’t sit around worrying too much about risks that far into the future.

There are some numbers in this article that suggest I might not have decades to accomplish this long-term plan. The numbers are a bit confusing and conflicting, however.

  • The ice shelf (official name for the Game of Thrones wall) could collapse in the next 3-5 years. This would be the “beginning of the end” of the glacier, which would then begin sliding into the sea.
  • Then there will be a “dramatic change in the front of the glacier probably within a decade”.

The article refers to “rapid” sea level rise, but it doesn’t quantify that, so I don’t have any really new or good insights on whether my 1 meter in 100 years idea is too rosy. I still don’t think coastal property is a great investment anywhere in the world. A few rich, small, low-lying, technocratic countries like the Netherlands and Singapore will probably do whatever it takes to physically alter their coastlines and raise their urban areas, but many other countries will just sit on their hands.

my holiday offering

According to The Onion, you should not attend your office holiday party. But if you choose to ignore that advice, you should under no circumstances give a six-hour lecture on how “Christmas” evolved from pagan winter solstice celebrations. Because “No way you can cover all the relevant material in less than eight. And remember to build in time for questions!”

I say make it a double header and add at least two hours on the pagan origins of Halloween (spoiler: it involves fairies). I can see how this can be annoying, but it is still more interesting than whatever it is that “normal” people jabber on about. Perhaps what we introverts fail to understand is that the jabbering itself is the point, and the content mostly irrelevant.

Happy holidays!

Decentraland

I always assumed that Second Life popped up in response to the novel Snow Crash, and I always thought that Second Life was a bit lame because the technology just wasn’t there yet. Second Life may still be limping along on fumes, but it has been seeming to me that the sequels to Second Life have been evolving through video games like World of Warcraft, Minecraft, Fortnite, etc. Today I heard about a plot of virtual land being bought and sold for $2.43 million in a new (to me) one called Decentraland. This is clearly speculation at the moment, and you would expect booms and crashes. These platforms are slowly but surely creating their own marketplaces and even currencies behind the scenes. It may already be possible to create and run a business through these platforms. A big question is whether they will become interoperable at some point. I assume it is a given that they will take advantage of virtual reality technology as that continues to evolve. Another question is to what extent they will remain in the entertainment realm, as opposed to connecting to the real world economy and workplace at some point, which is where actual value would start to be created.

Pension funds should never rely on correlation

Pension funds should not rely on correlations between mean annual return and variance in annual return when deciding how much stocks and bonds to own, according to this article on which Nassim Nicholas Taleb (the Black Swan guy) is the second author. To paraphrase/oversimplify my understanding of the article greatly, the main arguments are that (1) data from the past is not a perfect predictor of the future, and (2) short term volatility is not a good measure of the risk of achieving a long term goal.

In engineering, I hear #1 all the time from people – why don’t we rely on data instead of “modeling” when trying to predict the future? Of course we do both – try to understand the underlying structure of the system we are dealing with, then use data from the past to try to confirm that we got it right, at least for the conditions that prevailed when the data were collected (and assuming the data themselves are reasonably accurate or at least any measurement error is not biased one way or the other), and then use the resulting model of the system to try to predict the future. Conditions in the future may be different than conditions in the past, and that is why we don’t “just rely on data”. If external conditions are different but the underlying structure of the system doesn’t change (much), we can come up with reasonable predictions of the future. The only true test of whether the prediction is right comes from data which will be collected in the future, but is not available today when a decision has to be made. A lot of decisions are really just playing the odds about what might work in the most likely future, or what might work across several different possible futures that collectively are very likely (a “robust” decision). The decision that is best for the single most likely condition and a group of very likely conditions may not be the same one – now you are a gambler trying to decide whether you go for the biggest possible payoff while accepting a larger chance of a loss, or whether you want to maximize your chances of a positive payoff while giving up your shot at a really big payoff. You would think the pension fund would go for the latter.

#2 makes sense to me. Variability in annual returns doesn’t matter much if you are 25 and investing money you plan to need at 65. A pension fund is a little different, because it is essentially immortal but has obligations it has to meet each year.

In the case of investment returns, the approach seems to be almost purely “data-driven” with no real understanding of the underlying system, and this leads to an existential crisis when people try to figure out what asset allocation advice to stake their future on. We understand the real economy to some extent, we think, but we don’t really seem to confidently understand how the real economy and the financial economy are related, especially over shorter time frames. So we are reduced to just describing the data, which might lead to some insights about the system but has limited predictive value. Still, examining the evidence before making a decision seems like a good idea to me. What is the alternative – guessing, wishing, praying?

wolves create a landscape of fear!

The “landscape of fear” is a thing in ecology where predators control prey behavior just by making them afraid of predation. This article compares the cost of wolf predation of livestock to the money saved when wolves keep deer away from highways. The comparison is overwhelmingly in favor of leaving the wolves to keep deer from the highways, even if they eat a few sheep.

Wolves make roadways safer, generating large economic returns to predator conservation

Recent studies uncover cascading ecological effects resulting from removing and reintroducing predators into a landscape, but little is known about effects on human lives and property. We quantify the effects of restoring wolf populations by evaluating their influence on deer–vehicle collisions (DVCs) in Wisconsin. We show that, for the average county, wolf entry reduced DVCs by 24%, yielding an economic benefit that is 63 times greater than the costs of verified wolf predation on livestock. Most of the reduction is due to a behavioral response of deer to wolves rather than through a deer population decline from wolf predation. This finding supports ecological research emphasizing the role of predators in creating a “landscape of fear.” It suggests wolves control economic damages from overabundant deer in ways that human deer hunters cannot.

PNAS

So in a rational world you would maybe take a small fraction of gas tax or toll payments and use it to compensate the farmers for their sheep, in exchange for the farmers not going after the wolves. Or you could just make it illegal to go after the wolves and try to enforce that law. Or some combination. What makes this sort of thing tough in the real world is that a small group impacted by a policy can organize and get political attention, whereas some nebulous idea of “society as a whole” is not going to organize, understand the issue, and lobby the politicians. You could maybe imagine insurance companies representing car owners and truckers getting involved in this issue, if the savings are really so dramatic.

what would a practical modern arms control framework look like?

I am concerned that nuclear war is becoming more scary and thinkable all the time, and politicians are focused elsewhere. One thing the U.S. can do is just be less scary. We need to put ourselves in others’ shoes and realize that they find us threatening, don’t fully trust us, and feel they have to be prepared to defend themselves against us. Being less threatening does not have to make us appear weak – we can let people know we are strong and ready to defend ourselves and our allies if attacked, while reassuring others that they are in no danger if they don’t threaten us. This seems like a basic playground philosophy, but I don’t see our warmongering politicians talking this way.

War on the Rocks has a wonky article on what a modern arms control framework could look like. Let’s pull back a little bit and work on peace and risk reduction.

In my book, Winning and Losing the Nuclear Peace: The Rise, Demise, and Revival of Arms Control, I propose that we embrace an ambitious goal of extending the three norms of no use, no testing, and no new proliferation to the 100th anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Imagine, if you can, a world in which nuclear weapons have not been used on battlefields for 100 years, and a world in which nuclear weapons have not been tested by major and regional powers for almost five decades. Imagine, too, that North Korea remains the last nuclear-armed state. Now imagine the perceived utility of nuclear weapons in 2045. How many potential mushroom clouds would be required for deterrence? How high would the barriers be against use and testing? …

A seven-nation forum consisting of the United States, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Britain, and France would be hard to steer, but the nuclear dangers we now face are interconnected and unwieldy. When the nature of a problem seems intractably complex, the wisest course might just be to expand the scope of the problem. Even as the four pairs compete, they have the most to lose if key norms are broken and the most to gain if they are extended. Existing bilateral conversations on nuclear risk reduction would, of course, continue, but there are no effective channels of communication and substantive exchanges between India and China and between India and Pakistan, where border clashes are becoming more intense. A non-hierarchical, seven-nation approach to norm building might just succeed. All seven have significant concerns about the intentions and capabilities of states with the most dynamic nuclear modernization programs. Each state has its own reasons to engage, as well as to be wary. If other states are willing to sit at the table, it becomes harder for anyone to hold out.

War on the Rocks

The article gets much more specific from there, and is worth a read. Joe Biden should read it. If his major legislative accomplishments are likely to be behind him by the end of 2022 as we expect, he could try to leave the world a legacy on nuclear arms control, climate change, pandemic preparedness and biological weapons control in his remaining 2-6 years in office. He wouldn’t need direct support from the U.S. Congress, although we have learned that without the executive and legislative branches moving in lockstep, international agreements are not always durable and other countries will conclude they can’t rely on us. Still, any forward progress on any of these issues would be a significant contribution to the future of our nation and our global civilization.