Category Archives: Web Article Review

what’s really going on with the food supply?

The USDA, the UN, and Bloomberg say there is a “food inequality crisis…sweeping the globe”. It sounds like supplies of soybeans and wheat are down somewhat due to drought in some places (South America and Europe) and storms in others (Iowa specifically is mentioned in the article.) In this environment, prices are up, and because incomes are down due to the pandemic, poor countries and poor people are outbid and going hungry.

Of course, no specific flood, drought, or pandemic can be attributed to climate change…blah blah yada yada. Looking at the FAO Food Price Index, the current mini-spike is well below the major spikes of 2008 and 2011. Well, climate change is a long term signal embedded in a lot of short term noise, but dealing with food supply and food price issues in the short term could be a trial run for how we deal with the creeping long term problem before it is too late. The long term problem will gradually keep creeping up on us, embedded in lots of noise, and then some big event or series of events will be the straw that breaks the global food supply camel’s back. Let’s do something about it now.

What should we do? Well, I’m not an expert, but it starts with water. We need to stop overexploiting groundwater, and we probably need to think about shifting food production away from areas that rely primarily on glaciers and snowmelt, coastal areas that may experience saltwater intrusion or outright inundation, and areas expected to experience increasingly severe droughts. We need to pay attention to soil conservation. We need to pay attention to biodiversity, both to protect ecosystem services such as pollination and to make crops themselves more resilient (crops are subject to their own pandemics). We need sustainable fisheries. Maybe we need to move more production indoors under lights powered by renewable energy (or, I hate to say it, nuclear reactors). That might also help us control the nutrient pollution that is choking our coastal ecosystems. Recovering more nutrients from wastewater and farm waste might play a role. We may need to encourage people to eat more plants and less meat. Maybe we need more urban gardens and rooftop gardens and food forests. Finally, biotechnology probably has a role to play, but in my opinion we shouldn’t rely on this but should think of it as icing on the cake made of a mix of all the low-tech ingredients I mention above.

aerosols

A group of academic scientists has put together a long paper with scientific information intended for the public on Covid-19 aerosol transmission. I think this is pretty nice science communication. It is not dumbed down, but it avoids jargon. The graphics they include are mostly helpful. Here are a few takeaways:

  • Secondhand cigarette smoke is a useful analogy to think about. If you are around smokers outside, you are inhaling much less of their poison than if you are around them inside. The amount of time you are around them makes a huge difference – however, this group says the 15 minute CDC guidance is not supported by good evidence. Outside, distance makes a big difference. Inside, being closer is probably worse, but if you are in an enclosed space with them for any period of time you are at pretty high risk. Opening a window should help, but not as much as being outside.
  • Scientists disagree on the relative importance of the three pathways – surfaces, droplets, and aerosols. In the face of uncertainty, it is probably prudent (this is my opinion) to treat them as roughly equal and take precautions against each. Someone coughing or sneezing in your face is a big problem – stay 6 feet away for that reason alone, especially from anyone un-masked.
  • Aerosols probably persist for 1-2 hours. (My thought – this suggests staying in a hotel should be relatively safe. The room has been cleaned, hopefully the maids were wearing masks, and hopefully they cleaned the room in the morning and you are checking in in the afternoon.)
  • Sun and wind tend to reduce risk. All other things being equal, low temperatures and low humidity seem to aid transmission. (Don’t count on the opposite helping you in a sealed room, though. But I am a proponent of humidifying in the winter anyway.)
  • The time it takes air in your house to turn over varies widely – “30 minutes to 10 hours”. For commercial buildings, 12 minutes to 2 hours. Hospitals around 5 minutes!
  • A carbon dioxide concentration of 800-950 ppm is indicative of good ventilation indoors. A carbon dioxide meter costs about $150.
  • Air filters should help, and yes you can tape a furnace filter to a box fan. (I knew it!)
  • “There is no evidence that COVID-19 has been transmitted when people walk past each other outdoors. (But I’m using the bandanna system just because people are scared and confused out there.)
  • Taxis and rideshare are not zero risk, but reasonably probably, maybe reasonably low risk if everyone is masked and windows are open. If it is too cold to open windows, it is better to be drawing in outside air than just recirculating air.
  • Airplanes have very good ventilation, so it is a myth that one infected person on an airplane can infect everyone. If they are sitting right next to you, not wearing a mask, and/or coughing/sneezing, they can infect you. The airport itself is also probably higher risk than the plane. (But let’s remember people are working in all these places.)
  • They say “schools should operate in person only if the levels of infection in the community are low.”
  • Elevators are also actually quite well ventilated, and you are not in there for very long. Again, you don’t want people unmasked and/or coughing/sneezing on you. No singing allowed in elevators.
  • The dental office is suspect. Technology exists to ventilate them safely (but I didn’t see anything obviously new or high tech at my dentist recently.)
  • Masks still help with aerosols. Even though the particles are tiny, they are still inside droplets, which are tiny but not as tiny. Nothing in the air moves around in straight lines, it is turbulent and random, so even if particles are smaller than the openings in the fabric many of them will hit the sides and the risk will be significantly reduced. (Also suggests one reason having multiple layers is better.)
  • Masks work better if they fit well. (I’m a little tired of this, my family has about 100 masks now and not one of them fits well. If there are 1 or 2 I think fit pretty well, they are always in the dirty laundry when I need them. The same gremlins that steal one of each of my favorite socks also steal masks on occasion.)
  • Face shields and plexiglass barriers don’t help a lot with aerosols. You need a mask.

Living Planet Report

This year’s Living Planet Report paints a bleak picture of ongoing ecological collapse. I think this is an organization that has some incentive to be on the bleak side of average, but still I tend to buy into the message. The alarm is sounding, but not reaching the general public or our political leaders. People just don’t understand this like they do the simplistic concept of carbon emissions, and of course even that we are failing to address in an adequate way. What’s the elevator pitch for why it matters, even for people who don’t value or have much emotional connection with nature? In a word, it’s the food, stupids.

bad things that happen in Philadelphia

Well, as a certain leader said last Tuesday (I am writing on Friday, October 2), bad things happen in Philadelphia. Like several people getting shot every day. And it’s happening in cities all over the country. There are all kinds of debates about what is causing it, but what I see is escalating cycles of revenge and counter-revenge among young men in certain neighborhoods. Add in a culture that glorifies gun violence, and what could have been fist fights in more innocent times becomes fatal. Add in lack of education and economic opportunity which leads young men to get involved in the illegal drug trade to earn a living. The fact that drugs are illegal is what makes them valuable enough that young men can earn a living by getting involved. The fact that they are illegal means turning to the civil authorities to settle disputes is not an option. Add in violent repression by said civil authorities. Now you have a self-perpetuating and escalating cycle of violence. In a cycle, there is no true “root cause”. What you need to do is de-escalate the cycle of violence. The good news is you can tackle any link in the cycle. You can try to tackle the culture that glorifies violence by reaching out to young men at risk, providing better role models, reaching them at school, etc. You can try to do something about the guns. That all sounds good but the evidence is mixed. You can try to break the cycle by tackling child care, education, and economic opportunity. That is admirable, it is important, it is absolutely necessary, but it is a long, long game and you have to be prepared to stay at it for a long, long time before you see results. You can try to break a cycle quickly by tackling its weakest link. In a much shorter time frame, you can de-escalate the violence by taking away the value of the drugs. Just legalize them, and they will not be so valuable. Victims of violence will be able to turn to the civil authorities, without fear that they themselves will be punished. Drug addiction may increase and may cause suffering that wouldn’t have occurred before. This is a problem for the health care system, both physical health and mental health. Well, let’s get that figured out, but that is another long, long game…

Health care. Child care. Education. And goddamnit, LEGALIZE DRUGS NOW!!!

Ralph Nader on R&D

I’m still thinking about innovation – Ralph Nader says the U.S. government invests plenty in research and development, but only wealthy and powerful interests reap the benefits.

We send our tax dollars to Washington, D.C., and the federal government gives trillions of these dollars to companies in the form of subsidies and bailouts.

Trillions of dollars are devoted to government research and development (R&D), which has built or expanded private companies. These include such industries as aerospace, pharmaceuticals, military weapons, computers, internet, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and containerization.

Our taxpayer-funded R&D is essentially given away free to these for-profit businesses. We the People receive no royalties nor profit-sharing returns on these public investments. Worse, we pay gouging prices for drugs and other products developed with our tax dollars.

Counterpunch

Maybe, but if this means an obsession with patents and copyrights and other forms of “intellectual property rights” designed to capture value for investors, I think it can go too far and actually limit innovation. It might make more sense for the government to make the investments, institute a value added tax to recoup the benefits of increased progress economy-wide, and return some combination of benefits and services to the people. This would be a pretty obvious win to the private sector and the public at large. Of course, the illogical pro-business, anti-tax ideology U.S. corporations have spent decades manufacturing and imposing on the population makes this combination of policies politically almost impossible.

“innovation driven industrial policy”

I’m still on the topic of innovation. Slate has an article on what an “innovation driven industrial policy” would look like.

It is not—and has never been—that the U.S. does not have a de facto industrial policy. Through regulation, foreign investment rules, trade barriers, and even subsidies (think ethanol), the federal government has found ways to support U.S. industry. And even the most ideological appropriators have not succeeded in removing millions of dollars of research funding channeled through the long-standing research agencies like the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency or through programs established to support development of that research, such as the Small Business Research Innovation program (now branded as “America’s Seed Fund”).

Slate

So the idea is that an industrial policy would take all this and put it under some kind of central management intended to spur progress in key areas. Then it would pump out more funding and encourage private industry to do the same.

a new “science of progress’

This article in the Atlantic says we need a “new science of progress”. It’s an interesting philosophical question – the universe is all around us, its secrets there for us to reach out and understand. The knowledge that exists to discover is not changing, and yet we seem to only be able to discover it in fits and starts. Are there things we could do to discover it faster? Well, there is something called the scientific method. There is something called technology. The field of economics certainly tries to study progress in a systematic way. How best to educate and train human beings is a perennial field of research. Maybe we need to mash all these together somehow, then add hefty doses of system thinking and data science? Or maybe we just need to find the really smart, innovative, unconventional thinkers and figure out how to harness their genius better?

This is exactly what Progress Studies would investigate. It would consider the problem as broadly as possible. It would study the successful people, organizations, institutions, policies, and cultures that have arisen to date, and it would attempt to concoct policies and prescriptions that would help improve our ability to generate useful progress in the future.

Along these lines, the world would benefit from an organized effort to understand how we should identify and train brilliant young people, how the most effective small groups exchange and share ideas, which incentives should exist for all sorts of participants in innovative ecosystems (including scientists, entrepreneurs, managers, and engineers), how much different organizations differ in productivity (and the drivers of those differences), how scientists should be selected and funded, and many other related issues besides.

The Atlantic

nuclear weapons are still out there

Stephen Cohen, a well-known Russia scholar, has died. His last book (I think) was called War with Russia? and was basically a reminder that nuclear war with Russia is still a distinct and very dangerous possibility. Not only have treaties and arms control agreements been broken and abandoned under Trump, but U.S. and Russian troops are engaged in violent conflicts dangerously close to each other in Ukraine and Syria, among other places. I can’t help noting that these locations are very close to Russia’s borders, not close to ours. Remember how we reacted to Russian missiles in Cuba? We have a double standard. Biden hasn’t talked much about nuclear weapons, which disappoints me, but at least he is a knowledgeable, responsible adult and things can’t get much worse under his leadership.

freight vehicles and urban design

Next City has a roundup of ideas for more efficiently accommodating freight vehicles in dense cities.

  • Better, cheaper (or even free to the user) public transit, so there aren’t so many cars clogging up the streets trucks need to drive on
  • “logistics hotels” where goods from many sources can be mixed, matched, and put on smaller vehicles appropriate to city streets (this is kind of how a port works?)
  • “design infrastructure like intersections and bus lanes with interactions between freight activity and vulnerable road users, like children, in mind” (sounds good, if a bit non-specific
  • Design trucks so they just aren’t so dangerous
  • Better allocate curb space to get more deliveries out of fewer vehicles

I have a few more ideas.

  • Don’t forget some kind of temporary parking for contractors and delivery people serving urban customers. It doesn’t have to be free, but it should be reservable.
  • Don’t forget garbage trucks, unless we are going to think of a better way to deal with garbage or get rid of garbage entirely.
  • Alleys can work well for trash and deliveries, if they are designed with that purpose in mind. They can provide play space and just generally space for people to spread out the rest of the time (but NOT if they are just a bunch of garage entryways).
  • I still want my robot deliveries, both ground and air! In my city though, robots using the sidewalks for deliveries will need them to be in a better state of repair, and that won’t happen because sidewalks are technically the responsibility of homeowners, many of whom are poor and/or don’t even know the sidewalks are their responsibility. On the few streets with incompetently designed, unenforced, and unmaintained bike lanes, the robots’ wheels and gears will get all gummed up with the blood of children and old people who believed the mayor’s promises to build safe protected bike lanes like they have in Europe.
  • I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. COPY DUTCH STREET DESIGN NOW!!! Just don’t let it go to their heads, the smug bastards…

James K. Galbraith on the coronavirus economy

Here is how James K. Galbraith, an economist at the University of Texas, explains the effects of coronavirus on the U.S. economy.

  • The global market for U.S. exports has shrunk drastically. The U.S. exports high-tech capital goods like airplanes and weapons.
  • The U.S. oil industry is pretty much shut down because hydraulic fracturing is not cost-effective at current prices, which are caused by low global demand.
  • Car sales are down because people are driving less, and their cars are going to last longer.
  • The service economy is largely shut down. He says it will not reboot quickly because many services are basic luxury goods, things people have been convinced to want but don’t necessarily need, and things that people can do at home if they really want or have too. To certain extent, people have gotten used to doing things at home, and there is also the problem that many people have lost jobs (in the service industry) and will not have extra income to spend on luxury goods.
  • The service industry business model typically depends on very high occupancy (i.e. crowding) to be viable. Businesses are starting to fail and will continue to fail. Once commercial districts start to have high vacancy, they tend not to come back quickly.
  • Unpaid bills and debts are starting to mount, and this will eventually become a problem for creditors and investors.

Here are his solutions, along with my thoughts in parentheses.

  • Redirect idle industries that export capital goods to internal goods such as public infrastructure. (Makes sense, although it’s not necessarily the same people and equipment. Retooling and retraining would be necessary.)
  • A federal jobs guarantee in industries like teaching and home health care. (Makes some sense, but it makes sense to let the private sector lead in markets that are functioning well. The trick is identifying which sectors like education represent genuine market failures.)
  • Nationalization (or the local government equivalent) of some firms and industries that can’t survive at the reduced volumes. (yuck, in general, but maybe industries where this already exists to some extent, like utilities and transportation.)
  • Domestic manufacturing (maybe, but makes sense to focus on industries where we have a competitive advantage, plus those with value for risk management, resilience, robustness – certainly food, medical equipment, etc.)
  • Just have a universal health care system like all other advanced countries. (For crying out loud, just do it now!)
  • Debt forgiveness, especially student and medical debt. This transfers some wealth from creditors to debtors. He says this will occur in either a controlled or uncontrolled way, so we might as well pick controlled. He says major financial reforms might be necessary, like turning banks into public utilities. (Sounds good to me, but can’t happen without major campaign finance reform.)