May 2019 in Review

This wasn’t my most prolific writing (or reading) month ever. In fact, it my have been my worst. But here are a few highlights of what I did get around to.

Most frightening and/or depressing story:

  • Without improvements in battery design, the demand for materials needed to make the batteries might negate the environmental benefits of the batteries. I’m not really all that frightened or depressed about this because I assume designs will improve. Like I said, it was slim pickings this month.

Most hopeful story:

  • Planting native plants in your garden really can make a difference for biodiversity.

Most interesting story, that was not particularly frightening or hopeful, or perhaps was a mixture of both:

  • Joseph Stiglitz suggested an idea for a “free college” program where college is funded by a progressive tax on post-graduation earnings.

 

leisure-enhancing technologies and productivity

This article claims that the rise of the entertainment industry explains slowing productivity growth, because not only does entertainment distract us from creative and productive pursuits, but our creative and productive people are pouring their energies into this sector because it is where the profits are. I don’t necessarily buy the former, because it is possible that we could be deciding as a society that we are productive enough and choosing to spend more time on pursuits that do not put ever more monetary wealth in our pockets. I think some people are doing that, perhaps not most. Perhaps in Scandinavia. But the second part does make sense to me, that the smartest and most creative people are not being drawn to the sectors where they could do the most good for society.

data-driven economics 101

This article in Vox is about an entirely data-driven approach to introductory economics. The idea of asking students to discover their own theories is an interesting one, but in most fields I do think there is an established body of theory and standard practice that students should learn before they are qualified to go off reinventing their own wheels. If a new generation doesn’t know what they don’t know, they have to reinvent everything and society doesn’t make progress.

renewable energy, batteries, and demand for metals

This report from the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney talks about the increasing demand for metals driven by renewable energy and battery technology. Basically, recycling has to be improved a lot if current technologies are going to scale up without damaging the environment as much as they help.

I got to work with the Institute for Sustainable Futures once, which was fun. They had a worm compost bin in their office. They were also one inspiration for the title of this blog. I don’t know any of the authors of this report.

treehouses

There’s a treehouse hotel you can stay at in Ohio. It’s a pretty cool idea. You could pretend to be an Ewok. I wonder what the maximum density would be for a sustainable treehouse-based civilization. You could use gondolas to get around, minimizing the transportation footprint. You would still need electricity and water infrastructure, hospitals, etc. You would need food, but maybe you could rely heavily on tree nuts and fruit to provide a lot of it. And obviously, you couldn’t cut down too many trees to build the treehouses or you wouldn’t have enough trees left to build them in.

NACTO intersection design guide

The National Association of City Transportation Officials has a new guide for safe intersection design. I’m thinking about buying a few hundred printed copies and sending them to the local engineers, planners and politicians who have caused Philadelphia to fall well behind peer cities (and many cities that should not even be peer cities) in safe street infrastructure.

Pennsylvania’s Integrated List

Pennsylvania has released its DRAFT 2018 PENNSYLVANIA INTEGRATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT REPORT. This might seem esoteric and of interest to just a few, but it’s worthwhile to think about what U.S. water quality regulations are supposed to accomplish and how much they are actually accomplishing.

  • The authority to regulate the water quality of “navigable waters” rests with Congress, under the concept that water quality is important to interstate waters. In practice, most rivers, streams, and lakes that do not dry up at any point during a typical year are covered. There is an enormous, long-running legal fight over water bodies at the margins of this definition, such as wetlands that are connected to larger bodies of water sometimes but not all the time.
  • Congress makes the law, the EPA is required to implement them, and the EPA in most cases delegates this to state-level agencies, although it can supervise them and, in theory at least, take over at any time. This very occasionally happens.
  • State level agencies are required to map all the water bodies in the state that come under these regulations, break them up into segements, and specify the “uses”, such as type of aquatic ecosystem and type of recreation, to be protected for each and every one.
  • Then they are supposed to collect data and determine whether each and every segment is “attaining” each and every use.
  • If any segment is not attaining its use, the state is supposed to determine an exact cause.
  • If the cause is a specific pollutant, it is supposed to identify all the sources of that pollutant, how much it needs to be reduced for the use to attain, and how much each source of the pollutant is required to reduce their discharges.
  • The results of this process, called “total maximum daily load”, are not immediately enforceable. Now the numbers have to flow down into enforceable permits and other programs.

It’s all very logical and straightforward. Now here are some of the problems.

  • The federal and state agencies don’t have the funding, personnel, and expertise to do the data collection right. This means that the determinations are often done on very little data, by people of questionable expertise, and the conclusions are easy to challenge by permitted polluters with some means. “Polluters” as I use the term here are not necessarily bad actors – they are cities, towns, businesses and farmers. In short, civilization causes pollution and the idea is to control the amount and type to what the environment can assimilate.
  • When a reasonable amount of data is collected, it is usually paid for by the polluters themselves. Again, they are not necessarily bad actors. They may be perfectly ethical people who want to be regulated based on accurate information. But sometimes not, and either way there is a conflict of interest involved. Data collection is also an effective delay tactic – when data is inadequate, the problems are not well understood and the most appropriate solutions are not easy to identify, a data collection effort can be a good compromise among all parties involved and an alternative to endless legal action.
  • Even when there is a lot of data, the science is complicated, there is a lot of uncertainty, and this makes any required reductions fairly easy to challenge by those with financial means.
  • Cities and towns are required to limit stormwater pollution, but in practice stormwater pollution is generated by thousands or millions or individual property owners. Fixing this would require changing the way we build and use land. Technological solutions exist, and are not even necessarily high-tech or expensive, but there is enormous uncertainty built into current political and institutional arrangements.
  • Agriculture is almost entirely unregulated, and is an enormous source of pollution. It is controlled only through a patchwork of voluntary and incentive programs funded mostly at the state level. Some states do this better than others, but it is never adequate.
  • The concept of chemical “water quality” as we tend to think of it does not really guarantee the restoration of functioning ecosystems. The legal framework probably could be implemented in a way that would do this, but there is a critical lack of system understanding even among educated professionals, and even if a critical mass of people had that understanding, there is enormous resistance to change built into our institutions.
  • The regulatory agencies tend to go after a few big polluters, because that is how they get the most bang for their buck. Numerous small polluters, who collectively add up to most of the pollution, don’t get addressed. The big polluters are able to delay enforcement, sometimes indefinitely, through a variety of legal tactics. Third party advocacy groups get involved in lawsuits and add to the fray.

Bringing Nature Home

I’m reading Bringing Nature Home: How You Can Sustain Wildlife with Native Plants by Douglas Tallamy. It’s a pretty interesting book because he is an entomologist and writes from that perspective. His message is pretty straightforward: most plants have compounds that help them defend against insects, and native plants have evolved for millions of years with insects that specialize in eating them. These insects are overwhelmingly the base of the food chain that supports everything else up to birds and larger animals. Replace the natives with ornamentals from elsewhere, often specifically bred to be unattractive to insects, and there are a lot fewer insects. The ecosystem doesn’t function any more, even if the plants kind of look similar to the way the functioning ecosystem used to look. Add to this the long list of devastating pests and diseases that have been imported along with alien ornamental plants, and ornamental plants that have escaped into the wild to further devastate ecosystem function, and the case is pretty strong.

Joseph Stiglitz’s Economic Platform

Joseph Stiglitz has a new book on what he thinks an evidence-based progressive economic platform should look like. I admit, I haven’t read the book, but I have read this Axios summary of the book. And here is my summary of that summary:

  • “the government should spend as much money as it takes to bring the economy to full employment.” Nicely put.
  • strong antitrust action, including against social media companies
  • a federal job guarantee, but no universal basic income or explicitly race-based reparations
  • the ability to opt in the Medicare
  • (optional) mortgages provided by the government (well, don’t we have something close to this already? I guess it’s just that private banks get their cut before they hand it over to an “implicitly” government-backed lender. I guess you could cut out the middleman.
  • Higher education funded by a progressive tax on post-graduation earnings: “Graduates earning more than $30,000 might pay 1% of their income toward repaying their student loans; those on seven-figure salaries might pay 4%. After 25 years, the loans are forgiven.” He doesn’t specify this has to be public schools only, although it seems to me this would blur the distinction. And if this federal program existed, is it possible states would reduce or end their funding for state schools and blur the distinction even more?

This all sounds good to me. Add some serious research spending and it just might work. The jobs guarantee might work, but would have to be coupled with a stronger disability, mental health and substance addiction safety net than we have now.