February 2015 in Review

This blog got 173 hits in February! Pretty cool, considering I really just meant it as a place to collect my own scattered thoughts and refer back to them later. If 173 out of the 6 billion people out there like it, I am flattered. Okay, I understand there may have been a few repeat visitors. Also, judging from the most popular posts, there is one thing I mention occasionally that people really like: robots!

Negative trends and predictions:

  • Fresh Air had an interview with Elizabeth Kolbert, author of The Sixth Extinction. The idea here is that what humans are doing to other species is equivalent in scope to events that have killed off most life on Earth in the past.
  • The drought in the western U.S. continues to grind on.
  • There are some depressing new books out there about all the bad things that could happen to the world, from nuclear terrorism to pandemics. Also a “financial black hole”, a “major breakdown of the Internet”, “the underpopulation bomb”, the “death of death”, and more!
  • Government fragmentation explains at least part of suburban sprawl and urban decline in U.S. states, with Pennsylvania among the worst.

Positive trends and predictions:

  • Libraries are starting to go high-tech using warehouse robot technology.
  • I had a rambling post on technologies to watch: carbon fiber, the internet of things, self-driving cars and trucks, biotechnology for everything from carbon sequestration to cancer treatment to agriculture, and of course more automation, robots, and artificial intelligence. And yes, Clark W. Griswold’s cereal varnish is a real thing!
  • U.S. utility solar capacity is slowly ramping up.
  • A new study suggests a sudden, catastrophic climate tipping point may not be too likely.
  • Robots can independently develop new drugs.
  • According to Google, self-driving taxis are only 2-5 years away.
  • Complex ecosystems can be designed.
  • Compost toilets may save the world…if we can get over the ick factor and the sawdust problem.
  • There are lots of cheap new options for the aspiring high-tech handymen (and women and children) among us. Even better news, we may have reached the point where if you build a robot with your kid in the basement, and he then tells other kids about it, he might not get beat up on the playground.
  • New York City has some good examples of green stormwater infrastructure integrated in sidewalk and street design.

One thing that strikes me is that we keep hearing about biotechnology, but we haven’t seen big, obvious impacts in most of our daily lives yet. I suspect biotechnology is like computers and robots in the 70s, 80s, and 90s – slow but steady progress was being made in the background, the pressure was building, and then the wave suddenly broke onto the commercial and public consciousness. I suspect biotechnology is the next big wave that is going to break.

environmental regulations and profitability

If I understand this somewhat convoluted abstract from Ecological Economics correctly, empirical evidence shows that environmental regulation can actually increase corporate profitability by incentivizing innovation. The data also show that investors believe the exact opposite.

The Porter hypothesis asserts that properly designed environmental regulation motivates firms to innovate, which ultimately improves profitability. In this study, we test empirically the Porter hypothesis and the competing hypothesis that regulation undermines profitability (“costly regulation hypothesis”). In particular, we estimate the effect of clean water regulation, as reflected in the stringency of firm-specific effluent limits for two regulated pollutants, on the profitability of chemical manufacturing firms. As our primary contribution, we contrast the effect of clean water regulation on actual profitability outcomes and its effects on investors’ expectations of profitability. Our results for actual profitability are consistent with the Porter hypothesis, while our results for expected profitability are consistent with the costly regulation hypothesis. Thus, our empirical results demonstrate that investors do not appear to value the positive effect of tighter clean water regulation on actual profitability.

Death Star Discovered

These two views of Ceres were acquired by NASA’s Dawn spacecraft on Feb. 12, 2015, from a distance of about 52,000 miles (83,000 kilometers) as the dwarf planet rotated. The images have been magnified from their original size. Image Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA

Apparently the Death Star was not destroyed after all.

Cruising through the asteroid belt, NASA Dawn spacecraft is approaching dwarf planet Ceres, and some puzzling features are coming into focus.

“We expected to be surprised by Ceres,” says Chris Russell, principal investigator of the Dawn mission, based at UCLA. “We did not expect to be this puzzled.”

The camera on Dawn can now see Ceres more clearly than any previous image taken of the dwarf planet, revealing craters and mysterious bright spots.

Mysterious bright spots…I find it odd that this article doesn’t even speculate as to what they might be. Just an optical illusion of some sort? A mineral, radioactive or otherwise? Life, intelligent or otherwise? Aliens preparing to invade? Okay, probably not the latter, because if we got to them before they got to us, we are probably the more advanced species of space monkeys.

Incidentally, on the Death Star issue, the article says this thing has a diameter of 605 miles (974 km). According to the definitive source Wookiepedia, the second Death Star had a diameter of 900 km. So it’s about the right size, given that you don’t know how people come up with these things to begin with. For reference, the Moon has a diameter of about 2,100 miles (3,500 km).

new grocery delivery services

This article is about some new subscription-based grocery delivery services. This could make it even easier to live in car-free walkable communities for those who want to do that. You can shop for fresh food at a market when you want to do that, but have a steady stream of basic staples delivered on a reliable basis. Combine this with smart appliances – meaning your refrigerator and cabinets know what is in them – and you should never have to run out for an item in the middle of the night again. The only possible concern I have is whether this will push us even more towards processed, packaged food.

Sao Paulo Water Crisis

The New York Times has an article about an impending absolute water shortage in Sao Paulo, a metropolitan area of 20 million people.

As southeast Brazil grapples with its worst drought in nearly a century, a problem worsened by polluted rivers, deforestation and population growth, the largest reservoir system serving São Paulo is near depletion. Many residents are already enduring sporadic water cutoffs, some going days without it. Officials say that drastic rationing may be needed, with water service provided only two days a week.

We know mega-cities in the poorest countries struggle to provide water and other basic services, particularly to the poorest people, and climate change is going to make that worse. But this might be the first example of drought and climate change moving up the income scale, affecting relatively affluent people in a relatively affluent (though certainly unequally distributed) city and country. You can say it is due to poor planning or an absence of planning, but that suggests long-term climate change planning is not something any city or country can afford to ignore, no matter how secure its water situation might seem now.

human head transplants

Human head transplants may be possible this century, neuroscientist says

Sometimes a headline says it all. The article says this technology is not far off, although it would be expensive.

The separation of head and body would have to occur on two humans simultaneously, Canavero writes… The procedure, Canavero writes, would have to take place within an hour… He adds that the surgery would take a team of 100 surgeons roughly 36 hours to complete, at an estimated cost of £8.5-million ($128-million).[*]

“The problem” of this surgery, Canavero told ABCNews.com, “is not really technical but is completely ethical.”

It’s hard to imagine any situation where this would be ethical. To have a donor, someone would have to die in a way that leaves their otherwise healthy body completely intact, except for the head. Grafting heads onto executed prisoners might solve the ethical problem for some, but not for me. All I can think of is if we could grow human bodies with no brain at all, or all but the most primitive part of the nervous system that keeps basic organs functioning. Even that sounds ethically dubious. But you figure, if there is a black market for individual organs now, some dying rich person somewhere will try this eventually whether it is ethical or not. I wonder, if we somehow solved all non-brain-related diseases like heart disease and cancer, and we perfected the technology of cloning brainless bodies in some ethical way, how long could we live? How long could the brain actually last, considering that we hear constantly that we start losing brain function as early as our 30s?

I can’t help thinking of the awful 1991 movie Body Parts, in which this sort of thing doesn’t turn out well, and that was just an arm!

* yes if the operation cost 8.5 million British pounds, it should be 12.8 million US dollars above, not 128 million. Either that, or they meant 85 million pounds. It doesn’t really change the point of the article.

designing fragmented ecosystems

This article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution is about purposely controlling spatial fragmentation in ecosystems in order to maximize ecosystem services. If I understand correctly, their hypothesis seems to be that a system that is fragmented in a carefully designed way could provide more ecosystem services than an unfragmented system.

Landscape structure and fragmentation have important effects on ecosystem services, with a common assumption being that fragmentation reduces service provision. This is based on fragmentation’s expected effects on ecosystem service supply, but ignores how fragmentation influences the flow of services to people. Here we develop a new conceptual framework that explicitly considers the links between landscape fragmentation, the supply of services, and the flow of services to people. We argue that fragmentation’s effects on ecosystem service flow can be positive or negative, and use our framework to construct testable hypotheses about the effects of fragmentation on final ecosystem service provision. Empirical efforts to apply and test this framework are critical to improving landscape management for multiple ecosystem services.

This idea is important to the idea that we could hypothetically design a civilization that is not only less bad than the one we have now, but one that is actually good for the planet and people.

birds, bees, bugs, plants

On the green infrastructure front, there are lots of resources out there on what plants support what kinds of wildlife.

“Bugs” have a PR problem as a group, but they have their charismatic members – bees, butterflies, and dragonflies to name a few. If you support these, you will probably support others by accident. There is plenty of information out there, for example:

The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation has a ton of free publications on plants, pollinators, and design; including bee-friendly plant lists for all regions of the United States and several other countries.

The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center has a ton of free native plant information, including recommended mixes to attract various types of wildlife in all U.S. states and Canadian provinces.

Finally, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture) has free fact sheets on about a thousand plants.

A lot of good can be done for wildlife and humanity on small scraps of land, and even more good could be done if we gave serious thought to how all those scraps of land fit together and connect to larger parks and preserves. So let’s get out and plant something this spring, even if it’s small. Or if you have a scrap of land but you don’t feel like planting anything, find a frustrated armchair gardener who doesn’t have their own scrap and let them plant something on yours.

critical natural capital

This article in Ecological Economics is about the idea of critical natural capital. Critical natural capital is meant to bridge the gap between strong sustainability, which says manufactured capital cannot be substituted for natural capital, and weak sustainability, which says it can. Critical natural capital says that some, but not all, of it can be substituted, because some of it is, well, critical.

The other theme of this paper is the “capability approach”, which is based on the ideas of Amartya Sen. Reading Amartya Sen is on my list of things to do eventually someday, but I haven’t gotten to that yet.

This article is an attempt to conceptually improve the notion of strong sustainability by creating a rapprochement between its core concept, critical natural capital, and the capability approach. We first demonstrate that the capability approach constitutes a relevant framework for analysing the multiple links between human well-being and critical natural capital. Second, we demonstrate that the rapprochement between critical natural capital and the capability approach can form both the normative basis and the informational basis for a deliberative approach to human development which embraces a strong sustainability perspective. This conceptual rapprochement, as illustrated in our case study, opens up avenues of research towards the practical implementation of human development projects from a strong sustainability perspective.

Pennsylvania is #1…

…in government fragmentation, according to this 2003 paper by David Rusk at the Brookings Institution.

  • The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has created the nation’s most fragmented system of local government within its metropolitan areas.
  • State policies have contributed to uncontrolled urban sprawl by making its “little boxes” governments so highly dependent on local property taxes, promoting a constant ratables chase. Over the last fifty years Pennsylvania ranks second only to West Virginia in consuming the most land for the least population growth.
  • The combination – constant outward development overlaying a pattern of immutable local government boundaries – has condemned Pennsylvania’s “inelastic” central cities, most boroughs, and many “built-out” townships to population, economic, and fiscal decline.
  • The many governmental “little boxes” actively contribute to the high degree of racial and economic segregation that characterizes Pennsylvania’s metropolitan areas.
  • Whether through costly inefficiencies, high social and economic disparities, or cutthroat inter-municipal competition, Pennsylvania’s governmental system of “little boxes” also retards its economic growth.
  • Sprawl and steady abandonment of “inelastic” central cities, most boroughs, and many “built-out” townships also implicitly means abandonment (or certainly underutilization) of existing physical infrastructure (houses, stores, factories, water and sewer lines, etc.) that cost prior generations a fortune to create originally and is even more expensive to duplicate anew. Discarding this investment is decidedly fiscally wasteful.

The obvious answer would be to reorganize around metropolitan areas. The Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan Council is one model of a regional government with real teeth. I am not an expert on state constitutional law, but it may be that Pennsylvania’s “home rule” state constitution makes it difficult to do something similar. Or it may be that the system of representative government gives outsize power to representatives from relatively less populous places, so the state legislature is unlikely to overhaul things even if the constitution would allow it. Even if these problems could be solved at the state level, the Philadelphia metro area would still cover parts of New Jersey and Delaware. So the remaining option is massive changes to the United States Constitution abolishing states entirely in favor of metropolitan areas. I haven’t noticed that in any campaign platforms lately.