City Accelerator Guide

This City Accelerator Guide for Embedding Innovation in Local Government says surprisingly little. However, one thing caught my eye:

The innovation team should run a large number of projects in order to sustain a robust pipeline. It is unknown which innovations will be successful and which ones won’t, so the team always needs to be building plenty of partnerships and pursuing many pilots. Having many irons in the fire ensures that regardless of whether projects succeed or fail, there are always new innovations in development. In some ways this may happen naturally, given the “stretched-thin” nature of local government teams, but a little extra nudge here and there can really help keep things moving. It is also important to think strategically about the range of projects we are engaged in from the perspective of a portfolio so that we can manage risk and reward effectively.

Does this mean your innovation team is running a pyramid scheme, constantly starting more projects every day than it can finish, so that the whole thing collapses under its own weight? Well, the advice there is “most projects won’t need to have a high level of polish until they are quite advanced, and only a subset of projects will reach that stage.” So, I guess you take a large number of small risks, loudly publicize the successes, and let the failures die a quiet death.

hottest year on record

Thank you, junky weather site wunderground.com for this headline: 2014: Hottest Year in Recorded Human History. Actually this is a pretty good post with a lot of interesting graphs that you can stare at for a long, long time.

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, global surface temperatures in 2014 were 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average, highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C). Using independent measurement techniques but mostly the same set of surface stations, NASA also rated 2014 as the warmest year on record, as did the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA).

This article talks briefly about the idea that “The rate of global warming since 2000 has been slower than in the 1980s and 1990s…” If you stare at the graphs long enough, you can understand how both of these things are true. From around 1980 to 2000, air temperatures got a lot hotter. From 2000 to now, they have stayed about the same, which is to say constantly very hot. So it is easy for a given year to edge a tiny bit higher than the year before and be the new hottest year ever.

 

Planetary Boundaries 2

Johan Rockstrom and company have published a sequel to their original “planetary boundaries” work. Here’s a summary from the Stockholm Resilience Center:

Four of nine planetary boundaries have now been crossed as a result of human activity, says an international team of 18 researchers in the journal Science (16 January 2015). The four are: climate change, loss of biosphere integrity, land-system change, altered biogeochemical cycles (phosphorus and nitrogen).

Two of these, climate change and biosphere integrity, are what the scientists call “core boundaries”. Significantly altering either of these “core boundaries” would “drive the Earth System into a new state”.

“Transgressing a boundary increases the risk that human activities could inadvertently drive the Earth System into a much less hospitable state, damaging efforts to reduce poverty and leading to a deterioration of human wellbeing in many parts of the world, including wealthy countries,” …

Nine planetary boundaries
1. Climate change
2. Change in biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and species extinction)
3. Stratospheric ozone depletion
4. Ocean acidification
5. Biogeochemical flows (phosphorus and nitrogen cycles)
6. Land-system change (for example deforestation)
7. Freshwater use
8. Atmospheric aerosol loading (microscopic particles in the atmosphere that affect climate and living organisms)
9. Introduction of novel entities (e.g. organic pollutants, radioactive materials, nanomaterials, and micro-plastics).

And for the video watchers, here is Mr. Rockstrom himself on Youtube:

external costs

Here’s a clear explanation of the rationale for regulating or taxing external costs:

Environmental regulation addresses a particularly striking example of market failure. Markets are generally efficient if companies’ revenues correctly reflect all the benefits that their output bestows on third parties, while their costs reflect all the harms. In this case, maximizing profit leads to maximizing social welfare.

But if production entails environmental damage for which companies do not pay, incentives are distorted; companies may turn a profit, but they function inefficiently in economic terms. So the state “corrects” firms’ incentives by levying fines or issuing bans.

I find this elegant as long as the external costs are relatively small compared to the costs that are reflected in the market. However, what if the costs priced by the market represent only a small fraction of the total cost. Then the idea of taxing the external cost wouldn’t work.

more on oil

Here’s an argument that oil prices are likely to stay low for awhile. Basically, the argument is that the OPEC countries will keep pumping at full capacity and allow prices to fluctuate, thereby forcing the fracking companies to cut production every time prices fall below their costs. This article puts those costs at something like $50.

the only way for OPEC to restore, or even preserve, its market share is by pushing prices down to the point that US producers drastically reduce their output to balance global supply and demand. In short, the Saudis must stop being a “swing producer” and instead force US frackers into this role.

Any economics textbook would recommend exactly this outcome. Shale oil is expensive to extract and should therefore remain in the ground until all of the world’s low-cost conventional oilfields are pumping at maximum output. Moreover, shale production can be cheaply turned on and off.

Competitive market conditions would therefore dictate that Saudi Arabia and other low-cost producers always operate at full capacity, while US frackers would experience the boom-bust cycles typical of commodity markets, shutting down when global demand is weak or new low-cost supplies come onstream from Iraq, Libya, Iran, or Russia, and ramping up production only during global booms when oil demand is at a peak.

Sounds okay except I figure demand will continue to rise, slowly but surely, and drilling technology will continue to get cheaper, slowly but surely. So maybe this will go on for awhile, but one day fracking may be as cheap as traditional oil, and/or the traditional fields may start to run out faster than new ones are being found. Or maybe renewable energy will come to our rescue – I hope so, but cheap oil and gas aren’t going to make that day come any sooner. An international carbon price putting a floor on fossil fuel costs would do it, of course, and would create predictability for everyone, but at the moment it is hard to envision the political will materializing for that.

Exxon’s 2015 Outlook for Energy

Here is Exxon’s 2015 Outlook for Energy report. They talk about the importance of fossil fuels in the progress in living standards over the past couple centuries. They talk about the rise of the middle class in developing Asia, and how that is going to lead to rising living standards and health, but also big increases in demand for energy, food and materials. Now, you can’t begrudge people rising living standards and health, which are wonderful things. However, I wouldn’t equate progress just with more traffic, concrete and shopping malls full of designer hand bags. I would equate it more with things like safe drinking water, affordable food and health care. And air conditioning – I would never begrudge any human being in the tropics air conditioning.

They make a crucial logical error – using the rate of carbon emissions, rather than accumulation of emissions in the atmosphere, as a proxy for ecological footprint. They say the rate of global emissions is expected to peak around 2030.

While every country faces a unique set of priorities and resource
constraints, we expect that most every nation, regardless of circumstance, will seek solutions that help curb emissions without harming the prospects of greater prosperity for its own citizens.
Toward this objective, two of the most effective solutions are improving energy efficiency across the economy (also referred to as reducing energy intensity) and reducing the CO2 content across the energy mix. Through 2040, each will play a powerful role in slowing emissions growth, and ultimately reversing what had been a decades-long rise in global CO2 emissions. In fact, we expect global energy-related CO2 emissions will rise
by about 25 percent from 2010 to 2030 and then decline approximately 5 percent to 2040.

In absolute terms, global CO2 emissions are expected to be about 6 billion tonnes higher in 2040 than they were in 2010. While that increase is significant, it is only about half the level of emissions growth seen from 1980 to 2010. This is all the more remarkable considering the growth in economic output from 2010 to 2040 will be about 150 percent more than the prior 30-year period.

Stabilizing the rate of emissions will not do the trick, unless the rate of emissions is below the rate the atmosphere can absorb without permanent harm to the environment or economy. That’s like saying the amount of credit card debt you add each month is the same each month. You are still spending more than your income, and one day this is going to “harm your prospects of greater prosperity”.

We will have really turned the corner if our rate of emissions is reduced to the point where the concentration in the atmosphere is stable or declining. And even if we manage to do that, we need to think about other impacts – nutrient pollution, soil depletion, groundwater and glacier loss, biodiversity and habitat loss, ocean acidification, and the list goes on.

open source street noise model

Here’s an open-source code for modeling street noise propagation. It’s written in R and open source database and GIS tools.

This paper describes the development of a model for assessing TRAffic Noise EXposure (TRANEX) in an open-source geographic information system. Instead of using proprietary software we developed our own model for two main reasons: 1) so that the treatment of source geometry, traffic information (flows/speeds/spatially varying diurnal traffic profiles) and receptors matched as closely as possible to that of the air pollution modelling being undertaken in the TRAFFIC project, and 2) to optimize model performance for practical reasons of needing to implement a noise model with detailed source geometry, over a large geographical area, to produce noise estimates at up to several million address locations, with limited computing resources. To evaluate TRANEX, noise estimates were compared with noise measurements made in the British cities of Leicester and Norwich. High correlation was seen between modelled and measured LAeq,1hr (Norwich: r = 0.85, p = .000; Leicester: r = 0.95, p = .000) with average model errors of 3.1 dB. TRANEX was used to estimate noise exposures (LAeq,1hr, LAeq,16hr, Lnight) for the resident population of London (2003–2010). Results suggest that 1.03 million (12%) people are exposed to daytime road traffic noise levels ≥ 65 dB(A) and 1.63 million (19%) people are exposed to night-time road traffic noise levels ≥ 55 dB(A). Differences in noise levels between 2010 and 2003 were on average relatively small: 0.25 dB (standard deviation: 0.89) and 0.26 dB (standard deviation: 0.87) for LAeq,16hr and Lnight.

 

green infrastructure, happiness, and the ginkgo-stinkgo tree

Do trees make people happy? Well yes, I think most people subjectively just have a sense this is true. But for the cynics out there, there is also hard scientific evidence. People have tried all sorts of economic approaches – correlations with real estate markets and willingness-to-pay surveys – for example, to try to estimate the value people place on trees. (Can you measure happiness in dollars? The average man on the street might say no, but the average economist might say it’s the best of many imperfect options for measuring value.) Medical researchers have tried having people walk around cities with brain scanners on their heads. This is a new one to me though – correlating tree coverage with antidepressant prescriptions. And the correlation is there.

Growing evidence suggests an association between access to urban greenspace and mental health and wellbeing. Street trees may be an important facet of everyday exposure to nature in urban environments, but there is little evidence regarding their role in influencing population mental health. In this brief report, we raise the issue of street trees in the nature-health nexus, and use secondary data sources to examine the association between the density of street trees (trees/km street) in London boroughs and rates of antidepressant prescribing. After adjustment for potential confounders, and allowing for unmeasured area-effects using Bayesian mixed effects models, we find an inverse association, with a decrease of 1.18 prescriptions per thousand population per unit increase in trees per km of street (95% credible interval 0.00, 2.45). This study suggests that street trees may be a positive urban asset to decrease the risk of negative mental health outcomes.

And in other urban tree news, you can collect ginkgo berries, take out the nuts, roast them and eat them. The only problem being that they stink to high heaven and are mildly poisonous. Ginkgos are very interesting trees though, sort of an ancient cross between trees and ferns if you believe this article.

Believed to be truly indigenous to only a single province in China , this 270 million year old species belongs to an ancient lineage of species that have since disappeared for one reason or another over the past few millennia, making Ginkgo biloba (known as a ‘living fossil’) the sole extant representative of what was once a vast and diverse group of organisms. In fact, the ginkgo tree is so unlike any other living plant species that this tree has it’s own genus, family, order, class and division. To put this into terms that may be easier to conceptualize: the only thing that ginkgo trees have in common with other plants is they are also plants. This means that pretty much everything about their genetic make-up, physiology, general behavior, reproductive strategies (including their mobile sperm; a trait particular to ferns, cycads and algae) and even their ability to photosynthesize is anywhere between slightly-off to fundamentally different from any other living plant. Oh, and you can eat it’s seeds…

It’s a bit of a messy operation collecting the seeds which are often produced profusely by female trees and lie unmolested by fungi, insects or most pests of any kind save for some adventurous squirrels which occasionally eat the seeds. I find some rubber or latex gloves and a plastic bag are your best bet for collecting the seeds in addition to some grubby clothes that you don’t mind smelling cheesy for a little while. The scent from the fruit tends to linger when it gets on fabric or clothing and so you might want to try extra hard to remember not to wear anything that you are particularly fond of when engaging in the participatory act of ginkgo seed collecting.

I think it’s cool that some people do this, but I personally am not going to take up this hobby right now.

poker bots

It never occurred to me before that there might be computers playing in online poker games, but it makes sense.

Bowling says the program isn’t much of a threat to online gamblers. Heads-up, Limit Hold’em is not the variety of poker most people play. But he does believe that “poker bots” are trying to win in online game rooms. “My guess is there are probably quite strong poker bots out there,” he says. “But you’re not going to hear a lot of talk about them.”

What to Eat After the Apocalypse

This post is a must read. I did not expect anything in it. It’s hard to pick a quote because the whole thing is quotable. Anyway:

There are two main sources of bacteria that we looked at. There is a methane-digesting bacteria that you basically grow on natural gas. And then we can either eat that directly or process it or say, feed it to rats and then eat the rats. Then there’s the bacteria that we can grow directly on wood. Or on leftover mushroom waste. And so this would be taking down a tree, pulverizing it, turning it into a slurry, and then letting the bacteria go at it.

So for instance, there are bacteria that secrete sugars they then use to feed themselves. You can pull out the sugars, and eat those ourselves and leave the bacteria and the partially decaying wood pulp. And we can feed that stuff to other things. So for instance, rats digest wood to some degree, particularly after it is partially broken down that way. This makes a fairly good solution. We could feed something similar to chickens. And chicken is something maybe people would maybe be happier to eat than bacteria milkshakes.

So – we’re going to cut down all the trees, which is going to be hard because they will be frozen. Then we pulp them, feed the pulp to bacteria, then to rats, then eat the rats. Please people, let’s not let it get to this point.

It also reminded me of the yeast vats in The Caves of Steel. Also how certain yeast strains can make wheat beer taste like bananas, even though there are no bananas in there. It has occurred to me before that fungi could be a key to feeding people in a world that was photosynthetically limited for one reason or another.