American Made: The New Manufacturing Landscape

NPR has this series called American Made. It has a variety of interesting articles/interviews but there is a common theme. We are making and selling a lot of stuff, and it has a lot of economic value to be captured. But manufacturing is now a tech industry. It is more capital- and technology-intensive all the time, and less labor-intensive. So favoring manufacturing over other industries is not going to be a path to full employment and sharing the wealth with low- and medium-skilled workers like in the U.S. of the 50s and 60s, or the Asia of the 80s and 90s and 00s. By default the value is going to be captured by a small elite who own the capital or have the skills to create and operate the technology, unless we think of something better.

Also related to this topic, be sure to check out this Dilbert.

 

IPCC AR5

IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report is out. It’s a long, exhausting document that I will probably slog my way through little by little. I’ve pulled out just a couple passages here about food production and fisheries, which are two risks I tend to think about. I think humans can generally deal with higher temperatures and more frequent storms and coastal flooding, because there is such a wide range of these things now and we deal with them. Food production is the intersection of water, energy, and ecosystems.

Assessment of many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops shows that negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence). The smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to high-latitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has been negative or positive in these regions (high confidence). Climate change has negatively affected wheat and maize yields for many regions and in the global aggregate (medium confidence). Effects on rice and soybean yield have been smaller in major production regions and globally, with a median change of zero across all available data, which are fewer for soy compared to the other crops. (See Figure 1.11C) Observed impacts relate mainly to production aspects of food security rather than access or other components of food security. Since AR4, several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors (medium confidence)…

Global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions, under climate change, will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services, especially at low latitudes (high confidence). By the mid-21st century, under 2 °C global warming relative to pre-industrial temperatures, shifts in the geographical range of marine species will cause species richness and fisheries catch potential to increase, on average, at mid and high latitudes (high confidence) and to decrease at tropical latitudes and in semi-enclosed seas (Figure 2.6A) (medium confidence). The progressive expansion of Oxygen Minimum Zones and anoxic ‘dead zones’ in the oceans will further constrain fish habitats (medium confidence). Open-ocean net primary production is projected to redistribute and to decrease globally, by 2100, under all RCP scenarios (medium confidence). Climate change adds to the threats of over-fishing and other non-climatic stressors (high confidence).

We talk so much about the atmosphere, but our oceans, forests, and soils are absorbing a lot of the carbon emissions, and are the reason our planet and current civilization are as resilient as they are. We better take care of them.

1989

“We’ve got to do more to ameliorate the violence and suffering that afflict so many regions in the world, and to remove common threats to our future. The deterioration of the environment, the spread of nuclear and chemical weapons, ballistic missile technology…”
-George H.W. Bush, December 3, 1989

Hmm…how are we doing on this stuff now?

Russell Brand vs. John Oliver

I enjoy Russell Brand’s take on American social issues here. His show is a little bit like John Oliver’s show, in that it is insightful yet delightfully hilarious commentary interspersed with real facts, figures and news clips. The main difference is that Russell is in his bedroom rather than a television studio, and does not appear to have taken a shower or put on a clean shirt yet.

Looney Tunes

What the…

For once, I’m speechless…

The real Agenda 21 is not a secret conspiracy. At least, it’s not secret – it’s right here. I think the main reason people make up stuff about it rather than actually reading it, is that it’s mind-numbingly boring. I certainly haven’t read it all the way through. I don’t think anyone could. From a quick skim, it’s about sustainable development, but it’s hardly radical. In fact, it’s generally pro-trade and pro-growth.

habitat fragmentation and connectivity

Did you ever wonder how to quantitatively analyze the quality, shape, and degree of connectivity of natural habitats? Well, there’s an open source app for that, called FRAGSTATS, and good documentation that describes the theory behind it. To summarize, it looks at area and edge, shape, core area, contrast, aggregation, and diversity. Here are just a few quotes describing some of the metrics.

“Core area is defined as the area within a patch beyond some specified depth-of-edge influence (i.e., edge distance) or buffer width.”

“Contrast refers to the magnitude of difference between adjacent patch types with respect to one or more ecological attributes at a given scale that are relevant to the organism or process under consideration.”

“Aggregation refers to the tendency of patch types to be spatially aggregated; that is,
to occur in large, aggregated or “contagious” distributions.”

“FRAGSTATS computes 3 diversity indices. These diversity measures are influenced by 2 components- richness and evenness. Richness refers to the number of patch types present; evenness refers to the distribution of area among different types.”

October 2014 in Review

At the end of September, my Hope for the Future Index stood at +1.  As I did last month, I’ll sort selected posts that talk about positive trends and ideas vs. negative trends, predictions, and risks. Just for fun, I’ll keep a score card and pretend my posts are some kind of indicator of whether things are getting better or worse. I’ll give posts a score from -3 to +3 based on how negative or positive they are.

Negative trends and predictions (-11):

  • The Wall Street Journal prints an op-ed by a climate change skeptic. Wait, I thought there was a pure consensus among serious scientists about climate change. Or is it just serious climatologists, with a few lone dissenting physicists like this guy? Either way, there is an overwhelming near-consensus and by printing this the WSJ gives the idea that there is still a significant debate, thereby reducing the chances of action being taken. Meanwhile, the New York Times tells us where in the U.S. to move as the heat creeps up on us – Alaska, Seattle, and Detroit. Tidal flooding may also become a bigger problem in coastal cities. (-1)
  • Economists and economic journalists are buzzing about a worldwide slowdown and an even more severe financial crisis that may be on the horizon. Europe, and France in particular, seem to be getting into dangerous territory right now. (-2)
  • The new Living Planet Report says our ecological footprint has not ticked up from 1.5 planets since the last Living Planet Report. That is, no change given the rounding error of 0.1 planets. Before we get too happy, remember that a number over 1 is meant to measure the rate of decline. So these would be mean not that our situation has stabilized, but that the rate of decline has not accelerated. (-1)
  • Slavery is a good example of how amoral profit-seeking private enterprise can lead to evil consequences. (-3)
  • The drought in California and the U.S. desert southwest continues to get worse. Ours is not the first civilization to be impacted by drought in the U.S. desert southwest, and hopefully we will deal with it better than last time. (-1)
  • The U.S. medical system may not be prepared for Ebola, and if not it would be even less well prepared for something even more serious. (-1)
  • The American entrepreneurial spirit may have slowed down over the last generation. If this is true, it would be yet one more drag on the innovation pickup the world needs. (-1)
  • Energy prices are down. I’m not smart enough to tell you definitively if this is good or bad. If it reflected a breakthrough in renewable energy technology and cost-effectiveness, or low energy, sustainable food production, it would be great news. I hope renewable energy is starting to have an effect. But the bulk of the effect, most likely, reflects upward pressure on supply from hydraulic fracturing, and downward pressure on demand from economic slowing in Asia and Europe. High energy and food prices over the past decade quite likely have a hand in the economic slowing. Economic slowing can lower the world’s ecological footprint a bit, but it can also slow down innovation and, of course, lead to unemployment, hunger, unrest and conflict. (-0)
  • Echoes of the Cold War are rearing their ugly head, with Sweden out searching for Russian submarines in its territorial waters. (-1)

Positive trends and predictions (+8):

  • Maybe green consumer behavior can be scaled up through clever advertising. (+1)
  • Mosquitoes are being purposely infected with a naturally occurring bacteria, then released to control Dengue fever. (+1)
  • Automation (i.e. increasing computer control of nearly everything) is really taking hold of our economy and society, with potentially positive consequences for overall productivity and wealth, but potentially negative consequences for employment and distribution of wealth, depending on how it is handled. (+0)
  • There really are a lot of good examples and a lot of knowledge out there on how to have a lot of healthy trees in cities. This is known technology. Now cities in North America and the developing world just need to catch up and adopt the technology. (+1)
  • The old economy, for example dirty old fossil fueled electric utilities and sleazy taxi companies, are fighting the new, such as solar road materials and ride sharing. As they realize the technological and economic tide is turning against them, they are fighting in legislatures and courts for special laws that are unfair in their favor. They might win some battles and retard progress for a while, but I don’t see how they can win the long-term war. (+1)
  • LED light bulbs are now the overwhelming best household lighting choice, even in terms of purchase price. (+1)
  • Developing countries today are achieving much better health outcomes than developing countries of the past did at similar income levels. (+1)
  • People are waking up to fact that computer-controlled cars may free up large amounts of space in cities for new uses. (+2)
  • New technology for freezing human eggs may give women more flexibility on how and when to start a family, but muddle the historical meaning of biological relationships and generations. (+0)

Hope for the Future Index (September 2014): +1

October 2014 change: -11 + 8 = -3

Hope for the Future Index (October 2014): +1 – 3 = -2

houses and cars

This article from Atlantic Monthly saying Millennials are not interested in houses and cars has been talked about a lot. The car companies think they just haven’t hit on the right propaganda yet:

Don’t blame Ford. The company is trying to solve a puzzle that’s bewildering every automaker in America: How do you sell cars to Millennials (a k a Generation Y)? The fact is, today’s young people simply don’t drive like their predecessors did. In 2010, adults between the ages of 21 and 34 bought just 27 percent of all new vehicles sold in America, down from the peak of 38 percent in 1985. Miles driven are down, too. Even the proportion of teenagers with a license fell, by 28 percent, between 1998 and 2008.

In a bid to reverse these trends, General Motors has enlisted the youth-brand consultants at MTV Scratch—a corporate cousin of the TV network responsible for Jersey Shore—to give its vehicles some 20-something edge. “I don’t believe that young buyers don’t care about owning a car,” says John McFarland, GM’s 31-year-old manager of global strategic marketing. “We just think nobody truly understands them yet.” Subaru, meanwhile, is betting that it can appeal to the quirky eco-­conscious individualism that supposedly characterizes this generation. “We’re trying to get the emotional connection correct,” says Doug O’Reilly, a publicist for Subaru. Ford, for its part, continues to push heavily into social media, hoping to more closely match its marketing efforts to the channels that Millennials use and trust the most.

I think Millennials have encountered a tough economy. If economic conditions improve and they have more money, they will find ways to spend it. But not necessarily on cars. I think cars are just fundamentally different from all the other things we can buy with our money. No other good just completely saturates the physical environment, and drives the entire way our physical world is set up, the way cars do. Cars have physically saturated our world to the point that there is no room to squeeze any more of them in. Getting around our car-oriented world is just not convenient any more, and people are smart enough to realize that no matter how much advertising is thrown at them. Advertising messages that cars represent “freedom” are just not going to resonate with most people any more. And as far as status and sex appeal, I don’t believe for a second that our species has fundamentally changed – those things still matter to our species of large hairless ape but they are moving on to new forms.

Cars kill, pollute, waste our space and waste our time – good riddance.

shale bust?

This article casts doubt on the U.S. government’s predictions of domestic oil and gas production. Granted, it is from something called the Post Carbon Institute which may have a point of view.

This report finds that tight oil production from major plays will peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Bakken or Eagle Ford, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Tight oil production from the two top plays, the Bakken and Eagle Ford, will underperform the EIA’s reference case oil recovery by 28% from 2013 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from the Bakken and Eagle Ford will be less than a tenth of that projected by the EIA. Tight oil production forecast by the EIA from plays other than the Bakken and Eagle Ford is in most cases highly optimistic and unlikely to be realized at the medium- and long-term rates projected.

Shale gas production from the top seven plays will also likely peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Marcellus, production will be far below the EIA’s forecast by 2040. Shale gas production from the top seven plays will underperform the EIA’s reference case forecast by 39% from 2014 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from these plays will be about one-third that of the EIA forecast. Production from shale gas plays other than the top seven will need to be four times that estimated by the EIA in order to meet its reference case forecast.