matyra's Blog

The oil slick that we're swimming in

2010-09-02T21:34:23Z

Well, today we have a fire on a platform in the Gulf. And a tanker carrying 2.4 million gallons of oil ran aground in northern Canada today. And we just had a little issue that lasted a whole summer with another platform. You may have heard of it.

We are officially out of Iraq, though our advisory role will last potentially years. (Iraq has a smidgen of oil, btw). Neighboring Iran just created their own drone to counter ours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, demand for oil is going down faster than OPEC can deal with it as our economy bounces around. The Middle East has a plethora of petrodictatorships that we rely on to be friendly. And also, Israel has recently discovered that it has so much oil off shore that it may reach financial and energy independence--which plays into its current dealings with neighbors no doubt.
]]> We rely on oil every day for transportation--in fact our cities are designed haplessly and inextricably linked to our current favorite mode of transportation, the car. Oil is transportation in our current situation. It is so closely tied to manufacturing, transport of goods, and the makeup of the goods themselves (plastics!), that you could say that oil is our economy. Oil makes running a mine possible; it makes harvesting timber possible; it runs our buses, cools our homes. Oil is one reason that we won WW2--we had more of it.

But we know that it's deadly. Japan had a record year so far, weather-wise. So did much of the Northern Hemisphere. As that jagged little line, the Keeling curve, that shows the amount of CO2 is in our atmosphere rises we wonder what the future holds. We've track marks on our arms, our groin, the inner parts of our elbows, and the veins in our ankles are starting to look good. So we drill in deeper and deeper water, even though that same substance is killing us and what we rely on to survive.

And we really do require it to survive--at least in our current lifestyle/economy/worldview--and it comes with a little skull and a little crossbones on every drop too small to see.

Preventative Care--HCR has that?!?

2010-07-16T17:50:04Z

During the run-up to HCR, a lot of us were discussing how America doesn't really do preventative care. Well, to clarify, we do preventative care, but we tend to focus on treatment and not prevention. This is a major reason why Cuba, which spends so little per person, can have such high life expectancy rates. Many, including me, think that the passed Health Care Reform could have done so much more for disease prevention. One thing that I overlooked is the elimination of most copays for preventative care.

Someone at the American Cancer Society (ACS) told me yesterday about a recent mobile mammography experience; ACS drives to rural areas to offer free or near-free mammagrapy to those (for lack of time, money, or just convenience) who don't drive hundreds of miles for nominal preventative care. If you have insurance, then there's a small charge and if you don't the mammography is free. One person was interested in getting a mammogram as it had been years since her last mammogram, but because she had insurance, there would have been a $10 copay. Therefore the person opted out. Because of $10, this person managed both to avoid preventative lifesaving care and to exasperate the ACS worker:

It's just $10!

Granted, $10 is not a lot of money. But to many, copayments are a disincentive to make their way into the doctor's office for needed preventative care. I mean, 90% of the time, you come out OK, right? The Wall Street Journal notes that

Often because of cost, Americans use preventive services at about half the recommended rate, according to research cited by the White House. Chronic diseases, which are often preventable, are responsible for 7 of 10 deaths among Americans each year and account for 75 percent of the nation's health spending..

]]>
Insurance Day says

Health care reform is not just about lowering costs and expanding access to care-it's about helping Americans stay healthy," said. Congresswoman Dahlkemper. "Free preventative care-no copayments for things like regular check ups and cancer screenings-will help Americans maintain their health and prevent the chronic diseases and other illnesses that add the most significant costs to our medical system and prevent people from leading productive, active lives."

Now if we can tackle the food "industry", then maybe we're onto something

Cheering for North Korea? (Lessons from the World-Cup)

2010-06-15T22:11:21Z

Brazil is ranked #1; North Korea is #105. So it was supposed to be the most lopsided game of the Cup. Heck, I was joking that it would be 5-0. But North Korea played with poise. Both teams played hard and showed sportsmanship. And the Brazilians gained respect for their opponents. A Brazillian player went down and a N. Korean helped him up. A Brazilian returned the favor. Both sides strove, many shots and saves were made, and the half arrived with the score 0-0.

Brazil did eventually get its legs and beat N. Korea 2-1. But the amazing thing was the 1 goal that the North Koreans gained. After a game where the N. Koreans gained the respect of the fans, when they finally scored against the giant (Brazil), the place I was in erupted in cheers.

Why wouldn't they? The North Koreans had earned it.

]]>
When the game was over the Koreans were all smiles, and the Brazilians and Koreans shook hands, slapped each others' backs, and walked off the field as almost equals (OK, Brazil did in fact win the game). It left me with a question of how Asia would be if North Korea's government played by the rules as well.

Being Human

2010-06-05T15:19:43Z

Mother teaching a young one how to use a stone to crack open a palm nut. Meanwhile baby just plays with nuts.

What does it mean to be human? Jane Goodall back in the 1960s discovered that chimpanzees use tools, just like humans do. Before that, only humans used tools. We've learned that many animals communicate verbally, and use what can only be called language. But that was something only humans could do. We know elephants can look in a mirror and recognize the splotch of paint that the the 'crazy human' put on their face, touch it with their trunk, and try to wipe it off. But only humans are self-aware, right?

]]>

a tool set of five objects--pounder, perforator, enlarger, collector, and swab--to obtain honey. Other tool sets are used to fish for termites or dip for army ants. All these tool sets must be used in the correct functional order to be successful. Some primatologists have argued that this necessity of sequential order is a sign of complex cognitive processes.

You think? One thing that has always amused me is how scientists, by necessity since they can't presume something actually is smart, always seem to state the obvious. I think last week they came out with the finding that dogs can remember things and be taught to do tasks. (Meanwhile service dogs have been used to help people in their daily lives for decades).

So we have chimpanzees using tool sets. The Science paper is subscription-based, so here is a link to a summary of the article that shows the myriad ways that chimpanzees use technology. But there are more similarities between chimps and us. Jane Goodall discovered that different groups of chimpanzees raid neighboring groups, even murdering others. In Senegal, chimpanzees have left the jungle to roam the savanna and use sharpened sticks to hunt. (By the way the National Geographic article above is an amazing article--recommended!).

Different groups of chimps have different habits, use different tool sets (technology), acquire different foods, and have different social habits. In the last few years, the word "culture" has lost it's Homo Sapiens bias and describes chimpanzees perfectly. And, even more tellingly, a new branch of science looks at artifacts of past chimpanzee groups--if only to be able to tell a chimpanzee mortar and pestle apart from an ancient human one. A researcher examining 4300-year-old artifacts in the Ivory Coast exclaims

We used to think that culture and, above anything else, technology was the exclusive domain of humans, but this is not the case," Mercader says. Previous research that Mercader published in the journal Science in May 2002 has paved the way for the new sub-discipline of chimpanzee archaeology, which combines archaeology, paleo-anthropology and primatology.

Every time something is discovered that was only thought to be a trait of humans, it is resisted vehemently. It's like we are so fragile that not being 'special' is going to destroy our placement in the universe. There is no doubt that humans are intelligent, resourceful. It's just that we are not alone. The question "is there intelligent life besides ourselves?" has been answered even before we look at the stars.

"It's a real fight. It's a war." (Calderon)

2010-05-26T15:38:57Z

Students Strongly Urged to Avoid Traveling in or around Juarez Area Because of the ongoing violence and the deaths of two UTEP students in Juárez, Mexico, over the weekend, UNM Deputy Provost, Richard Holder is strongly urging students to avoid travel in around the Juarez area, specifically south of the city. According to an article in the El Paso Times: "The Chihuahua state prosecutor's office said the two men were traveling in a gray Jeep Cherokee when they were chased down and shot Sunday evening on the highway linking Juárez and the town of Villa Ahumada. The shooter was armed with an AK-47 rifle. Investigators found Gonzalez dead in the front seat and Ruiz laying on the asphalt next to the vehicle. Both men had multiple gunshot wounds. Six bullet casings were located at the scene. The case is under investigation. The murders of college students and professors in Juárez has become more frequent as the violence in the city has raged for more than two years. During the weekend, homicides in Juárez surpassed 1,000 for the year. State police reported 16 murders Saturday and 11 murders Sunday."

It's easy to make fun of Arizona's draconian new laws. But even in more moderate New Mexico, there is a real problem at our border, and there is pressure to do something. New Mexico's governor race is becoming a testing ground for how the state may deal with the issue. The above email is one that I got yesterday from the University of New Mexico--sent to all people affiliated with the university. 1000 murders in one city in one year. And it isn't even June yet. Two University of Texas El Paso affiliates dead over the weekend. And what about the people who live and deal with this in Juarez? And those in El Paso, a city that for all intents and purposes is the same metropolitan area
]]> today it was announced that the National Guard is now going to the border to help with security there. And Josh mentioned that AZ's governor has requested UAVs to hover over the border. It looks like something is brewing down here in the Southwest.

The problem is that drug gangs are becoming so powerful that even the Mexican army cannot contain the violence. The LA Times reports that President Calderon has deployed 45,000 troops to battle the drug organizations--organizations that are (of course) funded by the U.S. drug habit. The LA Times link above has a whole series of articles about the drug war that I recommend looking over, by the way.

Not only does money from the US fund Mexican gangs, but US guns also arm them. President Calderon, addressing the US Congress last week said we should reinstate assault weapons ban as "80 percent of traceable weapons in Mexcio used in crimes, he said, come from the United States."

"I fully respect -- let me be clear on this. I fully respect - I admire the American Constitution. And I understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee good American citizens the ability to defend themselves and their nation," he said. "But believe me, many of these guns are not going to honest American hands. Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals."

So here we are. Mexico has a very large problem. And we do too. Many think that the US and China are intractably linked--and economically it is true. But the US and Mexico share far more than a linked economy. We share culture, travel, people, trade, ideas--and apparently guns, violence, and drugs.

This isn't a blog to advocate gun control or immigration reform or to step up the war on drugs. I'm just trying to highlight a very complex situation that is spiraling out of control.
--------------------------------------
Update: Mezcalero provided a piece on how border towns, including El Paso are holding up.

Where is our oil A-team? Where is our emergency oil well response team? Where the hell is the National Response Team?

2010-05-21T15:20:18Z

There's been a lot of blame being passed around for Deepwater Horizon disaster. We know that oil, much more than was let on, is gushing from the twisted pipes under the ocean. We know that both public and private entities are trying to scoop up, neutralize, or block oil from reaching environmentally sensitive areas. We surmise that chemicals being sprayed on the ocean are killing dolphins, turtles, and other animals: These are the chemicals that were supposed to protect them from oil. We have a pro-oil Republican governor scooping up oil in a net and trying to act the environmentalist. We have people trying to collect oil that is washing up on beaches. We have people saving oil-covered birds.

But these are all treating the symptoms of the ongoing spill. This isn't a tanker that leaks oil once--which is a spill. This is a continuing, ongoing gusher. BP was claiming that 5000 barrels of oil a day was leaking, but now we know that their little siphon tube is 'producing' that amount to the boat overhead. And far more oil continues to gush. (~100,000 barrels a day? Who knows?)

As we watch each of BP's futile attempts to slow or stop the oil from coming out, we realize how little we actually know about stopping these kinds of spills. And we realize that we were morons for letting a company drill where response options for a blowout were so limited. There are more than 3,000 wells in the Gulf--which to me seems to say that (1) the oil companies felt pretty good about their record, and (2) when you have been lucky enough times then you start discounting existing risks.

]]> So do we blame BP? Of course. Do we question the government for allowing drilling where options are so limited? Yes indeed. But what stands out in my mind is how little prepared we are responding to the actual gusher on the ocean floor. We have 3,000+ wells and no group who simulates and trains for blowouts? We have no group that models potential disasters, probabilities, and eventualities and must say "yeah, if something gets screwy there, we can take it" before the go-ahead to drill is given?

Obviously self regulation didn't work in this case. BP and Transocean can claim that they were being safe all they want--but they were not prepared for this. So if the oil companies themselves didn't bother creating a well emergency response team, who is supposed to do that? The answer lies somewhere in our government.

The US Coast Guard has five missions: maritime safety, maritime security, maritime mobility, national defense, and maritime stewardship. We rarely hear about mission #5, do we? In fact, on the list of Coast Guard responsibilities, #5 is dwarfed by the other missions in importance. For maritime stewardship, they have the National Reponse Center (NRC) which handles contaminant reporting and acts as a repository for information. The have a website here about Deepwater Horizon.

Operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, the National Response Center (NRC) is the sole US Government point of contact for reporting environmental spills, contamination, and pollution

But this is just information. Who is supposed to stop a leaking well? If we look even deeper, we find that there is a related entity, the National Response Team (NRT). But digging through their website you can see that most of their efforts are in, once again, treating the symptoms of spills. And, not to discredit them, they are working very hard right now in the Gulf.

But on paper, they have the responsibility to handle gushers like this.

Why haven't we seen them at Deepwater Horizon coordinating the response? Why don't they already have set procedures that would have stopped this gusher quickly? Where is the crack team that trains for this kind of disaster? We've 3000+ active platforms, billions of dollars in oil coming out every year, and none of that money goes for an oil emergency well response team? Where is the tested equipment that will stop the gusher? Where's the specialized Coast Guard ship with a name like "The USS Black Gull"? Where's the seasoned captain who 'handled' the North Sea platform problem? Where the hell is our A-team?

Today is Mr. T's birthday. In honor, it's time to bust some heads and ask one more time: Where is the oil well emergency response team? Apparently, we don't have a viable one, so isn't it is time to scoop out some more oil revenue and create one? NOW?

The Racial Financial Divide is growing fast

2010-05-19T16:35:10Z

We often delude ourselves--or at least some of us do--that America is post-race. But as with everything, we need to take a look at the stark realities of real people. The politicization of the illegal immigrant situation aside, how do real people of color fare in the U.S.?

Is it true that groups like La Raza and the NAACP aren't advocating for a disadvantaged people, but are actually discriminating? That has been an argument that I've heard recently from different sources. In fact, one of the two new controversial Arizona laws has this idea built right in.

But here are some views of the true situation:

For Latino and African American Seniors:

The SFSI (Senior Financial Stability Index) finds that 91 percent of both African-American and Latino seniors face financial vulnerability. Thus, nine out of 10 senior households of color do not have sufficient economic security to sustain themselves through their projected lives. Among Latino single seniors, only four percent are financially secure.

]]>

Assessing the wealth holdings of the same families for 23 years (1984-2007) shows that the wealth gap between whites and African Americans increased more than 4 times, from $20,000 in 1984 to $95,000 in 2003. This gap persisted for African Americans and white families in the same income range.

So, the last 23 years has seen the wealth divide grow four times. These terms are in real dollars--so are inflation-adjusted. People of color don't save as much, aren't given as good of terms on loans, and aren't given as much in pay.

I don't have a grasp on whether cultural differences promote saving more or less and what role cultural changes in the last 23 years has. But I can say definitely that this divide creates an instability in our country. Wealth-divides create resentment, inequality, and opportunities missed.

So do La Raza and the NAACP have a role? Do they represent people whose situations have improved so much that they should be abolished? Does giving disadvantaged peoples opportunity hurt our country? Is there a relationship between persecution and prosperity?

If we want to bash advocacy groups, go ahead. But I'd like to state for the record that there are real problems here that must be addressed. Inequality does not engender contentment, no? A recent ABC article states:

Our study shows a broken chain of achievement," Shapiro said. "Even when African Americans do everything right -- get an education and work hard at well-paying jobs -- they cannot achieve the wealth of their white peers."

So, what can we do? First acknowledge that the problem exists. The answer for the question "Is inequality becoming a problem of the past?" is no.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
update on Hispanic wealth (PEW):

Hispanic households have less than ten cents for every dollar in wealth owned by white households.

"There can be no peace as long as there is grinding poverty, social injustice, inequality, oppression, environmental degradation, and as long as the weak and small continue to be trodden by the mighty and powerful." --Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama)

Keeping Facebook and TPM Separate

2010-05-17T19:16:09Z

As much as I'd love TPM to have a built-in chat and be kind of a social network of its own, I absolutely don't want comments here and arguments here brought into my Facebook world. This is being discussed on CVille Dem's blog, and I commented on what I believe the remedy is, but I'd like to re-post it here in case people missed it:

To keep Facebook out of TPM (and a myriad of other sites), just do this from any Facebook page if you are logged in:

Account-->privacy-->websites and applications-->instant personalization-->un-check box

Facebook has played fast-and-loose with privacy issues in the past, and they keep making changes opt-out instead of opt-in. But opting-out of instant personalization in this case, I believe, does the trick.

Besides, having to keep telling TPM "NO, I don't want my comment on my Facebook wall"

gets.

old.

fast.

A letter from climate change scientists

2010-05-07T16:19:23Z

In Science magazine there is an open letter from 255 National Academy of Science members addressing recent climate change controversies and the politicization of science. The letter is in Science Magazine, which is subscription-based, so I'm just re-posting it in full below. I'm sure that they'll be fine with that ;) .

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial--scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That's what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of "well-established theories" and are often spoken of as "facts."

]]>

For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.

Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth's climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world's scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.

P. H. Gleick,* R. M. Adams, R. M. Amasino, E. Anders, D. J. Anderson, W. W. Anderson, L. E. Anselin, M. K. Arroyo, B. Asfaw, F. J. Ayala, A. Bax, A. J. Bebbington, G. Bell, M. V. L. Bennett, J. L. Bennetzen, M. R. Berenbaum, O. B. Berlin, P. J. Bjorkman, E. Blackburn, J. E. Blamont, M. R. Botchan, J. S. Boyer, E. A. Boyle, D. Branton, S. P. Briggs, W. R. Briggs, W. J. Brill, R. J. Britten, W. S. Broecker, J. H. Brown, P. O. Brown, A. T. Brunger, J. Cairns, Jr., D. E. Canfield, S. R. Carpenter, J. C. Carrington, A. R. Cashmore, J. C. Castilla, A. Cazenave, F. S. Chapin, III, A. J. Ciechanover, D. E. Clapham, W. C. Clark, R. N. Clayton, M. D. Coe, E. M. Conwell, E. B. Cowling, R. M Cowling, C. S. Cox, R. B. Croteau, D. M. Crothers, P. J. Crutzen, G. C. Daily, G. B. Dalrymple, J. L. Dangl, S. A. Darst, D. R. Davies, M. B. Davis, P. V. de Camilli, C. Dean, R. S. Defries, J. Deisenhofer, D. P. Delmer, E. F. Delong, D. J. Derosier, T. O. Diener, R. Dirzo, J. E. Dixon, M. J. Donoghue, R. F. Doolittle, T. Dunne, P. R. Ehrlich, S. N. Eisenstadt, T. Eisner, K. A. Emanuel, S. W. Englander, W. G. Ernst, P. G. Falkowski, G. Feher, J. A. Ferejohn, A. Fersht, E. H. Fischer, R. Fischer, K. V. Flannery, J. Frank, P. A. Frey, I. Fridovich, C. Frieden, D. J. Futuyma, W. R. Gardner, C. J. R. Garrett, W. Gilbert, R. B. Goldberg, W. H. Goodenough, C. S. Goodman, M. Goodman, P. Greengard, S. Hake, G. Hammel, S. Hanson, S. C. Harrison, S. R. Hart, D. L. Hartl, R. Haselkorn, K. Hawkes, J. M. Hayes, B. Hille, T. Hökfelt, J. S. House, M. Hout, D. M. Hunten, I. A. Izquierdo, A. T. Jagendorf, D. H. Janzen, R. Jeanloz, C. S. Jencks, W. A. Jury, H. R. Kaback, T. Kailath, P. Kay, S. A. Kay, D. Kennedy, A. Kerr, R. C. Kessler, G. S. Khush, S. W. Kieffer, P. V. Kirch, K. Kirk, M. G. Kivelson, J. P. Klinman, A. Klug, L. Knopoff, H. Kornberg, J. E. Kutzbach, J. C. Lagarias, K. Lambeck, A. Landy, C. H. Langmuir, B. A. Larkins, X. T. Le Pichon, R. E. Lenski, E. B. Leopold, S. A. Levin, M. Levitt, G. E. Likens, J. Lippincott-Schwartz, L. Lorand, C. O. Lovejoy, M. Lynch, A. L. Mabogunje, T. F. Malone, S. Manabe, J. Marcus, D. S. Massey, J. C. McWilliams, E. Medina, H. J. Melosh, D. J. Meltzer, C. D. Michener, E. L. Miles, H. A. Mooney, P. B. Moore, F. M. M. Morel, E. S. Mosley-Thompson, B. Moss, W. H. Munk, N. Myers, G. B. Nair, J. Nathans, E. W. Nester, R. A. Nicoll, R. P. Novick, J. F. O'Connell, P. E. Olsen, N. D. Opdyke, G. F. Oster, E. Ostrom, N. R. Pace, R. T. Paine, R. D. Palmiter, J. Pedlosky, G. A. Petsko, G. H. Pettengill, S. G. Philander, D. R. Piperno, T. D. Pollard, P. B. Price, Jr., P. A. Reichard, B. F. Reskin, R. E. Ricklefs, R. L. Rivest, J. D. Roberts, A. K. Romney, M. G. Rossmann, D. W. Russell, W. J. Rutter, J. A. Sabloff, R. Z. Sagdeev, M. D. Sahlins, A. Salmond, J. R. Sanes, R. Schekman, J. Schellnhuber, D. W. Schindler, J. Schmitt, S. H. Schneider, V. L. Schramm, R. R. Sederoff, C. J. Shatz, F. Sherman, R. L. Sidman, K. Sieh, E. L. Simons, B. H. Singer, M. F. Singer, B. Skyrms, N. H. Sleep, B. D. Smith, S. H. Snyder, R. R. Sokal, C. S. Spencer, T. A. Steitz, K. B. Strier, T. C. Südhof, S. S. Taylor, J. Terborgh, D. H. Thomas, L. G. Thompson, R. T. TJian, M. G. Turner, S. Uyeda, J. W. Valentine, J. S. Valentine, J. L. van Etten, K. E. van Holde, M. Vaughan, S. Verba, P. H. von Hippel, D. B. Wake, A. Walker, J. E. Walker, E. B. Watson, P. J. Watson, D. Weigel, S. R. Wessler, M. J. West-Eberhard, T. D. White, W. J. Wilson, R. V. Wolfenden, J. A. Wood, G. M. Woodwell, H. E. Wright, Jr., C. Wu, C. Wunsch, M. L. Zoback

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: petergleick@pacinst.org

my friend Callan supplied the letter.

--------------------------------------
Update: This letter comes amidst the controversy surrounding Virginia AG Cuccinelli's bizzarre going after a climate scientist under a criminal (?) investigation: From the Washington Post

Nashville is in trouble

2010-05-04T16:41:21Z

Between the oil spill and inept attack, there's another disaster that everyone's overlooking.

Nashville is in trouble. Opryland is flooded. The Country Music Hall of Fame is closed. Water flows amongst the skyscrapers. Thousands of families (no exageration) homeless. Many millions of dollars in damage. Cars stacked 3 high by water poring down what were streets.

Something got lost between the inept attack and the tide of floating crud in the Gulf: one of our great cities is hurting.

Much of the local news is devoted to the flood: http://www.tennessean.com/

--------------------------------------------
Update: You can text "Red Cross" to 90999 to donate $10 to the American Red Cross to help.

Oil Spills and sprawl?

2010-05-04T02:38:34Z

If global warming and energy security weren't reasons to consume less gas, the nebulous blob encroaching upon the Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida coastlines is. We sometimes get used to problems, learn to live with them in our minds, and put them aside for "more important" things like arguing over what Charlie Crist's fate is. How we use energy is vital to our security and to the environment (which sounds like a strange pairing, doesn't it?)

Reducing fuel use on the surface seems easy; one thing that is hammered over and over are short-term solutions. Bundle errands in one trip. Simply drive less. Weatherproof your home. Given the peak oil hypothesis, part of the choice in energy use will be decided in the long term by rising prices. Travel prices may rise disproportionately to income and so people slowly migrate bit by bit closer to their workplaces or to areas with good mass transit. Laws, guilt, government renewable cheerleading, and incentives to conserve do help a little--but to the average Joe, it'll be the price that decides it for them.

One harbinger of possible future trends is that there seem to be more foreclosures in the spread-out suburbs than in town. Since the out of town areas are cheaper, new home owners are concentrated in the urban fringe. Rate hikes, higher gas prices causing increased money lost to commuting, and the fact that people who buy away from the city in the cheaper housing generally are younger, and newer to home buying, have little equity, and generally make less money than those closer in all factor into the decline of the exurb. Many exurbs are becoming hubs for rental properties, and:

Some observers believe the growth of rental property is the first in a series of steps that will transform today's exurbs into tomorrow's low-income housing. These communities have a low tax base made up mostly of property and sales taxes, both of which are in decline. Lawrence Summers, economic adviser to President Barack Obama, has often explained it this way: "No one in the history of the world ever washed a rented car."

]]> It's cheaper to replace shoes than an auto payment, insurance, upkeep, and (of course) gas. Plus it also means less time at the gym.

But the real point is this:

A reaction to rising gas prices is decreased sprawl.

Decreased sprawl means less driving, less oil usage, less GHG, less oil spills, and less support for oil-dictatorships.

Decreased sprawl also means more time at home with your family and less time stuck on the highway.

I just spent a week in L.A. The city of Angels, maybe. The city of gridlocky sprawl? Yes. High oil prices may form incentives for cities to close in. Declining exurbs also is a force for compaction--many city centers are once again happening places. Many cities have tax credits for moving in town as well. But, I think that as we come to a comprehensive energy strategy, the very nature of how we build our cities needs to change. It already is changing a little with the forces in play. But if it became part of the national plan, it could become a wave. If cities were designed so that you didn't have to drive 5 miles from zoned residential areas to zoned commercial areas to pick up a loaf of bread, don't you think we'd use less oil? Besides, haven't we paved over enough land already? And this oil spill isn't just going to damage oysters and livelihoods--there are many animals that are endangered right in the path. A comprehensive energy plan must take transportation methods and how we build cities into context. It will help.

Interesting reads:

The end of the American Exurbs and the death of sprawl?

In the exurb, the American Dream is up for rent

Thanks, AZ.

2010-05-01T17:34:48Z

For far too long, we've watched the tea party movement. Yeah, they seemed crazy. Yeah, it seemed strange that a "populist" movement supported institutions that were anti populist.

But they are a constant force. They haven't gone away. They keep getting in the news. They keep protesting. They keep getting heard.

Liberals and Centrists haven't done anything but complain about the "tea baggers". Where were the equally-spirited responses? Where were the people demanding rationality and not stupidity?

Well, I guess many of us were dispirited. Our every dream and whim, which we all don't agree on anyway, did not instantly appear last January when Obama was sworn in. Ten thousand perceived slights caused us to sit and moan, wait for something better while not working for that thing.

But that's changed this week hasn't it? Centrists and Liberals suddenly have a voice and it turns out to be strong. I'm not trying to write a pep talk--I'm just observing. It isn't just about Arizona's divisive law. This protest and activity can be a force for change. Unlike the Tea Party, decency and progressiveness is the majority. But until now these people have been The Lethargic.

Or, as Mr. Obama's chief economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers, used to ask before he entered government a year ago, "How long can the world's biggest borrower remain the world's biggest power?"

2010-02-03T15:27:49Z

I'm not the Summers fan, but just thought those words bear repeating (from NYT).

3 words: Constitutional Amendment Now--updated

2010-01-21T17:49:27Z

HCR. Today's Supreme Court Decision. Surging Independent registration.

Are Americans satisfied with their leaders? Why is there so little difference between the actions (maybe not ideology) of the 2 parties?

Our Reps have more fund-raising skills than governance. Corporations have hurt (maybe killed) HCR. Hell, if you think about it, they are the single most impediment to real change in anything reform-related.

If the Supreme Court says that limiting corporations is unconstitutional; if they say that money, constitutionally, is Free Speech; then maybe it's time to change our freaking Constitution.

As Barefooted said, Enough.
===========================

Update: I should mention, as some do below, that the chances of this happening are very slim. This post is solely a work of anger at government's apparent futility.

Add your own cliché!

2010-01-20T15:21:39Z

In lieu of talking about current events, let's think of something that may or may not have anything to do with what some would call "serious ramifications" or "outcomes" or "consequences" or "game changer" or "wake the fuck up" or anything actually important. If that's what you are looking for, then I suggest you try the TPM main page or most of the Café (if you ignore quinn).

Nope, here I'd like to dredge up a couple of trite expressions and ask you to add your own. Not really a reason to do it, except why not do it?

He's either brave or stupid.

]]>

He who hesitates is lost.

Stop crying or I'll give you something to cry about.

If nothing changes, then nothing changes.

He's a fry short of a Happy Meal.

We need to be as busy as a one-legged man at an ass kicking contest.

If you need help, here's a handy website called the Cliché finder. It makes it easy! Or if you are one of those people who hate clichés, here's the site for you. One question that I have is why most clichés are masculine, but maybe that's a serious discussion for another day.

OK, let's see 'em!