I'm intrigued by a question about the economic consequences of a rapid transition. The question is framed with concern about an economy-wide shift away from fossil fuel.
Although I'm not an economist myself, I come from a family that has included genuine experts. Versions of the transition question are familiar. The family had well-honed anecdotes used to kick off a classroom lecture or a Sunday afternoon conversation at home on the subject. My favorite is about horse collars.
In the early 20th century the transition from horse-drawn to motor vehicles was rather abrupt, and not particularly due to a government policy. Some esteemed companies that served horse transportation went through rocky times. One Philadelphia horse collar maker experienced very lean years, and nearly closed its doors. As horse collar sales declined, the owners were in awkward positions with their leather suppliers and their skilled employees. The owners reinvented the company as a manufacturer of leather assembly line belts, a new product at the time, though using the same sources of leather supplies and skilled laborers. It was a difficult period in the company history as the company had to break into the new market of manufacturers that used assembly lines.
The joke ran about the leather factory, They had to tighten their belts so as to tighten their belts.
One of the impetuses to move to cars was that horses were smelly and high-maintenance; as cities became more crowded there were no nearby hayfields left to feed the horses. Similarly cooks initially liked the shift from wood to coal, a fuel that burned hotter and longer than a load of wood, but they hated the coal dust and ashes, and often had little choice as the cost of wood had increased. How ironic is it that we now realize that cars and coal have nasty downsides, and we yearn for something better still. The limitations of mining rare-earths for car batteries are in the next round of noticing down-sides.
The social consequences of a rapid shift in energy source were huge in the horse-to-motor phase. Fewer farmers, more factory workers; more public transportation to common destinations like work places or amusement parks, more generic food supplies. It allowed a deeper socioeconomic ghettoization as the prosperous no longer needed to have staff living nearby in the pattern of rich street and alley. Gone was the need for a stable with a groom living upstairs from the horse; and the cook and maid could come to work by trolley instead of living in the attic.
So in looking ahead, planting ahead, what might occur in a shift away from fossil fuel?
Updated November 19, 2012 Joan Savage
Friday, November 16, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Resilient Readiness - will we ever get it right?
Resiliency is a word that shows up in conversations about improvement in emergency management, and more generally, adaptation to climate change conditions. I've read 'resilience' often enough to know that the word is usually policy-speak for, "We want to be ready the next time, but we are vague about what that will be."
I'm frustrated by the columns on resiliency that don't yield a single example of success.
We've gotten some categories that are starting points. Revkin's column on resiliency quotes extensively from William S Hooke, who wants three measures: the equivalent of an NTSB review of emergencies, Environmental Impact Statements on any large project private or public, and public-private conversations on business continuity and insurability.
I look at this and say yes, of course let's not make the same mistake twice (NTSB), let's avoid ventures that endanger others (EIS), and let's not subsidize foolish investment in high risk locations like a beach (no insurance). Okay.
But that is a list of prudent decisions within a known system of risks. It doesn't reach the far more ambitious goal of resilience.
What are historic examples of resilient readiness?
That's a trick question.
Selection pressures are not all foreseeable; neither castles nor antibiotics are infallible.What may seem like perfect readiness can still be side-swiped by a novel factor. Indeed we already know the dangerous dance between microbes and medicine that pushes microbes to evolve into drug-tolerant or drug-resistant organisms; our very efforts at readiness can kick back at us many-fold.
As I wrote earlier natural systems do provide some clues.
However (suspense, drum roll) although some readers are probably expecting an example of individual resilience, or some kind of flexible infrastructure, resilience in nature shows up on other scales.
Some keywords to explore further:
Diversity
Distribution
Mobility
Redundancy (the best natural kind you can find).
Planting ahead..
Updated 11-4-2012
Joan Savage
I'm frustrated by the columns on resiliency that don't yield a single example of success.
We've gotten some categories that are starting points. Revkin's column on resiliency quotes extensively from William S Hooke, who wants three measures: the equivalent of an NTSB review of emergencies, Environmental Impact Statements on any large project private or public, and public-private conversations on business continuity and insurability.
I look at this and say yes, of course let's not make the same mistake twice (NTSB), let's avoid ventures that endanger others (EIS), and let's not subsidize foolish investment in high risk locations like a beach (no insurance). Okay.
But that is a list of prudent decisions within a known system of risks. It doesn't reach the far more ambitious goal of resilience.
What are historic examples of resilient readiness?
That's a trick question.
Selection pressures are not all foreseeable; neither castles nor antibiotics are infallible.What may seem like perfect readiness can still be side-swiped by a novel factor. Indeed we already know the dangerous dance between microbes and medicine that pushes microbes to evolve into drug-tolerant or drug-resistant organisms; our very efforts at readiness can kick back at us many-fold.
As I wrote earlier natural systems do provide some clues.
However (suspense, drum roll) although some readers are probably expecting an example of individual resilience, or some kind of flexible infrastructure, resilience in nature shows up on other scales.
Some keywords to explore further:
Diversity
Distribution
Mobility
Redundancy (the best natural kind you can find).
Planting ahead..
Updated 11-4-2012
Joan Savage
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Hurricane Sandy versus Hurricane Hazel
I apologize if this is a bit rough.
Hurricane Sandy, late October, 2012: late season storm, picks up energy from widespread warm ocean surface temperature (SST), achieves areal extent across hundreds of miles, blocked from staying out at sea by a Greenland high, and drawn inland by a low. After doing a lot of damage with storm surge, wind, and flooding, smacked into an Arctic cold front and dropped several feet of snow in the Appalachians and westward.
Hurricane Hazel, mid-October 1954: late season storm, turns landward as a Category III hurricane striking North Carolina, and moved northward through mid-Atlantic states until it too smacked into an Arctic cold front, in that case over Toronto, Ontario.
Hurricane Hazel appeared part way through a period of drought in the mid-continental US, as did Sandy, so that should be scrutinized. What were the Atlantic SSTs in 1954?
What is most obviously different between them is that Sandy covered more surface area than Hazel, with more wind and more suspended moisture. This is like the oft-repeated metaphor for climate change, the baseball player on steroids, who is doing something bigger-oftener because of the push.
A similarity is that the two storms were both nudged northward and inland by other weather patterns. However, even that should be double checked. The research of Dr Jennifer Francis's team at Rutgers has found a relationship between the melting Arctic and the development of more persistent blocking patterns.
Hurricane Irene turned inland, but earlier in the hurricane season, so the combo of Irene and Sandy may be a sign of things to come.
Instead of a gap of 57 years between 1954 and 2011-2012, we may have more frequent occurrences of late season hurricanes making landfall in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic states.
Planting ahead..
Joan Savage, 11-3-2012
Hurricane Sandy, late October, 2012: late season storm, picks up energy from widespread warm ocean surface temperature (SST), achieves areal extent across hundreds of miles, blocked from staying out at sea by a Greenland high, and drawn inland by a low. After doing a lot of damage with storm surge, wind, and flooding, smacked into an Arctic cold front and dropped several feet of snow in the Appalachians and westward.
Hurricane Hazel, mid-October 1954: late season storm, turns landward as a Category III hurricane striking North Carolina, and moved northward through mid-Atlantic states until it too smacked into an Arctic cold front, in that case over Toronto, Ontario.
Hurricane Hazel appeared part way through a period of drought in the mid-continental US, as did Sandy, so that should be scrutinized. What were the Atlantic SSTs in 1954?
What is most obviously different between them is that Sandy covered more surface area than Hazel, with more wind and more suspended moisture. This is like the oft-repeated metaphor for climate change, the baseball player on steroids, who is doing something bigger-oftener because of the push.
A similarity is that the two storms were both nudged northward and inland by other weather patterns. However, even that should be double checked. The research of Dr Jennifer Francis's team at Rutgers has found a relationship between the melting Arctic and the development of more persistent blocking patterns.
Hurricane Irene turned inland, but earlier in the hurricane season, so the combo of Irene and Sandy may be a sign of things to come.
Instead of a gap of 57 years between 1954 and 2011-2012, we may have more frequent occurrences of late season hurricanes making landfall in the Northeast and mid-Atlantic states.
Planting ahead..
Joan Savage, 11-3-2012
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
street trees and severe weather.1
Take a look at this picture of a street tree partly uprooted by high winds. Although the caption points to how it rests on power lines, I'm impressed with the way the root system peeled up along the curb, revealing shallow and confined roots.
Roots need air and water in their soil environment. Asphalt and concrete can shut roots off like a lobotomy or ligature blocking their source needs.
Trees are great for soaking up carbon dioxide and other gases, but they need space for their roots to flourish. (Odd word, flourish, meaning flower.) Perhaps I should say they need space for their roots to be rootish.
Roots need air and water in their soil environment. Asphalt and concrete can shut roots off like a lobotomy or ligature blocking their source needs.
Trees are great for soaking up carbon dioxide and other gases, but they need space for their roots to flourish. (Odd word, flourish, meaning flower.) Perhaps I should say they need space for their roots to be rootish.
politics and geography.1
Looking at a post this morning that disaster relief might be cut $900 million, hard on the heels of Hurricane Sandy's hit to New York City and Mid-Atlantic states.
Just think, if both disaster relief and crop insurance were administered by the same federal agency, both 'red' agricultural states that were hit by drought and 'blue' coastal states hit by hurricane would have a basis to cooperate to support such an agency's funding.
We have at least one other odd agency/geography split as well. The Army Corps of Engineers manages the Mississippi River basin in mid-continent, while the US Geological Survey interacts with many state-run hydrologic management systems to the east and west.
That's oversimplifying, but the implications for the splits in Congress over funding is huge.
The implication for what could make Congress more functional and cooperative is also huge.
Just think, if both disaster relief and crop insurance were administered by the same federal agency, both 'red' agricultural states that were hit by drought and 'blue' coastal states hit by hurricane would have a basis to cooperate to support such an agency's funding.
We have at least one other odd agency/geography split as well. The Army Corps of Engineers manages the Mississippi River basin in mid-continent, while the US Geological Survey interacts with many state-run hydrologic management systems to the east and west.
That's oversimplifying, but the implications for the splits in Congress over funding is huge.
The implication for what could make Congress more functional and cooperative is also huge.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
uncertainty versus risk
What's the dif? Uncertainty versus risk
Uncertainty is about what we don't know yet, while risk is about what we could lose.
There's both in climate change.
I gather that politicians and other public figures don't like to admit we face risks so they use 'uncertainty' as a euphemism for risk. And if the public figures admit there are risks, they like to talk about the risks as existing somewhere in the future.
I get it that, "one may have uncertainty without risk but not risk without uncertainty," as we can be uncertain about something like what our colleagues will wear to work, yet that comes with low to no risk of a negative consequence to ourselves. We can be uncertain about when our children will finish potty-training, although as one wag put it, "They usually figure it out before college."
So an uncertainty can slip into certainty with the passage of time; everyone dies sooner or later. But is death a risk if it is inevitable? Perhaps determining the risk of death is better confined to consideration of loss. If someone dies "before their time,"what ever that is, it is a loss.
On a lighter note, my daughter's cats will almost certainly jump on the kitchen table, which puts the tablecloth and glassware at risk of damage. The only uncertainties left are when and how much damage.
Yesterday evening's presidential debate included a comment by Mitt Romney on the future of the U.S. military. He rationalized increased military spending saying, "So we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty. And that means a strong military."
I think the current military keep track of the difference between uncertainty and risk. The decisions they make are based on risk assessment. They need the intelligence gathering to detect danger, and mobilize, not be stuck with fixed assets in the wrong place.
A good strategy to minimize risk is alert observation and flexible response. In contrast, if risks are already known, then prioritize responses and commit more assets one way or the other.
With climate change, the risks (future negative impacts) are becoming clearer, while the residual uncertainty about when exactly those negative impacts might befall or how moderate or extreme they might be, seems to be the refuge of those who don't want a strategy that admits that the risks and unknowns both exist. Yet it is just as foolish to think of climate change as a known and limited risk with a single solution. Dave Roberts at Grist points to the example of Ho Chi Minh City that built barriers to keep out the rising sea only to discover that revised estimates of sea level rise mean that the ocean will over-top the barriers.
Uncertainty is about what we don't know yet, while risk is about what we could lose.
There's both in climate change.
I gather that politicians and other public figures don't like to admit we face risks so they use 'uncertainty' as a euphemism for risk. And if the public figures admit there are risks, they like to talk about the risks as existing somewhere in the future.
I get it that, "one may have uncertainty without risk but not risk without uncertainty," as we can be uncertain about something like what our colleagues will wear to work, yet that comes with low to no risk of a negative consequence to ourselves. We can be uncertain about when our children will finish potty-training, although as one wag put it, "They usually figure it out before college."
So an uncertainty can slip into certainty with the passage of time; everyone dies sooner or later. But is death a risk if it is inevitable? Perhaps determining the risk of death is better confined to consideration of loss. If someone dies "before their time,"what ever that is, it is a loss.
On a lighter note, my daughter's cats will almost certainly jump on the kitchen table, which puts the tablecloth and glassware at risk of damage. The only uncertainties left are when and how much damage.
Yesterday evening's presidential debate included a comment by Mitt Romney on the future of the U.S. military. He rationalized increased military spending saying, "So we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty. And that means a strong military."
I think the current military keep track of the difference between uncertainty and risk. The decisions they make are based on risk assessment. They need the intelligence gathering to detect danger, and mobilize, not be stuck with fixed assets in the wrong place.
A good strategy to minimize risk is alert observation and flexible response. In contrast, if risks are already known, then prioritize responses and commit more assets one way or the other.
With climate change, the risks (future negative impacts) are becoming clearer, while the residual uncertainty about when exactly those negative impacts might befall or how moderate or extreme they might be, seems to be the refuge of those who don't want a strategy that admits that the risks and unknowns both exist. Yet it is just as foolish to think of climate change as a known and limited risk with a single solution. Dave Roberts at Grist points to the example of Ho Chi Minh City that built barriers to keep out the rising sea only to discover that revised estimates of sea level rise mean that the ocean will over-top the barriers.
Monday, October 22, 2012
what a candidate's religious eschatology could do to policy
Romney's LDS religion has a view that "earth shall be given unto them for an inheritance," so his intent to privatize public lands to redirect resources to a few is completely consistent with the rather supple expectation that it could be a divine outcome.
LDS writings:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/45.26?lang=eng#25
This reminds me that Reagan turned out to be someone who really believed we were headed forthwith for Armageddon, so to him the ludicrously expensive Star Wars initiative seemed reasonable.
Because of the separation of Church and State, political campaigns do not develop explicit information on a candidate's world view, or eschatology, yet it might tell us something useful, such as the hindsight about Reagan.
Putting righteousness onto exploitation is consistent with Romney's religious background as well as pleasing his financial supporters, but don't expect the press to tackle the thorny subject of religious belief.
If someone expects the end times to arrive before too long, there's little reason to conserve resources for as long as a century, much less for another millennium.
Personally I'd like to think humanity could calm down, act more responsible, and inhabit the planet for at least as long as we've already been conscious of our own identity to date, in the range of 100,000 years. In which case, leave the carbon in the ground, and grow plants.
Planting ahead..
LDS writings:
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/45.26?lang=eng#25
This reminds me that Reagan turned out to be someone who really believed we were headed forthwith for Armageddon, so to him the ludicrously expensive Star Wars initiative seemed reasonable.
Because of the separation of Church and State, political campaigns do not develop explicit information on a candidate's world view, or eschatology, yet it might tell us something useful, such as the hindsight about Reagan.
Putting righteousness onto exploitation is consistent with Romney's religious background as well as pleasing his financial supporters, but don't expect the press to tackle the thorny subject of religious belief.
If someone expects the end times to arrive before too long, there's little reason to conserve resources for as long as a century, much less for another millennium.
Personally I'd like to think humanity could calm down, act more responsible, and inhabit the planet for at least as long as we've already been conscious of our own identity to date, in the range of 100,000 years. In which case, leave the carbon in the ground, and grow plants.
Planting ahead..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)