Abstract Art
September 27, 2007 |
All too often current events provide a canvas to project our political anxieties. Consider the recent spate of China-bashing resulting from contaminated pet food, toxic tooth paste and leaded children's toys. Early reports characterized China as "a marketplace teeming with unlicensed operations and entrepreneurs willing to cut corners to make a bigger profit." From Pinots to Firestone 500s corner cutting is hardly a uniquely Chinese phenomenon - its synonymous with capitalism.
Most revealing was a stunning reversal where Mattel delivered an apology to China acknowledging that design flaws contributed to many of the toy recalls prompting one Senator to say, "It's like a bank robber apologizing to his accomplice instead of to the person who was robbed."
Perhaps, but what if the bank is gouging the customer through high fees and excessive interest rates. In the same vein, the Senator's comments overlook the driving forces that create a set of market conditions ripe for manipulation. Lets begin with the gutting product and food safety infrastructure while we demand such infrastructure from others. Serious monitoring efforts would reveal a range of problems with foreign and domestic products. Reminder we still do not have a system for checking domestic beef for mad cow disease. Second, consider the "Wal-Mart effect" of demand-and-supply economics which creates systematic downward pressure on manufacturers to continue to reduce costs. Given the tightening of labor markets in China, producers are being pressed to the limit to meet customer price demands and satisfy quality - inevitably something will give.
China-bashing is in vogue because it scores points with a number of political constituencies. This rhetoric fails to recognize that until countries achieve a desired level of economic development, they will make limited gains on a host of social and ecological concerns that many of the rhetoricians seek. Such development continues to be challenged by market conditions of our own creation. It's the abstract art of politics at a time when we need realism.
Comments
I think China can take care of itself.
By Beer and Burgers on 2009 06 29
@ Asa Hopkins:
Because it's a catalyst, it is not "used up" in the reaction it is involved in. Therefore, an extremely small amount is needed to effectively achieve separation. It's like the catalytic converter in a car, which also has both platinum and palladium in it, which is not exorbitantly or disproportionately expensive.
Adam
By Adam on 2008 10 26
lets get the ball rolling and build on practical experience! we are 30 + years behind because of the Oil Companies & Republicans/Conservatives
Jimmy Carter TRIED to jump-start this 30 YEARS AGO but SPECIAL INTERESTS KILLED IT, like they do any competition, MONOPOLIES don't help anyone they just kill innovation and innovation is what we need most in America today, IMAGINE where we would be had the republicans supported Carters Dreams of Energy Independence!
Carter Tried To Stop Bush's Energy Disasters - 28 Years Ago http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0503-22.htm
In Fact i have a book here called "Solar Law Reporter" 1979 that's full of legislation that was designed to get the ball rolling on Alternative Energies, it got us off to a good start but then Reagan came in and did what he could to KILL the Alternative Energies Movement for the benefit of the Big Oil Monopolies!
By cal on 2008 08 28
I don't understand. Newly discovered oil will indeed take years to reach us, but this "argument" doesn't work because people cling to an unrealistic mantra of "supply and demand"?
So...we should go ahead and drill...
There's something fishy going down here. Something ideological.
By Timothy Morton on 2008 08 10
"Combined with another catalyst, such as platinum, that can produce hydrogen gas from water, the system can duplicate the water splitting reaction that occurs during photosynthesis." (from the MIT release)
This is the kicker for me that makes me skeptical. They get the oxygen out, no problem, but still need an expensive, rare catalyst to make the hydrogen useful. It's great that the catalyst to make the oxygen is cheap and abundant, but the limit was almost always going to be platinum anyway. With one more "breakthrough" (something cheap to replace platinum), though, my skepticism will fall away.
Asa
By Asa Hopkins on 2008 08 10
Dr. Pielke, Jr.'s excellent work on this issue continues. See more regarding the budget concerns at:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/ncars-nsf-budget-the-real-facts-4505
And see Dr. Pielke, Jr.'s reaction to UCAR/NCAR's attempt to spin the story:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/tone-deaf-damage-control-4504
What you can do:
1. Comment on the New York Times' blog on this issue at:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/mourning-and-debate-after-climate-labs-death
2. If you reside in the USA, write to your national politicians, that is your House Representatives and Senators. Did you notice that it is an election year in the USA?
3. Email the following addresses representing the UCAR, NCAR, and NSF leaders involved in this decision:
barron@ucar.edu, tkilleen@nsf.gov, cjacobs@nsf.gov, Rfine@rsmas.miami.edu,
anthes@ucar.edu, khc6@cornell.edu, stevea@ssec.wisc.edu,
robted@eas.gatech.edu, efi@umn.edu, smalcom@aaas.org, rpa711@yahoo.com,
rutledge@atmos.colostate.edu, anne@met.psu.edu, mmcclell@ucar.edu,
richard.truly@comcast.net, hemant.shah@rms.com, len_pietrafesa@ncsu.edu,
nutter@reinsurance.org, dennis@atmos.washington.edu,
barbara.a.feiner@wustl.edu, kkd@ou.edu, rbierbau@umich.edu,urc@ucar.edu
(You will probably get a form reply regarding budgets and some might reply saying that it is not their responsibility. The budget issue is addressed above.)
Thank you to all who have shown support!
Ilan
By Ilan Kelman on 2008 08 10
Maybe it is the engineer in me, but cheap abundant energy is desirable. Yes, countries like the US can be more efficient, but not by a factor of 10 and still keep a high standard of living. The environmental movement needs to come to grips with this and propose ways of solving the carbon problem in a least cost manner.
By R Margolis on 2008 08 08
If your criteria is that any energy project has to have an immediate and large effect on energy prices, then you are never going to drill for oil anywhere, build a nuclear power plant, or invest in clean coal, solar, fuel cells and so on and so forth.
These "it will take years" arguments are made up because it is politically dangerous to tell people they shouldn't have cheap gas and people realize this.
By Robert www.neolibertarian.com on 2008 08 08
Although I do agree with what you state above--particularly the "supply and demand" shortcut everyone uses--it's frustrating that the Republican argument (we should have started drilling decades ago) is the same as the enviro argument now (we should start building a post-petroleum economy now). One has resonance only in retrospect while the other sounds like folly.
What I'd like to see if some critique that says drilling will have this impact on your overall household expenses, not the cost of gas. I mean, $5/gallon gas wouldn't hurt so much if your healthcare costs weren't going up 25% a year and there were a way to afford getting your kids into college.
That enviros are uniquely tasked with getting your gas prices down is a trap for us from the beginning. It's not a problem enviros can, or should, solve.
By JH on 2008 08 08
Dan,
There is no question that the Republicans and industry will continue this line of attack on a carbon tax, cap and trade, or any other policy that has the effect of raising energy costs in the near term.
And if public opinion on energy remains close to where it is today, it will be a significant hurdle for the environmental community to overcome.
By Jeff on 2008 08 07
Is anyone else worried that Republicans will continue this line of attack over a carbon tax? I believe it will again frame the interest of the environment with fuel prices or the concerns of
"average americans."
By Dan on 2008 08 07
You are underestimating the power of the Paris solution. We need to remember that, with Paris, we must taking surface appearances quite seriously.
Paris was providing a subtle, but strong, subtext about the power of renewable power. How the magazine was being held: an indication of concentrated solar power as a future element of the Paris energy plan.
Nice piece.
By A Siegel on 2008 08 07
Sounds to me like the perfect reason to cap carbon. If the listed RPS technologies don't end up as cheap or scalable in real life as was projected, or if supply chain backorders backs them up, in an RPS your hands are tied and you are forced to miss the target. With a cap, the economy can more robustly turn to new measures, like waste heat recovery or more efficient industrial/chemical processes. The reductions get dictated by what is actually most cost effective, not what an outdated bill allows to "count."
By Max Epstein on 2008 08 06
The one nice thing about energy infrastructure is that most of the jobs are created in the location of the power facility. If China makes windmills and PV cheaper that will mean more US power technicians will be installing windmills in the US. In addition, China has the greater incentive than the US due to their larger economic growth. I would be surprised if China did NOT have faster energy development than the US.
By R Margolis on 2008 08 05
Dr. Freeman Dyson is an advocate for greater carbon storage via soil techniques. Also the IPCC listed soil management as part of the solution. Is there any cost data on biochar (e.g., $/kg C stored versus carbon sequestration)?
By R Margolis on 2008 07 22
Hi Peter -
I'm not sure why conservatives are so happy, given the evidence about their pessimistic and negative philosophical base. Perhaps an understanding of how the individual defines happiness is in order. I would suggest that a psychology rooted in fear seeks happiness by minimizing pain and maximizing a sense of control over that pain (the typical Freudian philosophy). It's possible that conservatives have found contemporary political strategies to be effective in controlling their fear, perhaps through withdrawal or denial. (Freud would call this
By Helen Aki on 2008 06 06
Helen - fascinating piece. Thank you. Given your thesis that the conservative world view is focused on negativity, pessimism and disgust, how do you explain the research that shows conservatives to be generally happier than liberals? What do we do with the Iraq war -- what some would see as a product of the ultimate flowering of movement conservatism -- and the view that the invasion was based on a sort of updated Wilsonian optimism about the potential of democracy to overcome tyranny? Finally, isn't it possible to view environmentalism as an expression of the hope that we might hold on to aspects of our world that are of incalculable beauty and value?
By Peter Teague on 2008 06 06
These calculations have little real utility beyond PR for status quo interests because they reflect neither the massive subsidies given fossil fuel energy industries, nor the even more massive but admittedly difficult-to-quantify costs of NOT going all-out for renewables ASAP.
By Sheridan on 2008 04 15