Can We Afford To Deny Global Warming Any Longer?

The fury and devastation of Hurricane Katrina is unmistakeable. The extraordinarily warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico turned this storm into one of the nation's worst national disasters ever, completely destroying the city of New Orleans for at least a few weeks, possibly months, causing billions in damages across the Gulf coast, with economic shockwaves sure to hit the rest of the country, and killing what will sure to be hundreds, possibly thousands, of victims.

To say this is bad is an understatement. But the truth is, the scariest part of this disaster is the realization that this will continue to happen. The National Hurricane Center just raised their 2005 hurricane season forecast, saying the bulk of the hurricanes this year, (11-14 more tropical storms, eight to nine more hurricanes), are still to come. A look at the surface temperatures of the Gulf show it is at least five degrees Celcius warmer than the rest of the Carribean and Atlantic. If any of those storms make it to the Gulf (undoubtedly some will), the same, if not worse, results are sure to occur.

As a capitalist, I think it is absolutely clear any economic cost incurred in reducing our greenhouse gas output, e.g. implementing Kyoto, pales in comparison to the human and economic toll of doing nothing.

Some argue that the hurricane cycle is natural, so is the carbon cycle, and there is nothing we can do. Well, it is a proven fact of science that a direct correlation exists between carbon dioxide concentrations in our environment (atmosphere and oceans) and global temperatures.

I do not care why air and sea temperatures are trending warmer, whether it be natural, man-made, or Scientology's aliens; if we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in our environment and consequently reduce global temperatures, we have no logical, political, or economic reason not to do so at this point. If we can avoid just a single repeat of Katrina, it will be well worth it in terms of human life alone, if not economics.

Going Tribal

One of the best shows on television today is the Discovery Channel's "Going Tribal". The synopsis is Bruce Parry, a former British Royal Marine, seeks out ancient tribes still isolated from the modern world in the remote jungles of Africa, Asia, and South America and lives with them for up to a month, adopting and assimilating into their society and culture. The show is absolutely fascinating and wildly entertaining, if for no other reason than seeing Bruce eat, drink, smoke, and be mutilated in ways completely alien (and often painful) to those of us in the Western world.

I logged on to the show's website looking for details on exactly what happened to Bruce when he nearly fainted during a genitalia mutilation ceremony performed for him by the cannibalistic Kombai tribe in Indonesia (episode "Living With Cannibals") and was surprised at the vehement criticism logged on the message boards.

Criticisms ranged from accusations of exploition, to belittlement, to accusations the show may single-handedly be destroying indigenous cultures by causing the natives to question their belief systems. One comment was in response to the genetalia mutilation ceremony, claiming that by refusing to participate, Bruce may cause the Kombai to question their belief system and consequently destroy it. Another critic was upset that Bruce was bringing these societies into contact with Western culture, which has historically destroyed and displaced native cultures.

These are absurd criticisms that are built upon dangerously thin and poorly-reasoned logic.

I agree that studying these tribes is an invaluable academic exercise that teaches us more about ourselves and where our cultures came from and that it would be a crime to destroy these cultures without cataloging and learning from them.

But to keep these people isolated from the modern world in the interest of preserving their culture? That just seems criminal.

How can anybody claim it is right to study these people to benefit our own knowledge base, and then abandon them to remain in their ancient societies without quality of life-improving modern technology or medicine? That is more like exploitation than anything "Going Tribal" is doing. Why should we Westerners keep our vaccines and farming techniques to ourselves? Why would we not want to give these people the same access to the modern constructs that make us the society with the highest quality of life and healthiest, longest-living people to have ever graced the planet? Let them keep their beliefs and cultures, but give them the opportunity to live better lives through modern technology and health care.

I also do not understand how causing them to think critically about their belief systems is a bad thing. Indeed, the world would be a better place if more people spent more time challenging their own belief systems. Should we not challenge the African belief systems that cause some those societies to practice female circumcision? Should we not challenge the Islamo-fascist belief systems that cause young men from the Middle East to become suicide bombers? Should we have not challenged the Nazi belief system justified genocide? If the Aztecs were still around (and yes, I realize the irony of using them as an example), would we not want them to challenge their beliefs that sacrificing young children is the way to worship and pay homage to the Divine? If we were more diligent about challenging our own current belief systems, perhaps the world could be a more peaceful place with less war.

So why is it any different to get these societies to challenge their belief systems that promote cannibalism and mutilation of young girls and boys?

I received the following frothy comment on my case for keeping the estate tax for the super wealthy and thought I would share my response for all to see. First the comment from Ramrod:

"Do you see your own contradiction? You open your unfounded essay by citing Jefferson's 'all men are created equal' adage, and then proceed to make claim that 'rich men should be treated different, if not exclusively punished by a tax burden' [sic]. And for what? I bet Walton's kids could have split peas to make that $1B work for them... but why should the government reap the remaining $99B of his estate, when the government has done nothing to earn it and likely more to cripple it (we'll do that some other time). The point is this: stick to your original claim, and ensure that 'all (taxpayers) are (treated) equal'. Once you've realigned yourself, turn on MTV Cribs and allow your rage to build once more."

And my response:

"I think everybody in America should have an equal chance at succeeding, which is how I interpret Jefferson's writings. I think Walton's future generations (or the current Kennedy's or Bush's for that matter) will have privilages (and will not be treated with equality when compared to the average American) for eons without having to contribute anything to society, simply because of their last name. The last time I checked, that is called royal lineage/feudalism/or whatever you want to call it. America should stand as the antithesis to that, not the new breeding ground for it.

"When Jefferson penned that line, it was legal to own slaves (and he did so himself). A modest leap of logic would imply he saw keeping Africans as slaves as being consistent with 'treating all men equal'. Do you still think we should strictly adhere to the letter of his writings, or do you think it better to interpret the spirit of his writings based on our modern society?

"And let me ask you this - do you really think that two white New England sons who both attended Yale and were Skull and Bones members (all because of who their family was, not because of any achievement of their own) were the two best candidates America could have fielded for president in the last election? I absolutely do not. I do not think that coming from a wealthy family should automatically disqualify somebody for higher office (regardless of what you think of his policies and how he exercises the powers of his office, you cannot deny the fact that Bush is very good at his job), just as I do not think coming from a wealthy family should automatically qualify somebody for higher office, which is clearly the case today."

The Week of 8/8/05

I've received a few emails asking why KT has not been updated lately. I am on vacation this week, so keep checking back as I will resume posting soon.

Regards,
TP

A Science Education 'Manhattan Project'

A while back Tom Friedman wrote an excellent piece (Losing Our Edge?) on the crisis the US is facing by continuing to slip behind the industrial world in science, math, and engineering education. His proposal - kill two birds with one stone by launching a 'Manhattan Project' to develop a hydrogen-based economy. This will both stimulate education and solve our oil dependency problem. My thoughts:

This clearly is not a problem we can just throw money at or solve through incremental efforts such as No Child Left Behind. A motivated, collective effort to maintain our global leadership in education and technology will depend upon the cultural will to do so – we cannot catch up with Japan and China in the number of scientists and engineers we are graduating unless we get students to choose those majors.

I think step one in a 'Manhattan Project' is to have our political leadership acknowledge and call attention to the challenge at hand and put it on par with the war on terror on the national priority list since in the long run, the consequences of failure are just as dire, if not more so.

Step two of the Project (an extension of step one) is to crystallize an objective that to many is currently nothing more than an abstraction – it is one thing to give a speech talking about the need to improve our primary education system, it is quite another to call on Americans to beat our archetypal villain to the Moon. Wrap it in the flag and ask Americans to make the sacrifice and commitment shown possible in past daunting challenges like WWII, the space race, and the war on terror. Make it a matter of patriotism, because really, it is.

The challenge should be meaningful, concrete, measurable, and capable of invoking both passion and fear. Personally, I think the most logical candidate is the pressing task we face in figuring out how to wean the country off our oil dependency (although this is also probably the least likely to ever fly with the current Administration); I also think China is an ideal candidate to replace the Soviet Union as our main 'competitor/villain'.

Step three is to figure out the tactical roadmap of engaging the country in the Project. I think a really powerful and interesting way to make this real for our schools and students is to create a national program of distributed research (in the model of the distributed computing initiatives such as SETI), instead of only looking to our universities for research.

The NSF or some other oversight body could break down and define the research needs that the various primary and secondary school systems in the country can take on depending on their respective capabilities. For example, middle school chemistry classes could experiment with hydrogen-producing electrolysis techniques, high school electronics classes could experiment with optimal engine timing circuits, etc. We could design the curricula of K-12 and our undergraduate programs to focus on both teaching the fundamentals and being relevant to the Project. Not all of the research needs to be necessarily groundbreaking – the point is to engage the students, making them part of a national endeavor, while teaching them about science and technology so that some day, if not during their pre-collegiate education, they will be able to contribute new knowledge and technology to our society.

I think we should also tie the national student research endeavor to goal-based incentives. For example, for every student and/or team a school fields in the Intel International Science Fair (or Westinghouse, or any other national or international competition), the government will provide financial incentives to the schools and students ( e.g. scholarships); for every team that makes it to the regional finals, they get additional funding, etc. This provides a simple impetus for the schools to become proactively involved in the effort. We could also raise the profile of and expand initiatives like USA Today's annual top student lists.

The government could also make a commitment to creating national contests geared towards both students and the public at-large to fulfill knowledge and technology needs, like NASA's current contest for a new spacesuit glove.

I also think there is a place for initiatives like No Child Left Behind, but the way that specific program is currently structured, it is only providing penalties as a motivator. I think it would be much more powerful if we set bold objectives like becoming #1 in each field assessed by the TIMMS. If anything, Americans understand competition drives excellence – if we make it a matter of national pride to best our international peers, I think we will engage communities (which are much more powerful than the schools alone) to a far greater extent than any program that threatens to take away education funding based on national test score benchmarks.

And while I think the aforementioned will help create the cultural commitment to developing the interest and skills of students critical to this effort, we obviously have to also have an apparatus in place to capitalize on having the talent by making pure research a priority of the government, a position well articulated by Vinton Cerf in the Wall St. Journal.

We also need an honest intellectual dialog about where we want to set our national priorities. The best example is biomedical research. I think our leaders are letting us down when their primary guide in setting policy is religion. For example, we need to admit the fact that our current policy on stem cells is driving the best American talent to other countries that will capitalize both medically and economically from the research and as a nation, and then make a collective informed decision based on the reality of the situation. But now I am starting to digress from the original topic.

How do we implement this? I am not sure - the initiative is cleary going to need to come from somewhere else than our current political leadership. I do think a grass-roots unified message and proposal coming from the leaders of the science and technology communities and supported by the public could be a powerful impetus for change. This petition is a good start.

Losing Our Edge?

Another good one from Tom Friedman on the dangers the US faces by slipping behind in math, science, and engineering education, as well as some of my thoughts here.

I was just out in Silicon Valley, checking in with high-tech entrepreneurs about the state of their business. I wouldn't say they were universally gloomy, but I did detect something I hadn't detected before: a real undertow of concern that America is losing its competitive edge vis-à-vis China, India, Japan and other Asian tigers, and that the Bush team is deaf, dumb and blind to this situation.

Several executives explained to me that they were opening new plants in Asia — not because of cheaper labor. Labor is a small component now in an automated high-tech manufacturing plant. It is because governments in these countries are so eager for employment and the transfer of technology to their young populations that they are offering huge tax holidays for U.S. manufacturers who will set up shop. Because most of these countries also offer some form of national health insurance, U.S. companies shed that huge open liability as well.

Other executives complained bitterly that the Department of Homeland Security is making it so hard for legitimate foreigners to get visas to study or work in America that many have given up the age-old dream of coming here. Instead, they are studying in England and other Western European nations, and even China. This is leading to a twofold disaster.

First, one of America's greatest assets — its ability to skim the cream off the first-round intellectual draft choices from around the world and bring them to our shores to innovate — will be diminished, and that in turn will shrink our talent pool. And second, we could lose a whole generation of foreigners who would normally come here to study, and then would take American ideas and American relationships back home. In a decade we will feel that loss in America's standing around the world.

Still others pointed out that the percentage of Americans graduating with bachelor's degrees in science and engineering is less than half of the comparable percentage in China and Japan, and that U.S. government investments are flagging in basic research in physics, chemistry and engineering. Anyone who thinks that all the Indian and Chinese techies are doing is answering call-center phones or solving tech problems for Dell customers is sadly mistaken. U.S. firms are moving serious research and development to India and China.

The bottom line: we are actually in the middle of two struggles right now. One is against the Islamist terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, and the other is a competitiveness-and-innovation struggle against India, China, Japan and their neighbors. And while we are all fixated on the former (I've been no exception), we are completely ignoring the latter. We have got to get our focus back in balance, not to mention our budget. We can't wage war on income taxes and terrorism and a war for innovation at the same time.

Craig Barrett, the C.E.O. of Intel, noted that Intel sponsors an international science competition every year. This year it attracted some 50,000 American high school kids. "I was in China 10 days ago," Mr. Barrett said, "and I asked them how many kids in China participated in the local science fairs that feed into the national fair [and ultimately the Intel finals]. They told me six million kids."

For now, the U.S. still excels at teaching science and engineering at the graduate level, and also in university research. But as the Chinese get more feeder stock coming up through their high schools and colleges, "they will get to the same level as us after a decade," Mr. Barrett said. "We are not graduating the volume, we do not have a lock on the infrastructure, we do not have a lock on the new ideas, and we are either flat-lining, or in real dollars cutting back, our investments in physical science."

And what is the Bush strategy? Let's go to Mars. Hello? Right now we should have a Manhattan Project to develop a hydrogen-based energy economy — it's within reach and would serve our economy, our environment and our foreign policy by diminishing our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, the Bush team says let's go to Mars. Where is Congress? Out to lunch — or, worse, obsessed with trying to keep Susie Smith's job at the local pillow factory that is moving to the Caribbean — without thinking about a national competitiveness strategy. And where is Wall Street? So many of the plutocrats there know that the Bush fiscal policy is a long-term disaster. They know it — but they won't say a word because they are too greedy or too gutless.

The only crisis the U.S. thinks it's in today is the war on terrorism, Mr. Barrett said. "It's not."

Too Much Pork and Too Little Sugar

Tom Friedman on the energy bill, and a link here on as some of my ideas on the dangers of foreign oil dependence and some thoughts on how to reduce the dependency:

Wow, I am so relieved that Congress has finally agreed on an energy bill. Now that's out of the way, maybe Congress will focus on solving our energy problem.

Sorry to be so cynical, but an energy bill that doesn't enjoin our auto companies to sharply improve their mileage standards is just not serious. This bill is what the energy expert Gal Luft calls "the sum of all lobbies." While it contains some useful provisions, it also contains massive pork slabs dished out to the vested interests who need them least - like oil companies - and has no overarching strategy to deal with the new world.

And the world has changed in the past few years. First, the global economic playing field is being leveled, and millions of people who were out of the game - from China, India and the former Soviet empire - are now walking onto the field, each dreaming of a house, a car, a toaster and a microwave. As they move from low-energy to high-energy consumers, they are becoming steadily rising competitors with us for oil.

Second, we are in a war. It is a war against open societies mounted by Islamo-fascists, who are nurtured by mosques, charities and madrasas preaching an intolerant brand of Islam and financed by medieval regimes sustained by our oil purchases.

Yes, we are financing both sides in the war on terrorism: our soldiers and the fascist terrorists. George Bush's failure, on the morning after 9/11, to call on Americans to accept a gasoline tax to curb our oil imports was one of the greatest wasted opportunities in U.S. history.
Does the energy bill begin to remedy that? Hardly. It doesn't really touch the auto companies, which have used most of the technological advances of the last two decades to make our cars bigger and faster, rather than more fuel-efficient. Congress even rejected the idea of rating tires for fuel efficiency, which might have encouraged consumers to buy the most fuel-efficient treads.

The White House? It blocked an amendment that would have required the president to find ways to cut oil use by one million barrels a day by 2015 - on the grounds that it might have required imposing better fuel economy on our carmakers.

We need a strategic approach to energy. We need to redesign work so more people work at home instead of driving in; we need to reconfigure our cars and mass transit; we need a broader definition of what we think of as fuel. And we need a tax policy that both entices, and compels, U.S. firms to be innovative with green energy solutions. This is going to be a huge global industry - as China and India become high-impact consumers - and we should lead it.
Many technologies that could make a difference are already here - from hybrid engines to ethanol. All that is needed is a gasoline tax of $2 a gallon to get consumers and Detroit to change their behavior and adopt them. As Representative Edward Markey noted, auto fuel economy peaked at 26.5 miles per gallon in 1986, and "we've been going backward every since" - even though we have the technology to change that right now. "This is not rocket science," he rightly noted. "It's auto mechanics."

It's also imagination. "During the 1973 Arab oil embargo Brazil was importing almost 80 percent of its fuel supply," notes Mr. Luft, director of the Institute for the Analysis of Global Security. "Within three decades it cut its dependence by more than half. ... During that period the Brazilians invested massively in a sugar-based ethanol industry to the degree that about a third of the fuel they use in their vehicles is domestically grown. They also created a fleet that can accommodate this fuel." Half the new cars sold this year in Brazil will run on any combination of gasoline and ethanol. "Bringing hydrocarbons and carbohydrates to live happily together in the same fuel tank," he added, "has not only made Brazil close to energy independence, but has also insulated the Brazilian economy from the harming impact of the current spike in oil prices."

The new energy bill includes support for corn-based ethanol, but, bowing to the dictates of the U.S. corn and sugar lobbies (which oppose sugar imports), it ignores Brazilian-style sugar-based ethanol, even though it takes much less energy to make and produces more energy than corn-based ethanol. We are ready to import oil from Saudi Arabia but not sugar from Brazil.

The sum of all lobbies. ...

It seems as though only a big crisis will force our country to override all the cynical lobbies and change our energy usage. I thought 9/11 was that crisis. It sure was for me, but not, it seems, for this White House, Congress or many Americans. Do we really have to wait for something bigger in order to get smarter?

The Creativity Economy

An excellent piece from the Athena Alliance based on an article in Business Week. Excerpts:

The Knowledge Economy as we know it is being eclipsed by something new -- call it the Creativity Economy. Even as policymakers and pundits wring their hands over the outsourcing of engineering, software writing, accounting, and myriad other high-tech, high-end service jobs -- not to mention the move of manufacturing to Asia -- U.S. companies are evolving to the next level of economic activity.

What was once central to corporations -- price, quality, and much of the left-brain, digitized analytical work associated with knowledge -- is fast being shipped off to lower-paid, highly trained Chinese and Indians, as well as Hungarians, Czechs, and Russians. Increasingly, the new core competence is creativity -- the right-brain stuff that smart companies are now harnessing to generate top-line growth. The game is changing. It isn't just about math and science anymore. It's about creativity, imagination, and, above all, innovation.

What is unfolding is the commoditization of knowledge. We have seen global forces undermine autos, electronics, and other manufacturing, but the Knowledge Economy was expected to last forever and play to America's strengths: great universities, terrific labs, smart immigrants, an entrepreneurial business culture.

Oops. It turns out there are a growing number of really smart engineers and scientists "out there," too. They've learned to make assembly lines run efficiently, whether they turn out cars or code, refrigerators or legal briefs. So U.S. companies are moving on to creating consumer experiences, not just products; reconceiving entire brand categories, not merely adding a few more colors; and, above all, innovating in new and surprising arenas.

The U.S. has a lead in this unfolding Creativity Economy -- for the moment.

My thoughts on how we can maintain that lead.

Media Learning Lessons We Find in Modern War

Speaking of Viacom's plans to split into two companies - one a growth company comprised of MTV and VH1, the other keeping CBS - he recently said, "In the 21st century, large is no longer in charge. Leverage will belong to the nimble and the swift."

That quote may have well come from Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, speaking of the need to transform our military into a lighter, more nimble and precise force to face the threats of non-state terrorists who prefer to hide in shadows and caves rather than fight like honorable men.

While Rumsfeld was prescient when first declaring this goal as he took office in February of 2001, focusing solely on this transformation is more dangerous than ignoring it. If we are not careful, we will one day end up with a military designed to fight terrorists yet woefully prepared to defend against the threats of another superpower. China will someday soon fit this bill, and they are determined to militarily overpower us.

Religion Strikes Again

Israel soldier lynched after killing four in Gaza pullout row

A teenage Israeli soldier shot dead four people in a blazing row over the country's imminent withdrawal from Gaza before being lynched by furious residents of an Arab-Israeli town.

The 19-year-old religiously observant Jew, dressed in army fatigues, unleashed a volley of fire inside a bus in the northern Galilee town of Shfaram in an argument over the pullout, police said.

The gunman, Nathan Zaada (eds: correct), was a 19-year-old soldier who was originally from Rishon Le Tzion (near Tel Aviv) and had recently turned to religion.

E Pur Si Muove!

It is a sad day for fans of liberty and students of science when the President of the United States publicly endorses teaching a religious myth as science in America's public schools. We already have a hard enough time keeping our public education system in the same league as the rest of the industrial world; the last thing we need is religious zealots imposing their doctrine in the name of science. While we are at it, why not also teach women are the root of all evil, thanks to Eve's indulgence?

Since we want to be politically correct, we should also include teachings of other religions. We can introduce hard-line Islam and bar girls from going to school - that way, the boys will be much more attentive during the lectures on how to stone blasphemous infidels to death. Maybe some Scientology too - we would not want to offend Tom Cruise's aliens by only teaching one doctrine of creation. And of course, we would not want to leave out the Hopi's spider woman, creator of man, and sun god, creator of Earth. Also not to be forgotten is the Siberian theory that land was created by a giant defecating bird whose urine created the rivers, lakes, and oceans.

There are thousands more of these theories, so in the interest of making sure students are exposed to to as many schools of thought as Bush proposes, we should probably do away with unnecessary subjects like English (and replace it with Aramaic?) and history (the only history we need is the Old Testament) to make room for all these important schools of thought.

While we are at it, we can also take care of all those messy loose ends science cannot yet explain. Unfortunately, we discovered the Earth revolves are the Sun, so we can no longer preach about Ra, the Sun God. Gravity is another story - physics cannot fully explain what gravity is, so I hereby propose we formally include study of Gravitas, the new god of gravity, in our schools' curricula.

If we work hard enough to please Him, by God's good grace maybe one day we will be able to completely do away with secular education and have our own Western version of Saudi Arabia's and Pakistan's madrassas. Think of all the great things the madrassas students have accomplished over the past decade - we can only pray that some day we will be able to send our students out into the world to make similar contributions.

Death Row Kamikazes

Suicide bombers will always have tactical advantage since traditional deterrents, e.g. shooting them, do not work since they are already committing to 'martyr' themselves in their attack. Further, it has proven difficult for us to get our hands on high-profile terrorists like Usama they understand and exploit what deterrents work against us, e.g. shooting our soldiers before they get too close, like the SEAL team we lost in Afghanistan, ostensibly because Usama travels with a huge bodyguard of soldiers.

To fight fire with fire, what if we gave an option to death row inmates who have exhausted all appeals and/or have admitted guilt - they can either die at the hands of the state, or they can redeem themselves to their society by going on a suicide mission targeting terrorists.

Suicide attackers will be able to get much closer to targets and do things we cannot currently do with our soldiers and intelligence agents due the high risk involved; things like get close enough to assasinate Usama without the agent or soldier getting killed in return. It would also be another powerful psychological weapon to employ - terrorists already have to worry about having a US laser-guided bomb dropped on their heads or being rushed by special forces any time, any where, why not make them experience the same fear they exploit of having to wonder if any of the people around them are about to blow themselves up.

Of course there are practical concerns such as how do you ensure the convict carries out the mission and does not just disappear (though potentially easily addressed through some version of tracking technology already used for persons under house arrest), but on a philosophic and moral level, is something like this consistent with our values? Would a program like this be wrong?