Just Raise the Damn Gas Tax!

Vehicle mileage taxes are stupid on many levels.  But they keep coming up.  You can read here a good (and less emotional) overview of why the VMT idea should die.

Bike Share = Nazi/Stalin/Islamist/Totalitarian/...

The extremely hyperbolic (yes, it needs the extra adverb here) reaction by select [conservatives] to the bike share program is beyond weird.  It is very Onion-esqe, well, if the Onion started publishing really unbelievable pieces it would be.  I think this take is as good an explanation as any.

Oh, and the Front Page article referenced there is beyond hilarious, and for a change I was pretty happy to read the internet comments which were overwhelmingly insulting toward the writer.

I Like Greek Yogurt

Seems there's a dark side though...

From reading through it looks like there is a good chance of a solution, though it may be we should go back to the non-Greek stuff.  As much as I like the strained yogurts the non-strained are better for some things (like mixed with granola and fruit). 

I also found the comment section amusing--it is an instant jump into "we [you] should all be vegan".  I know I've said before: there are some virtues to vegetarian diet, certainly there is a lot of virtue on reducing the amount of meat most [Americans] eat, but vegan diets are mostly silly.  Also, there is some virtue to limited meat consumption, though it is kind of hard to get at.

In the grand scheme of things, people wanting to have the lowest impact on the planet would eat some cow/sheep/goat meat and milk, and even pigs can be a conscientious choice, though probably not even in this country (at least not commercially).  These are animals that convert stuff we can't digest (grasses, waste) to stuff we can (meat, milk).

Genetically Modified Organisms

I'm pretty sure that the GMO dividing line is a wider gap than the one separating sides on gun regulation.  It is simply astounding to me how visceral and emotional people get about genetically modified foods.

I'm a scientist, and have no fundamental objection to GMOs.  Theoretically they could be used to minimize the environmental impact of farming, while also reducing hunger.  What's not to like?  ...Well, plenty, but almost all of it has to do with the fact that genetic modifications are being researched on a "for profit" rather than a "for public good" basis.

I was excited, therefore to see this Nature special on GM Crops, and encourage anyone who has not to read through.  There isn't as much info in there as I would have liked, but it is very readable for non-scientists. 

Pink Slime = Good Thing

Look, to the extent that people are going to continue to eat meat (as I do), the most responsible--and probably humane--thing to do would be to waste as little as possible. Pink slime helps do that. If there were another method that accomplished the same but was less...icky?...then that would be fine too. As it is Americans eat too much meat and waste too much food, I don't see making us more wasteful as a good thing.

As for the asinine commenter who stated:

This is factually incorrect. No cows need to be slaughtered because the nation has absolutely zero "need" for beef. There is a desire for beef, but not a need. People eat beef because they choose to, not because they need to.

Get the fuck over yourself! While I think it would be good if the cost of meat (including beef) went up to something closer to it's unsubsidized market price, that isn't going to happen, at least not very soon. So it is factually correct to say that we would kill a bunch more cows if we banned pink slime. Living in a fantasy where people just ate less meat if a ban were to happen is counterproductive.

Bicycle Commuting

When I lived in Chicago I bicycled to work just about every day. It was a commute of just over 3 miles and Chicago is about as flat as a city can get on a round planet. Depending on weather it would take me between 15 and 30 min to get to work (it wasn't really possible to go fast in some places and I had a mountain, not road bike).

I loved doing it. I would still love doing it except for a couple things: I now live near 10 miles from work and PA has hills. This isn't to say that it is a bad or a long bike ride, but that it would likely take me near an hour to get to or from work on a good day and could take over an hour and a half on a bad day. The route would also be more dangerous, and I would likely arrive in need of a shower and a change of clothes.

The biggest hangup is the time, though. One hour round trip commute on a train where I can read is good. 40-50 min round trip in the car where I can stop off at a store on my way home is good. 2+ hours round trip every day on a bike along with the prep/cleanup required would only work if I had zero other responsibilities. I don't.

Bicycle commuting works under certain circumstances: one way distance of <5 mi (depending on route/hills/traffic), a relatively safe available route, the ability to change/shower at work (or the ability to be smelly), and the time to do this. I'll grant that there are likely people bike commuting 20+ miles one way to work, but they must have more flexibility in those other things.

No real point I guess...

Dead Animals Mean Food

Moral and health hazards abound when looking into what to eat. That we eat too much meat in this country, is not controversial. That we have a lot of industrial agriculture that is not good for the environment or for animals is also pretty well understood. It has become an increasingly commonly held belief that farm subsidies are antiquated and mostly neither a good use of money nor a producer of good results.

One of the moral issues that I tend to get prickly about is vegetarianism...particularly veganism. Our health would be better if we ate more veggies, and it would probably be better still if we were all vegetarians subsisting on legumes, whole grains, fruits, veggies, dairy and eggs. Of course, that doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is best for the world or the environment, and certainly not one that results in no dead animals for our food. Even vegan diets are responsible for the killing of many millions of animals as the direct result of farming.

More subtle is that meat can actually be a very ecologically efficient food source. The way much of it is produced in the US, it is not, however. There are a couple reasons. One is we eat too much meat, and so need to produce too much, and the cost/time efficient methods to do so are not ecologically efficient and so we are where we are. Another reason (outline in the post, which is reviewing this book) is that we have made some of the ecologically efficient methods illegal--particularly feeding waste to pigs.

Until we fix industrial agriculture, it will be hard to determine what is the "best" diet for us to have. Still, that doesn't mean we should just keep on as is. Strong pushes to increase fruit and vegetable consumption and to reduce meat consumption are very good ideas. Moral grandstanding by vegans is probably counterproductive, particularly when done by the poorly informed.

Thinking of Siding With Global Warming Deniers

Not because they are remotely correct, of course, but more because we are unlikely to be able to ameliorate global climate change in any way shape or form. There is just too much CO2 in the atmosphere to counter in a meaningful time frame.

Things are most likely going to get bad. 50 years from now it will be better to be on the "we wanted to do something about this but you wouldn't let us" side than it will to be on the "we got our way and the shit still hit the fan" side. Seriously. At this point it's really about who will have the better "I told you so" argument in several decades.

I'm still pro-conservation and pro-renewable energy, but those are good ideas no matter what the earth's climate does. We don't have unlimited fossil fuels, so we're best off weaning ourselves from them even though it won't actually reduce CO2 or cause global warming to be thwarted. I'm also not a big fan of waste, so reducing, reusing, and recycling play well with me. I'm also kind of cheap so a house that is more efficient to heat and cool is a winner as far as I'm concerned.

So global warming is a real and increasing threat to humanity, but since we aren't going to do anything that will substantially change that, I would at least like the opportunity to say "told ya so" within my lifetime, so fire up the burners!

Frustrating...

...not surprising, but frustrating never the less. Toyota/Tesla partnership is serious because they are going to make an Electric SUV!!

The single biggest problem with transportation efficiency in this country is the size and weight of the vehicles that travel our streets. A bus or a truck that transports goods mitigates the efficiency issue with quantity (though rail is still more efficient...for both). If we could get 1700 lb cars with modern engines we could be seeing 50-70 mpg. Do the same thing with electric and you can 1) reduce the weight further, and 2) make the total efficiency equation even better.

The fact that people in this country still demand SUV's is very frustrating to me. I would love to see a vehicle weight tax. $2/lb over, say 3000 lbs. There is no good reason to have a vehicle that weighs more for 99.9% of this country. Not one.

Green is Cheap

I really don't think this message penetrates very well. I think mostly because of the very, very intense marketing we experience in this country. If you want to live "green" then: stop buying shit! Yes, also, don't live in a huge home. Don't fertilize the hell out of your yard. Don't leave your house lit up like Christmas every night. Keep the thermostat below 70 (or even better: 65) in the winter and above 75 (or even 80) in the summer. Don't take baths, and take fast showers.

But really, it is buying shit (particularly disposable shit but really pretty much anything) that is the problem. It has to be made, it has to be transported, it has to be disposed of. All of those things contribute carbon. That is true of food, furniture, toilet paper, baby wipes, every damned thing.

Of course, if people listened to that it would put an even bigger hurt on our economy, and frankly, most Americans don't really want to live "green" lifestyles as they kind of suck... I mean the nations with the lowest carbon footprints (per capita) tend to be among the world's poorest. Americans with the lowest carbon footprint also tend to be very poor (homeless, carless, and living in an urban setting).

No matter how "green" I become, I am responsible for a hell of a lot more carbon than an impoverished Bangladeshi. That would be true even if I were better than 95% of Americans (I'm not). Of course I'm orders of magnitude better than our nation's millionaires and billionaires.

I'm Seeing More Riders

I take the train (SEPTA regional rail) to work on a semi-regular basis--I'll drive if I sleep late or need my car for something during/after work e.g. When I first started, shortly after I moved a year back, an average morning would see the train car I rode on roughly 1/8th occupied and an average of 5 people on my shuttle from the final train stop. Now I would put the train car at more than 1/4 full (nearly one person in every bench) and probably 8-12 people on the shuttle.

I'm not entirely sure why this is, but I do like the trend.

Oh What the Hell?

I figure I may as well just start cheering on global warming. I mean, it's going to happen, and it is likely to be devastating to millions if not billions of people on this planet, but the shit isn't really going to hit the fan until I am likely gone.

It is abundantly clear at this point that no matter what the world (particularly scientists) agrees should be done, it just ain't gonna happen. We will have warming. It may raise sea levels by a couple inches or several feet. It could destroy small coastal/island nations or not. It may deplete the ocean and it may cause certain species to flourish. It could cause desertification of much of the world's prime agricultural land, and it could make robust agriculture possible in places that don't support it now (like Siberia and much of Canada/Alaska).

No matter how great a calamity it may become, it's sure to be interesting. Humanity will survive, at some level will continue to thrive. Many will suffer. Many may die.

The curious scientist that I am, if I'm not going to see a world that pushes hard for and embraces the changes that will minimize what is to come (which would also make for a very interesting and likely more fun future), then I'll take getting to see what changes we will have wrought.

Status quo is boring; plus, our current slow death just causes mental anguish.

Optimism Will Destroy America

So I read this rather depressing take on the state of the US. I'll admit a certain degree of shared pessimism here. There is a powerful drive to cling to hope and a belief that things are better than they are that prevents people from facing up to real challenges. This is not a left or right issue but a human one. People have faith in Obama, or in a well of eternal oil located somewhere on US land, or that science will save us from any problems, or that we will recover because we want to or that the earth is too strong to have problems and scientists are liars.

Climate and energy are MAJOR problems. Transportation is connected with both as is food production and distribution.

As a quick aside for one potential reader: there is a tendency among others, myself included, to fail to see positive potential in the face of problems that do not have solutions which can be discerned. I am very on the fence here.

Organic Farming

Here is an overview of some studies about good things related to organic farming.

I've a minor gripe related to lumping genetic engineering in with the rest of "conventional agriculture" as genetic engineering is borderline necessary if people want to reduce fertilizer and pesticide use, and it is mostly just selective breeding on a massively accelerated scale.

Aside from that, however, a lot of neat tidbits are bundled up in this little article along with one claim that really stands out:

There’s another benefit to switching to agro-ecology, but the benefit is more systemic: under pretty conservative assumptions, switching from conventional agriculture to organic agriculture in developing countries boosts productivity massively.

I can understand that the switch in certain places (i.e. those not well suited to corn belt developed conventional agriculture) could yield improved productivity. Overall, this statement is wildly misleading: if conventional agriculture was not far more productive in general it wouldn't be used (it is quite expensive), but there is no reference in to which "developing countries" and more importantly what is meant by the word "massively"--if this massive improvement only applies to farmland that currently yields 1% of global food production upping it to 2-5% (or really even 10%) that is a massive improvement that could have a huge local impact, but is really not meaningful on a global level.

The problem is that the bulk of the world's food production is guaranteed by conventional agriculture as practiced in the US, China, Canada, Russia, France...maybe Brazil and India fall in here, though conventional methods may not be as big a help there, and I know that India is in trouble precisely because they have been employing US style ag.

I wish I could dig up the link now, as it is from a rather knowledgeable farmer and discusses some of the downside of many/most farms going organic, because the biggest problem with everyone going organic is that it would result in the starvation of tens of millions to billions more than we experience now.

Organic farming is good, but organic farming is exactly what we had 100+ yrs ago in the world. It does not produce as much food, and it requires more labor to produce less (even with modern equipment). For our world to go back to organic farming today we would either need major changes in diet (e.g. way less meat for everyone, particularly Americans), or we will have to accept a global population drop due to much more starvation.

Of course, a callous person might go on to say that a global population reduction would be pretty good for the planet--as we need it--as well.

OMFG: Green Energy: Not Entirely Green!

While I think that it's pretty damned obvious that no matter how "green" any energy tech is it won't be (can't be) perfect, it is news to CNN.

The entire of green energy is really about which is better. And if the grouse community believes that mining and burning coal for power in Wyoming is better than windmills, then they should push back against wind farms, but I think they are out of their minds.

Of course, they are really no different than me on at least one regard: looking for something to complain about in a presented solution rather than actually having a solution.

(Well, I guess I'm complaining about their complaining rather than about a proposed solution, and I do tend to offer my own preferences/solutions when I do complain about a proposed one, but that all requires understanding nuance and that's hard.)

Drink Makers Hitting the Airwaves

I saw a commercial yesterday that starts out with a lie about taxes not making things better or some nonsense that too damn many people believe, then goes on to advise people to let their congress critters know that taxing soda and juice boxes is robbing them of little pleasures or some shit.

First (well, second I guess) sodas and juice boxes are not seen as simple pleasures to most people, they are seen as standard beverages, you know, like water. I'll add coffee, real juice, milk and beer to beverages that fit into that category. Wine and spirits somewhat less so. The problem with sodas and fake juice is that people drink it like water, and not like some inexpensive pleasure (or affordable luxury).

Third, the tax is highly unlikely to make much of a dent in sales. If the price of a case of Pepsi doubled, sales would go down, if it goes up by a 10% tax, then "eh?" and it could simply shift them over to slightly different beverages made by the same frigging company that are not taxed (I don't know if diet versions are part of this). This is because of the way people see these. If people stop buying soda for money reasons it's to save $5, not the extra 50 cents.

On an somewhat related note, I think that bottles (plastic and glass) and cans should have deposits on them in PA like they do in so many other states...I think it should be substantial too like a quarter per. At the common 5 cents, a case yields just over $1, at 25, that would be $6. People would pay attention then, you just return the next time you buy. I also think that it should only be fully returned for cans, 20 cents back for glass and 15 cents for plastic.

Michael Phelps Should Retract His Apology.

Seriously. He smoked pot; who cares? I can't believe this crap is news. Real problems abound (even absent the economy) and people actually care that some famous person took a bong hit? And for that matter, marijuana is still a schedule 1 narcotic?

This phrase is overused and generally toxic to productive dialog but...

Anyone who still believes that marijuana should be illegal is an idiot.

Three R's

There are three "R's" that are meant to serve as a guide to consumption in the world. Reduce. Reuse. Recycle. These have been tossed around for decades, but it is still only recycle that is actively practiced by a large number of people in this country (though not by Chicagoans).

The thing is they are even listed in order of importance. For emphasis, I'll do the reverse...

Recycle.

More and more common, this is excellent for metals, pretty good for glass and paper, and better than nothing for plastic. Many things can be recycled to various degrees, but in the majority of cases recycling means downgrading, and in all cases it requires energy input to breakdown then reconstitute. So recycle everything you can, but only after doing the next two things.

Reuse.

On the simple side is using grocery bags to pick up after your dog. On the somewhat more inconvenient side: always bring your own coffee mug to fill up at coffee shop/gas station/... Don't get any frickin' disposable cleaning product (wipes, bowl cleaners, etc.): brushes, mops, rags and even sponges can be cleaned (and disinfected) and reused, so knock that crap off!

If you are insane: flatten out and reuse aluminum foil, wrapping paper, ziplock bags, etc. There are better options for many of these things (gift bags instead of wrapping paper, tupperware instead of baggies...), but try and find second uses for anything that you must use that would normally be one shot and done, and trade out more reusable items for as many disposable ones as possible.

Reduce.

Turn off lights, don't run water, use cold instead of hot when possible (laundry). Don't purchase anything that is individually wrapped. Never buy bottled water. Get as much fresh food as possible. Get food that is processed as little as possible. Cancel magazines. Walk and bike rather than drive. Don't use disposable cleaning products (it bears repeating). Don't sanitize every surface every 30 seconds.

What is odd is that, all told, there is a great deal under the reduce category that is quite simple. Moreover, it often means saving money, living a healthier lifestyle, and helping to reduce our impact on the planet. It is win, win, win!

Oh, also, live in a smaller house, don't fertilize, and drive an efficient vehicle. Damn. I knew there was something wrong. Hummers, golf course lawns (and golf courses for that matter) and McMansions need not apply. No matter what "green" crap you add to a 6000 sq ft house, it will never ever be environmentally friendly--are you listening Al Gore? A family of 4 really doesn't need more than 1200 sq ft (or really, even that much).

This nation is not designed in such a manner to make reducing our impact to a sustainable footprint easy. It is--in the limits--damn hard. Reducing, however is the first and best option for achieving sustainability.

Methane fueled cars

This back and forth is presented for your confusion...

Person A:

I agree that Hydrogen is not a viable option. I have done a great deal of research into gaseous fuels and found some interesting facts. Methane from animal waste, garbage dumps etc is readily available and renewable, and is also a by-product of CO2 sequestration. The infrustructure is already in place (natural gas pipelines) and current vehicles readily convert to methane using state of the shelf propane conversion technology. Cars running on methane produce 1/2 the emissions accross the board. The other interesting fact is that methane is over 20 times more damaging to the environment than CO2, yet nobody is promoting this as an alternative.
Any help in getting this idea to the Obama campaign would be helpful. I have a list of experts ie scientists and researchers that are willing to present this concept to the right people.

Person B:
Methane can help, but there is not nearly enough of it to convert, and collection is tough--what with it being lighter than air and requiring separation (from air) and all. Moreover, it would be far more efficient to use it at the collection site to generate power which would be put onto the grid.
Plug-in and hybrid electric vehicles, and if we can ever get them here ultra lightweight Kei/city cars, are the best current infrastructure option, and MeOH/EtOH/H2 Fuel Cells (which are also, technically, electric) are the best next tech option. Research being done now may put both options to pasture, but it is not there yet, or nearly as close. By all means, make a push to capture and use methane to generate power, but the inefficiency associated with using it as a fuel for automobiles--along with it being in insufficient supply--is too great.

Person A:

Ever hear of a guy named Smokey Unik. He was a stock car builber back in the 60's. Before he died a few years ago, he invented a "hot vapor engine" and converted a 1984 Fiero to run on his invention. Type, Hot Vapor Engine into your browser and take a look. His system converted liquid gasoline into a gaseous fuel. The Fiero that he converted made close to 60mpg and still ran on gasoline.

Dairy farmers are erecting methane capture tents and cooking animal waste using passive solar to run large generators. These generators are hooked to the grid and supply energy to the local community.

How many people still use incandescent lighting? Thats an easy one.

What I am promoting is an interum solution. Electric cars are a part of the solution, so is better use of the fuels that we have readity available. Methane including natural gas is a far better solution than drilling for more oil. Cars run cleaner go farther on the same amount of energy and can be easily converted with state of the shelf technology and infrustructure.

I am sure you have seen the Proctor& Gamble commercial using methane produced at the local dump to power their entire production facility.

While we strive for better longer term solutions we have 250 million vehicles in the US alone along with 10's of millions of homes that use natural gas for heating. If methane captured from easy sources was added to the Natural Gas supply that would have a 2 fold benefit.

Methane is not sexy, but neither is additional damage to our environment and economy.

We simply can't wait 10 more years when there are easy solutions we can implement right now with huge reductions.

Person B:
I checked out your engine. It's neat, but it is also simple physics/chemistry. Gasoline as a vapor will burn more completely than it will as a liquid (or as an atomized liquid...i.e. very small droplets). Moreover, current fuel injection technology is much better than then and can just about match his combustion efficiency. All we need to do to match his fuel efficiency is couple that with light weight vehicles through small displacement engines...say, Kei cars (which get as much as 70 mpg).
Methane, starting out as a gas, is easier to burn completely than gasoline. This makes it more efficient. It is still less efficient to use CH4 as fuel for a combustion engine than it is to use it to power a generator, and then plug in an electric car (or to power a generator like in hybrids).
Again, I like using methane to produce energy, and I'm sure that CH4 powered cars are better than gasoline, but they are a step sideways rather than forward. We need to get beyond the (always inefficient) combustion engine, not find ways to make them more efficient, because they will never be able to compete with electric motors in that regard.

Person A:

You are missing the entire point.

The cars we have on the road now are going to be here for the next 10 15 years, (thats if we stop producing cars today). You are wrong about the effeciency of liquid fuel injection. Gasoline when atomized (not vaporized) has the effect that Smokey saw in the Fiero.

Atomized fuel is still not as good as gaseous fuel.

A car running on gaseous fuel will be 40-60% more effecient than a car running on vaporized liquid fuels. The 1984 Fiero has essentially the same fuel injection system that your 08 car has. Not sure where you are getting your information?

How long do you think it will take to replace the current fleet with electric cars or light weight cars, 5 10 25 years, (thats if we stop building cars today) and at what rate of replacement per year, meanwhile we are missing the easy fruit. As I said this is not sexy, but will get us to the next technological advancement, greatly reduce pollution, and greatly increase the effeciency of the current fleet, plus its all state of the shelf and utilizes current infrastructure = 0 develpoment cost.

Not a step sideways, not a huge leap forward, just a step forward. Better than a bunch of self proclaimed experts running their mouths. What do you do when the house is on fire? Talk about building your next house, or call the fire department?

Person B:
I'm really not. I am not only aware that vaporized is better than atomized, I even said that. If you really think that electronic fuel injection has not changed in the past 20+ years, I can see why you would advocate for gaseous fuels. Essentially the same, yes, but that doesn't mean that the differences are insignificant. The primary differences have to do with air flow sensing and the ability to adjust the fuel volume on the fly and based on both the detected air in but also measures of the exhaust that can figure whether the mixture was lean or rich. The efficiency resulting has been noteworthy. The reason that overall fuel economy has been stagnant is because all of that efficiency has been used to move heavier cars faster (bigger engines)...the Honda Accord engine displacement and weight have both increased by 50% over what they were in 1983, so it doesn't matter that the engine efficiency increased by as much as 25%, the car's fuel economy is still worse.
But, really, in the end, it's the infrastructure and conversion argument that really loses me. While there is infrastructure to move methane around the country, there isn't nearly as much to get it to fueling stations or into cars, so that would have to be built. And cars would have to be converted (or purchased new, in which case the existing car point is moot). And then it would be made obsolete by better technology to come? And all this for an improvement in efficiency that would be less than if the average weight of vehicles on the road dropped by 50%. I just don't see how this can help, in the short term or the long term. Methane can be of assistance to our energy problems, but not in automobiles.


Person B(again):
Oh, on a personal note, I'm not sure that I have ever proclaimed myself to be an expert here. I'm a damn good chemist and fairly knowledgeable in sciences and even beyond that.
As for the fire thing, aside from being kind of insulting it really does ignore both what I said overall and what you have been saying. You want to retrofit cars. I want to tax the hell out of anything over ~3500 lbs (not mentioned) and allow the sale of cars in this country that have existed in Japan and Europe for years. There is no solution, no matter how off the shelf, that will not take time (measured in years) and money (in the billions). Just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean that I am ignoring anything.

More to come???