NewScientist (13 June 2015, paywall) reports that my alarm concerning Saiga antelopes is nothing to worry about:
Now the culprit has been identified as haemorrhagic septicaemia, caused by the bacterium Pasteurella multocida, according to the World Organisation for Animal Health, which says the outbreak is now over.
So much for intuition and inner alarm bells.
The latest paper edition of Skeptical Inquirer (July/August) publishes Prof. Terence Hines’ review of The Horse That Won’t Go Away, by Thomas E. Heinzen, Scott O. Lilienfeld, and Susan A. Nolan. Two items caught my attention: first, that Facilitated Communication (FC) is still in use today, a fact that I find appalling – I remember it being debunked between 25 and 30 years ago, and (deep breath) in fact wrote a perfectly dreadful play concerning the dangers of FC. Prof. Hines summarizes the dangers mentioned in the book, including the facilitator can easily choose to level false charges of sexual abuse against the very parents who’ve requested their help – through their subject. This should deeply concern any parent of a child who cannot communicate.
Second, some facts about drug-sniffing dogs:
Most surprising to me was the finding that drug- and explosive- sniffing dogs do very poorly in actual tests where their handlers don’t know where the target materials are or are thought to be. Although the authors agree that more research is needed, the fact that such dogs will “alert” when there’s nothing there is troubling. One study the authors describe showed that out of 10,000 alerts, there was a 74 percent false alarm rate.
That’s a very high false positive rate; combined with civil forfeiture practices, it’s more than troubling. The false negative rate is not mentioned in the review.
Hines’ judgment on the book?
It’s common to say that a book should be “required reading.” In my case, this won’t be just a cliche since I will be assigning this book in every psychology course I teach from now on. It is very well written. It is never boring or pedantic. It contains much excellent material for class discussion and written projects.
(updated with FC link to Wikipedia)
Evaluating the education of our children is a difficult thing to do. This blog has noted in passing the problems inherent in the current testing approach in the United States (here and this educator’s blog post) and India, where parents climb the walls to sneak answers to their children. AL Monitor‘s Walaa Hussein now publishes a report on similar behavior in Egypt:
High school exam seasons in Egypt are often accompanied by exam leaks — a phenomenon that has become a major challenge to the successive Egyptian governments, despite several attempts to confront it. The government transports exam questions in a military helicopter from the printers affiliated with the Ministry of Education, whose locations remain a secret. This procedure is done under the auspices of the Egyptian armed forces to prevent the leaking of the exams. Also, the Ministry of Education has started using electronic detectors to search the students for mobile phones to prevent the exam questions from being leaked on social media just minutes after the exam starts. The Ministry of Interior is working to secure students’ conduct during examinations, amid a phenomenon of mass cheating. …
As to what is behind the cheating phenomenon, Mogheeth said, “There is a flaw in the educational system, which relies on end-of-year exams. This tempts students to obtain [the questions] illegally because it means avoiding making a year’s worth of effort. Modern education systems, however, are based on grading students on the various subjects [more than once] throughout the academic year. Exam leaks and cheating will continue as long as the system remains as is — giving the student only one opportunity [to sit for a test]. Egyptian universities cannot accommodate all those [who graduate with] high school diplomas. This complicates matters further and makes the student worry about reserving a seat in any university and by any means, regardless of the [student’s] abilities and skills.”
I suppose we could at least be pleased by the students’ ingenuity. But the problem remains: how does one evaluate students?
An update on the North Carolina legislature is provided by the North Carolina Association of Educators:
Students and schools will be heavily impacted by the Senate majority cutting nearly 8,600 teacher assistants over the next two years. Not only will it have a big impact in our schools, it will create turmoil for thousands of families. So much for the Senate’s job creation budget!
NCAE worked with senators to try to restore teacher assistants. Some lawmakers tried to restore TAs and other education needs by replacing the Senate Majority’s proposed corporate tax cut, but Republicans either voted down the amendments or used parliamentary maneuvers to kill them. NCAE will now have to push the House to reject this proposal. The House maintained the current level of TAs in its budget.
Raises are miniscule, and future educators lose free health care once they retire. Other topics impacting schools, as noted by the same update, includes changes to gun laws and voter ID changes.
Perhaps the most intra-humanity project to be undertaken, there are many approaches to this – from mediation to the marrying off of the local princess to the king next door. In Iraq, the weak central government has resulted in the revival of the ancient conflict resolution practice of fasliya, as reported by AL Monitor‘s Omar al-Jaffal:
Women took to the streets of al-Mutanabbi Street in central Baghdad June 2, holding large banners denouncing fasliya marriage — the Arabic word for marriages arranged as compensation, through which tribal conflicts are resolved — which has surfaced in Iraq anew. …
Women who have been placed in a fasliya marriage are not entitled to file for divorce or separation because, according to tribal customs, they are stripped away of any rights.
An example:
… saying in a statement to al-Sumaria channel that a crisis broke out between two large tribes in Basra over the death of a woman during an armed conflict between both tribes. Therefore, al-Shawi tribe presented 10 women — not 50 as the media claimed according to al-Maryani — to al-Karamsha tribe for fasliya. The two tribes refused to talk to the media about the incident, claiming it was a personal affair.
According to the report, this appears to be a tribal custom, confined to the rural areas; it had been banned by the Iraqi government in the 1950s, but with the dissolution of the strong central government by the American invasion, it has been gradually reappearing in the absence of other mechanisms – or coercion from Baghdad. I don’t know much about the social dynamics of Iraqi tribes, so I can’t really hazard a guess as to why this works for them. My lovely Arts Editor suggests that marriage gives the two tribes a family link, and therefore they have to stop fighting – but I’m not sure that’s how it works.
Kevin McLeod sends in a tip on another perverse incentive, the previous being private prisons. Once again, this is law enforcement related: The Daily Signal reporting on the confiscation of possibly criminally-acquired funds:
He would eventually return home, but the cash Clarke had in his pocket didn’t make it.
Instead, the weight of the federal government came down on the 24-year-old, and his $11,000 was seized by federal and state law enforcement before he ever boarded the plane. …
Then, the officers seized his $11,000, cellphone and iPad.
Clarke received his phone and tablet two months later. But, more than a year later, he’s fighting to have his cash returned.
“I was being treated like a criminal, and I didn’t commit a crime,” he said. “It was very frustrating.”
According to court documents, Conrad said the money was seized “based on probable cause that it was proceeds of drug trafficking or was intended to be used in an illegal transaction.”
The article goes on to discuss the problems Clarke is having, and his use of the Institute of Justice.
At this juncture, a slight pause. While working on this post, I noticed The Daily Signal describes itself as a news organization of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. That was interesting, as the right-wing tends to be hard on crime, and that’s the point of the civil forfeiture laws: to remove the profit from crime. However, there are two mitigating factors: civil forfeiture is dangerously similar to simple theft, so that goes against the grain of the right-wing – and the Institute of Justice, while to the best of my meager knowledge, is an admirable resource, it usually associates with the right-wing. It may just be the founders are conservative, or it may have to do with much of its work being to fight against the regulatory state, aka Big Government, a primary bugaboo of the conservatives.
The perverse incentives of the civil forfeiture laws are mentioned only in passing, and to my mind they are the primary problem. This is an age where laws of draconian and unnecessary nature exist, and conservatives try to cut budgets to the marrow, thus leaving law enforcement with too much to do with way too little funds; the civil forfeiture laws offer a legal, if unjust, way to replenish the war chests of agencies who are either underfunded, or at least regard themselves as underfunded.
If we were to consider revoking the civil forfeiture laws, we should also rescind the marijuana laws: legalize it, and reduce the work load. Perhaps there are some other unneeded laws.
End Civil Forfeiture provides reasoning and research.
The American Civil Liberties Union proves this is not just a conservative issue.
The Institute of Justice has some resources devoted to civil forfeiture laws.
The reader clarifies that puzzling paragraph:
The cultural perfection thing is about misplaced sympathies and the resulting politics. Sort of a “how dare those scientists despoil the pristine wilderness venerated and carefully cared for for hundreds of years by these sinless original peoples” — which draws a lot of sympathy and support from various corners and factions. I’m pro-science, of course. But I’m also very pro-environment. Ask me about how much I think there are too many humans on the planet already someday.
Plugging along on this ongoing soap opera, a reader remarks:
The Daily North Carolina Disaster.
Yes, it sure is, and here’s today’s, courtesy DocDawg @ The Daily Kos:
With the start of oral arguments in a U.S. District Court challenge to its worst-in-the-nation voter suppression law just three weeks off (plus an accompanying massive protest to be held just outside the courthouse doors in Winston-Salem), last night North Carolina state House and Senate Republicans hurriedly introduced and passed – all within a matter of minutes and without advance notice to house and senate Democrats – a confusing revision to the state’s onerous voter ID requirements which are set to take effect in the 2016 election cycle. …
The bill (House Bill 836) provides a new means for registered voters who are unable to present a photo ID at the polling place to nonetheless cast a ballot – but by means so byzantine that few if any voters are likely to be able to take advantage of the new provision. It provides that a voter without acceptable ID may, no later than the last Saturday before election day, submit in person and only at the county Board of Elections headquarters an application for an absentee ballot, whereupon he or she may receive and cast that ballot. …
In short, this latest sleight of hand still bars a voter who lacks ID from voting on election day itself, and requires a voter who by definition lacks a driver’s license to somehow find a way to get to the county Board of Elections headquarters (in a state whose poorest and blackest counties are very large and lack adequate public transportation), during office hours, in order to vote.
The Progressive Pulse reports that Democracy NC‘s Bob Hall disagrees (their website appears to lack any such announcement):
The new provisions in HB-836, passed by wide margins in both the NC Senate and House yesterday, add a measure of protection for legitimate voters, a back-up way to provide documentation or confidential data that verify the person at the poll is the voter. The new “reasonable impediment” provision still requires the extra time and uncertainty of filling out a provisional ballot, but now there’s a better chance that the vote will actually be counted.
In the context of a needless and likely unconstitutional law, this is clearly a victory for citizens and citizen participation. During his comments yesterday about HB-836, Rep. David Lewis acknowledged the importance of citizen voices at the recent voter ID rule-making hearings across the state. Democracy North Carolina played a leading role in encouraging hundreds of citizens to attend and speak out at these hearings, and we will continue to work hard to make sure no one is blocked from voting.
Nature reports on a new rule concerning chimpanzees:
Chimpanzee research in the United States may be nearly over. On 12 June, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that it is categorizing captive chimpanzees as an endangered species subject to legal protections.
The new rule will bar most invasive research on chimpanzees. Exceptions will be granted for work that would “benefit the species in the wild” or aid the chimpanzee’s propagation or survival, including work to improve chimp habitat and the management of wild populations.
The FWS proposed the rule in 2013 to close a loophole that exempted captive chimps from the Endangered Species Act protections that had already been given to their wild counterparts. Under the law, it is illegal to import or export an endangered animal, or to “harm, harass, kill [or] injure” one.
It’s interesting that there had been a loophole that permitted invasive research on endangered species – it seems like a contradiction of the entire point of the Endangered Species Act.
Melissa Breyer @ TreeHugger is excited:
Yes! Yes, yes, yes. In fabulous news for chimps in labs across the country, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that it is categorizing captive chimpanzees as an endangered species subject to legal protections. The new rule will essentially spell the end for chimpanzee research.
Science/AAAS reports on Jane Goodall’s reaction at the press conference:
“This is a very exciting day,” Goodall said at the press conference. “It’s been a struggle to think of the chimpanzees exploited in medical research.” She has begun referring to chimps as “chimpanzee beings” instead of as “animals” and says the decision “shows an awakening, a new consciousness.”
Here’s a video of her reaction. Meanwhile, Nature’s report also includes a dour statement from Matt Bailey:
The government’s decision to list captive chimps as endangered drew swift criticism from some science groups. “Practically speaking, [given] the process to get exceptions [for invasive research], I don’t expect chimps will be a viable option,” says Matt Bailey, executive vice president of the National Association for Biomedical Research in Washington DC.Bailey’s group argues that medical research with chimpanzees benefits both humans and chimps, given that the two species are affected by many of the same diseases, and notes that captive research chimps have been bred for that purpose — making the connection to wild populations tenuous.
So, if the connection to the wild population is tenuous, doesn’t that make the population of research chimpanzees an Endangered Species in their own right? Or does that designation only properly belong to species that have not been transformed through human intervention? And, if the connection is tenuous, then how much benefit does research performed on research chimps really have for the wild chimps? There is a connection, but …
Interestingly, several of the science organizations (Nature, Scientific American, Science/AAAS) referenced the New England Antivivisection Society, which issued a statement including this unfortunate paragraph:
“NEAVS’ Project R&R: Release and Restitution for Chimpanzees in U.S. Labs campaign has focused on several routes to end their use in research,” says Dr. Capaldo. “Like the Institute of Medicine’s 2011 finding that ‘most current biomedical research use of chimpanzees is not necessary’ and the NIH’s 2013 decision to retire the vast majority of their chimpanzees, this FWS decision continues momentum – adding another barrier to unnecessary and non-productive research purportedly to benefit humans. We stand on ethically and scientifically firmer ground as we move closer toward ending atrocities under the guise of ‘necessary’ research. Our moral commitment as a humane nation was remembered today in FWS Director Dan Ashe’s welcomed announcement.”
This sets all the bells of conspiracy theories ringing – it reads as if they believe researchers enjoy hurting and destroying their subjects. The Chronicle, a publication of Duke University, has an article from 2012, when the change was first proposed. Prominent in it are the opinions of one Professor Hare:
“The researchers using chimpanzees [in labs] are not producing useful, interesting information to the medical community and it’s costing literally tens of millions of dollars to produce mediocre science,” said Brian Hare, associate professor of evolutionary anthropology and director of the Hominoid Psychology Research Group. “The bill will end that and then that money can be used for other researchers who are actually doing great jobs.”
In opposition,
The Association of American Universities, which is comprised of 61 universities, including Duke, released a statement officially opposing the Act. The organization noted that chimpanzees are a critical for biomedical research on hepatitis C and other infectious diseases.
One case that relied on lab chimpanzees was the development of a hepatitis C vaccine. Hepatitis C, which can lead to liver disease and cancer, affects only chimpanzees and humans, making no other animal models valid.
But Professor Hare continues what appears to be an ad hominem attack:
“People who are against this bill are trying to argue that this is non-scientists trying to stop science. That is not what this bill will do—it will make science better,” Hare said. “The only people who [argue this] either don’t work with chimpanzees or are the handful of people who are about to retire and are desperate because they know they’ve been doing mediocre science.”
Due to our hosting service, Bluehost, sending us mail saying that Google is now biasing search results to bring up results for sites that are responsive, which is to say that recognize the browser and platform and modify the site accordingly, we have switched WordPress themes (the old one was also no longer supported). I believe it’s more attractive than the old theme. Let us know if you like it or not.
A reader sees the issue differently:
I’m not sure I have much sympathy for the Hawaiians who don’t want this 14th telescope built on land that’s been leased since the 60s. Sounds like a few powerful players are using sympathies for supposed cultural or religious beliefs as a way to further empower themselves, more likely. I’m not negatively disposed towards native Hawaiians at all, quite the opposite. But I think this needs some perspective.
For example, compared to Native Americans on the continent, Hawaiians are very recent arrivals. The Hawaiian Islands are the very last of the Pacific Islands settled by the Polynesians that spread eastward to the south Pacific islands from what’s the Malaysian archipelago today. They were originally settled somewhere between 300 and 800 AD, and then (arguably, science is not settled) conquered in 1300 by Tahitians. Europeans showed up in 1778. Meanwhile, Native Americans were probably here 16,000 years ago. One could argue that a hundred years in any place is long enough to make it sacred, though. So this may not be much of an argument.
Another mistake we often make is to regard native cultures as close to perfection, living in perfect environmental harmony and respectful of nature, etc. That’s a huge mistake. Read the history of Easter Island (for example, as written by Jared Diamond in “Collapse”), and you’ll see that native, even primitive cultures frequently plunder and destroy their own environments, often to their fatal demise.
Hence, I want to see some good evidence that those protesting this telescope have some good, solid footing for doing so — other than it just makes good optics from some opportunist rabble rousers. Did modern native Hawaiians really descend from and maintain an existing belief system which contained venerated respect for the particular parcel on the mountain where this telescope is being built? Or is that more wishful thinking, or transference, or something else?
A telescope is a pretty innocuous renter, mostly.
I’m not sure how the “culture as perfection” thing plays into this; I’m aware of the messy, violent Mayans, the deforestation of Greece in ancient times, and other examples of imperfections in ancient culture. But so what? They’re human, just like us.
Like my reader, I have no idea if time even plays into making land sacred. Being agnostic, the word registers only a little more for me than does ‘spiritual’, which is more or less a zero.
I suppose telescopes don’t pollute much. Here’s the specs on the Subaru Telescope:
* Cylindrical enclosure rotating with the telescope
* Height: 43 m (141 ft.)
* Diameter at base: 40 m (131 ft.)
* Weight: 2000 metric tons (2205 tons)
And it took 8 years to build, which was probably equal portions technical challenge and altitude problems.
In the interests of really full disclosure, I worked, briefly, for a company that was performing administrative computer services for the supercomputer used to control the telescope. I didn’t get to go visit it, though, as I was in a different division.
Sami Grover @ TreeHugger suggests that the incremental strategy for decarbonisation is in the process of being discarded – in favor of the whole enchilada:
[A] new kind of environmental action is emerging, one that is not afraid to champion all-out, systemic change. It’s happening on many fronts:
• Engineers are mapping out roadmaps to 100 percent renewable energy by 2050.
• Utilities are committing to complete decarbonization, and reshaping their business models around renewables.
• Authorities are planning to “make cars in cities pointless.”
• Mainstream builders are building homes with 90 percent lower heating bills, largely out of straw, at a comparable cost to conventional homes.
• Apple is buying up forests the size of San Francisco to promote sustainable forestry.
So are we really making that great of progress? Are the renewables really ready for this kind of pressure? Granted, it’s good to see corporations swing into action:
“A 100 percent goal is easier than 90 percent, or 50 percent. Because when you go for 90 percent, everyone in the company always finds a way to be in the 10 percent.”
-Steven Howard of IKEA
But there will also be those companies that’ll drag their feet and avoid doing anything that’ll impact the bottom line. Perhaps I’m just cynical today.
I’ve heard, on and off, about the Hawaii’an independence movement for maybe 30 years now; I have a vague memory of seeing something about it in Whole Earth Review, but their archives show nothing. I have some sympathy for them, as the USA basically overran their island chain.
I also qualify, I think, as a science-groupy.
So this news, from Hawaii News Now, caught my attention:
Protests against the controversial Thirty Meter Telescope has spread far beyond the slopes of Mauna Kea. Rallies are now springing up around Hawaii, the mainland and around the world.
The movement against the telescope has been growing, even as construction has been halted for a week atop Mauna Kea.
The telescope is controversial because of its location:
“Mauna Kea is sacred, and our children are taught to respect our `aina,” said teacher Leo Akana. “They understand that science is an important thing, but I think the state needs to realize that Hawaiians were the very first astronomers here.”
Definition of ‘aina, courtesy HuffPo, in an unrelated article:
Aina means land. Life in Hawaii is lived outdoors — malls, homes, offices, and even the airport are built with open-air walkways, large windows, or lanais (balconies or patios) so you’re never fully indoors. Native Hawaiians see their identities and wellbeing entwined with the land, and so respecting it and living in it are of the utmost importance.
PhysicsWorld reports on the suggested compromise:
Since 1968 the University of Hawaii has leased more than 44.5 km2 of land on Mauna Kea from the Hawaiian Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) for scientific purposes, with the highest 2.1 km2 devoted to astronomy research. The top of Mauna Kea is already home to 13 telescopes, and the TMT will be the largest and most powerful instrument when it is operational in 2023. The telescope’s 30 m primary mirror will be made of 492 hexagonal segments, and a structure 66 m wide and 56 m tall will house the telescope. The TMT will sit on a plateau about 500 feet below the summit, a location picked to reduce the telescope’s visibility from the majority of the island.
Fewer telescopes
Construction of the TMT had been halted in early April following protests by native Hawaiians, who see its construction on Mauna Kea as desecration of their spiritual and cultural pinnacle. Over the past eight weeks, Ige has mostly stayed quiet regarding the protests, but now, along with giving permission for construction to restart, he requests that the university returns all of the land not used for astronomy to the jurisdiction of the DLNR. He also says that the University of Hawaii should begin decommissioning one telescope later this year with at least one-quarter of the remainder to be completely dismantled by the time the TMT is operational, with each site to be returned to its natural state.
Mauna Kea has some of the best astronomical observing conditions in the world, so losing some of the observatories will hurt some of the astronomy researchers. Additionally, telescopes are specialized, so sharing is not as easy.
But we’re a democracy first, and science-based second. As a cohesive minority, and previous owners (not the right term, but it’s what we have), we need to recall that democracies exist to bring disparate groups with disparate belief systems together through compromise. I’m well aware that some scientists have no time for other groups religious beliefs, but as an agnostic I do try to have some respect – since I have no idea which, if any, is correct – but that’s a matter for another post.
I’m also aware of the mostly undescribed provincialism of many scientists. This takes the form of putting the needs of science ahead of anything else. It’s usually not a problem in astronomy, but anthropologists often demonstrate it – on themselves. The Kennewick Man controversy brought the pot to a boil, but the problem was recognized and initially dealt with by the Federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) law. This law compels federally-funded scientists and institutions to return American Indian remains and other cultural items to the relevant tribes; indeed, often without any study other than that necessary to determine whether the remains are American Indian and which tribe might be best suited to take custody. This caused quite an uproar as scientists lamented the loss of materials which might not have given up all of their data.
Another example came when Hershel Shanks, founder & editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, searching for a way to curtail widespread looting of ancient remains in the Biblical lands, hit upon the realization that such research resulted in the collection of thousands of oil lamps and pots, and he suggested these be placed on the legitimate market as a way to satisfy the demand for ancient remains by amateur collectors, thus reducing the prices paid for black market wares, and discouraging the looters. The archaeological establishment just about burst a blood vessel, as I recall. (Mr. Shanks also filled an instrumental role in the release of the Dead Sea Scrolls from the academic ghetto they’d fallen into. All this from a lawyer pursuing a passion, too. He’s a minor hero for me.)
In a way, it’s understandable. Science takes time and, often, monomaniacism; thinking about the mindsets of groups with little relation to yours is difficult, especially when they may have data critical to your scientific endeavour. But need doesn’t prioritize their desires over others. Nor does it work the other way.
Compromise.
(h/t NewScientist 6 June 2015, paywall)
I’d never really thought about how it was done….
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/oEc-ESRjntg?rel=0&autoplay=1
(h/t William Cloose)
On the other hand, new North Carolina State Senator Jeff Jackson (D – District 37) seems unafraid to tote up the failures of North Carolina leadership on his Facebook page:
North Carolina’s 30-year teachers make $50,000.
Houston’s first-year teachers make $49,100.
Not sure if that’s adjusted for COLA, but it’s probably not much of an adjustment – and it indicates the shrine of choice for North Carolina legislative leadership.
Since I appear to live in a hole in the ground (pun fully intended), I had not heard of this effort by some architects to do their bit in reducing carbon emissions: building skyscrapers using wood, which will sequester carbon, rather than steel & concrete, which emits carbon (and is hardly sustainable). Michael Green makes the case at TED:
These are my buildings. I build all around the world out of our office in Vancouver and New York. And we build buildings of different sizes and styles and different materials, depending on where we are. But wood is the material that I love the most, and I’m going to tell you the story about wood. And part of the reason I love it is that every time people go into my buildings that are wood, I notice they react completely differently. I’ve never seen anybody walk into one of my buildings and hug a steel or a concrete column, but I’ve actually seen that happen in a wood building. I’ve actually seen how people touch the wood, and I think there’s a reason for it. Just like snowflakes, no two pieces of wood can ever be the same anywhere on Earth. That’s a wonderful thing. I like to think that wood gives Mother Nature fingerprints in our buildings. It’s Mother Nature’s fingerprints that make our buildings connect us to nature in the built environment.
Helen Waters, also at TED, gets more information from Michael in a visual essay, which covers a number of topics, including the common concern: fire.
Peter Wilson at the Discover Magazine blog The Crux discloses the CO2 cost of concrete:
This ability to use a renewable material to provide a positive response to a key environmental issue facing the construction industry, namely global warming, is nothing short of transformational. The use of concrete is already responsible for 5% of global greenhouse-gas emissions.
CityMetric covers a proposed wooden skyscraper in Vienna:
Unlikely as it sounds, wooden skyscrapers are a thing these days. As we noted last year, concerns about the environmental impact of steel and concrete are driving some architects and designers back to wood as a more eco-friendly alternative. There’s already a nine storey tower built from specially laminated timber in London, and a 12 storey wooden building under construction in Bergen, Norway.
A planned tower for Vienna, however, is due to leapfrog both in terms of scale and height. The HoHo project in Vienna’s Seestadt Aspern area will feature two wooden towers, the tallest of which will stretch to 25 storeys and 84m. The towers will be 76 per cent wood; Kerbler, the firm behind the designs, claim the material will produce 2,800 tonnes of CO2 when compared to a similar sized tower built from concrete.
The fire brigade in Vienna was a trifle irate, but they’re working with the builder to certify the construction materials. Meanwhile, Lloyd Alter @ TreeHugger reports on the next step up:
Some think that architect Michael Green is pushing the envelope and perhaps his luck with his proposals for 30 and 35 storey buildings. Now he is working with Finnish lumber giant Metsä Wood to design and build a virtual Empire State Building, just to show that they can. The point of it all: “To challenge preconceptions and explore the possibilities of wood construction.”
Given that Michael is based in seismically active Vancouver, you have to think the seismic challenges for wood have been assessed; I probably just missed that section.
Here is Wood Skyscrapers.
A reader has a dismal reaction to the G7’s late move on the crisis:
I don’t read that with nearly the optimism that many commenters seem to have. It sounds more like hot air (no pun intended). Even if they were concrete goals which would be met in 2100, it’s probably way the hell too late. The only hope is in your final remark about it’s not so much about government as it is about the (small chance of a) tidal wave of public sentiment change and action. But I never over-estimate the public. As such, I’ve been busily mentally drafting a letter to my son, for when he’s a mature adult and I’m dead, apologizing profusely and long for bringing him into a world his parents, grandparents and great-grandparents generations so royally screwed up.
My hope centers around physical manifestations of the problems with fossil fuel overuse. It’s one thing to point at subtle temperature changes and proclaim disaster in the offing, it’s quite another when food prices soar because of crop dislocations caused by out of normal range temperatures, etc. Then the question will become whether we can change fast enough. Once enough people abandon or show they’re willing to abandon fossil fuels, then the infrastructure will be abandoned and the hold outs won’t have a choice – economics at work, you might say.
The Australian experience may be illustrative of this process, at least politically speaking. Whether it’ll work here and in China – two radically different political situations – remains to be seen.
It seems the North Carolina legislature is still failing to give its teachers any love, as we can see by this contribution from a North Carolina educator:
The N.C. Senate this evening started rolling out portions of its proposed budget, however we are still awaiting some of the details. Here is what we know right now.
- The Senate proposal will not make a dent in our dismal per-pupil spending and average teacher pay national rankings.
- Students and schools will be heavily impacted by the decimation of the state’s teacher assistants. According to reports, the Senate plans to cut more than 13,000 teacher assistants over two years. So much for the Senate’s job creation budget!
- Once again the Senate is shortchanging experienced teachers by giving them smaller, or in some cases, the most veteran teachers, no raise. The Senate also did not include restoring master’s pay as did the House budget.
- At a time when we are at the bottom of the heap in education, Senators used a $400 million surplus for the Rainy Day Fund instead of investing in education.
- Only $29 million in additional funding for textbooks and digital resources, the lowest of the three budget proposals.
- The Senate did include a proposal to reduce class size, but we are still trying to crunch the numbers and understand what it really will mean for schools.
- $6.8 million for private school vouchers.
Quite the dismal proposal. I wonder how many of the legislatures legislators have children in the school system?
(Updated to insert a missing word. And again..)
I’m not religious, never have been. But Pope Francis has been a great relief after Pope Benedict’s concentration on orthodoxy and theological purity, although perhaps I was negatively influenced by Andrew Sullivan’s view of the former Pope. Francis’ public comments which I happen to stumble across seem more connected to the real world; his 3rd world origins give us a flip-side view of USA dominance of the world which is refreshing and important.
So now MarketWatch‘s Paul Farrell reports on the content of his upcoming (June 18th) encyclical. I’ll take them one at a time:
Capitalism is threatening the survival of human civilization
A “threat to peace arises from the greedy exploitation of environmental resources. Monopolizing of lands, deforestation, the appropriation of water, inadequate agro-toxics are some of the evils that tear man from the land of his birth. Climate change, the loss of biodiversity and deforestation are already showing their devastating effects in the great cataclysms we witness.”
This is difficult to deny in the face of the destruction of the Amazon. Let’s face it: raw capitalism is an unbalanced system in the sense that, while a libertarian will tell you that a wise owner will husband their resources in order to wring maximum long term profit, that has the hidden assumption that long term profit is desirable. This is not always true; sometimes short-term profit is the desire of the owner, whether that’s rational or not.
There is a second hidden assumption: that value is objective. It is not: value is, by and large, subjective. Sure, we all value clean air and water … when it’s our water and air. I discussed this a while ago here:
In the early days, the only international companies were the trading companies such as the Dutch East India Company; the overwhelming majority of companies were strictly local companies. This resulted in the owners and the management having to live with the results of their decisions. If you made a decision to treat your employees poorly, you heard about it: at church, at your office, and, if you were not a monopoly, at the clerk’s counter, as the customers decided to take their business elsewhere. Communities did not exist to further the fortunes of companies, but to further the fortunes of the citizens, and they realized that betterment of the community resulted in the betterment of the citizens.
So now we see there are two dimensions to value: relative location as well as differing judgments on value itself. So when I say the system is out of balance, it means resources are used for short-term profit because of different requirements, because valuations differ, and sometimes because people are idiots.
The managed capitalism practiced in first world countries is also destructive as it’s difficult to regulate the externalities involved. It may help to remember that capitalism is often characterized as using human selfishness to better the human condition; unspoken is the assumption that most of the selfishness balances out and the rest can be handled through minor regulations and the efforts of non-capitalist institutions … such as churches. What is thought to work automatically is sometimes quite ramshackle.
Capitalism is destroying nonrenewable resources for personal gain
This is quite evident, not only in second and third world countries, but in the shorn off tops of mountains in the United States.
Capitalism has lost its ethical code, has no moral compass
Indeed, it’s hard not to see it as another religious institution for many folks these days. And, given previous economic alternatives, it’s not a difficult thing to understand: it offers economic mobility, predicated on the notion of meritocracy. There is nothing wrong with this notion. Consider the idea of being stuck in your station for the rest of your life, a fate that beset millions prior to the notion of capitalism. (Which may seem fine if you’re a programmer making a good living; now consider the janitor, the shoe salesman, the waiter. While professional examples of each may be found, in general they are not considered stepping stones to a better life when they’re the final stop.)
Communism featured its own brand of social climbing, one that had little to do with merit. Socialism is not well known, or understood, in the USA.
Back to the point; capitalism, as the dominant economic system in many countries, especially the USA, has come to the point where many think it IS the point. Efficiency becomes the point, not building an institution attractive to both customers and employees – and leaves one of our most storied companies stained with embarrassment.
Not all companies have fallen into this mistake, of course; conscious capitalism (briefly discussed here) is an explication of the purpose and practice of responsible capitalism.
Capitalists worship the golden calf of a money god
Certainly a question for many Wall Street types. On the other hand, some folks simply worked hard at their company and made millions.
Capitalists pursuit of personal wealth destroys the common good
… An economic system centered on the god of money needs to plunder nature to sustain the frenetic rhythm of consumption that is inherent to it.
What a great phrase, it really makes you think a bit.
Capitalism has no respect for Earth’s natural environment
There is no inherent value in the natural world as-is (and we’ll skip the discussion about Nature not being a static entity, either) for the capitalist; at least, not until their destruction of it rebounds on their heads to great effect, with, no doubt, a few exceptions. But this is where we live, it is what supports us, so it behooves us to consider our actions and how they may negatively effect us.
Us. Us. Consider that word, a unitary word for a collective entity, an entity which doesn’t communicate particularly well outside of its own immediate circle. The Internet may in fact be a symptom of this problem, and an attempt to ameliorate it. But keep that in mind: “Us” is a misleading word, as what I write may only impact those who read it, and no one else. The folks building a coal-fired power plant on the Amazon will not realize what impact that may have upstream, downstream – or on the other side of the world.
Capitalists only see the working class as consumers and machine tools
Sure seems that way sometimes. See conscious capitalism.
Capitalism is killing our planet, our civilization and the people
And yet … the benefits of capitalism have been undeniable, its superiority over the previous systems make it beloved of anyone ground into the dirt – if they were able to use it to improve their lot. There’s a lot to say for it, so that last statement is provocative, to say the least.
Mr. Farrell:
Imagine Pope Francis addressing a hostile GOP controlled joint session of the U.S. Congress in September. There’s no chance of changing the minds of those hard-right politicians, all heavily dependent on fossil-fuel special-interest donations. But he’s clearly laying the groundwork for a global revolution, and his enemies know it.
Indeed. But, if it’s phrased so confrontationally, will it be wise? Hardening the position of those who back unfettered capitalism may make it that much harder to win the war. Declarations are fine when speaking to the home team, but you need reasoned arguments, preferably using their own ideology against them, to win the important battles.
And, on that note, what is the life expectancy of the Pope? Will his successor, picked by the Cardinals, rather than by himself, be up for the job of continuing the battle?
(h/t Accumbens @ The Daily Kos)
(Updated – fixed a missing apostrophe, changed formatting for readability – 7/22/2015)
… which sounds rather like a weapon from Star Trek, but is not – it’s the code word for the movement away from fossil fuels and thus blunting the impact of anthropocentric climate change. The G7 nations agreed to remove fossil fuels from their economies by 2100, or at least so the communique is interpreted. From whitehouse.gov:
Urgent and concrete action is needed to address climate change, as set out in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. We affirm our strong determination to adopt at the Climate Change Conference in December in Paris this year (COP21) a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) applicable to all parties that is ambitious, robust, inclusive and reflects evolving national circumstances.
The agreement should enhance transparency and accountability including through binding rules at its core to track progress towards achieving targets, which should promote increased ambition over time. This should enable all countries to follow a low-carbon and resilient development pathway in line with the global goal to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2 °C.
Germany’s dw.de reports on environmentalist reactions:
Lutz Weischer, of the German environmental NGO Germanwatch, told DW that the decisions on climate change constituted an “important moment in the international climate debate.” The commitment to global decarbonization, he added, was “a significant step.”
Samantha Smith, who leads the WWF’s global climate and energy initiative and was also in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, was less enthusiastic: “The G7 have given us some important political signals, but they’ve left out the concrete commitments from themselves as nations,” she told DW. Concrete, immediate actions to cut emissions, Smith added, “would have had a big impact,” particularly in the run-up to the summit. She did, however, call an initiative agreed by leaders to roll out renewable energies in Africa and other emerging countries “very positive.”
But,
Concrete financial pledges were, however, not made in the 17-page communiqué, which was hammered out by the delegations on the sidelines of the meeting. Leaders also pledged to lift 500 million people in developing countries out of hunger and malnutrition by 2030 – also without making concrete financial commitments.
Climate Central suggests this is too little, too late:
“Decarbonization by the end of the century may well be too late because the magnitude of climate change long before then will exceed the bounds of many ecosystems and farms, and likely will be very disruptive,” Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., said.
The goal is a step in the right direction, but not very meaningful considering greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced dramatically within the next decade, well ahead of the G7’s timeline, Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, said.
“In my view, the science makes clear that 2050 or 2100 is way too far down the road,” he said. “We will need near-term limits if we are going to avoid dangerous warming of the planet.”
350.org warns investors:
The commitment should serve as a dire warning for investors considering new dirty projects, like the Galilee Basin coal mines in Australia, or investors who continue to hold shares in companies such as Exxon and Chevron, who refuse to acknowledge their climate risk and continue to spend massively on high carbon projects.
And Big Oil may become Tiny Oil:
More ambition is needed, but even these targets should send shivers down the spines of major fossil fuel companies. Scientists are clear that meeting the 2°C target will require leaving at least 80% of known fossil fuel reserves underground. Any new investments in extracting or finding new reserves will only further inflate a carbon bubble that is bound to burst.
G7 leaders also reiterated the need to phase out the fossil fuel subsidies, a push that will only gain momentum between now and the G20 summit in Turkey this November.
Bjorn Lomborg’s take at MSN is here. Clean Technica reports,
Merkel and US President Obama, as well as President Hollande of France, have stood at the forefront of the G7 decarbonization movement. Jennifer Morgan, director of the global climate program at the Washington, D.C.-based World Resources Institute, said that “It’s pretty clear that Canada and Japan are in a different place than the rest of the G7 on the issue of climate change.”
Obama cannot make this succeed on his own, however. International Business Times reports Sir David King of the UK is optimistic:
For him, Monday’s G7 agreement to “decarbonize the global economy” means a workable global climate deal is likely in Paris, he said late Wednesday 10 June.
“That commitment from the G7, to me, was a critical turning point,” said Sir David King, the UK’s Special Representative for Climate Change, in a process where “progress has been painfully close to zero.”
After failed talks in Copenhagen in 2009, “I think we’re coming to a very different point now,” he added. King is leading the UK’s efforts abroad to secure an ambitious deal at the crucial UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. …
During the G7 Heads of Government meeting on Monday, 8 June, world leaders from the developed nations pledged to remove carbon from the global economy by 2100.
The conditions for creating a global climate deal are now “realistic,” King said, because various carbon tax schemes are “emerging country by country.” Currently six Chinese provinces are trading carbon credits, with all provinces in the country set to take up the scheme in 2017.
As is Sami Grover @ Treehugger:
This is a significant coup for climate hawks, especially given that the G7 includes tar-sands rich Canada. And yet I see many Internet commenters voicing their incredulity: 2100 is simply too slow, given the speed at which the climate is already changing.
In many ways these angry voices are right. Many were hoping for more ambitious push by 2050 – and many individual G7 member countries including the United Kingdom and the United States have emission reduction targets of around 80 percent by that date – but this collective commitment to actually phase out fossil fuels completely, now signed onto by recalcitrant nations like Canada and Japan, represents a significant statement about where the future is headed.
As I’ve argued before, once we are firmly headed in a particular direction, the pace at which we get there becomes less about specific government targets, and more about the sheer momentum of social and technological change.
A correspondent writes about the effect of the economy on North Carolina’s citizenry:
People see the nation going to hell in a hand basket. They then (mistakenly) blame gay marriage, liberals, scientists, blacks, poor people, marijuana, Democrats, immigrants, atheists, the “elite”, Hollywood, etc. while missing some the real, biggest causes: corporate capture of government, ignorance, income disparity, polarized politics, cultural ghettos.
I think there are a couple of points to make here.
First, I don’t even think it takes “hell in a handbasket” – I think just change is enough. Whether it’s gay marriage or electric cars, as the environment transforms from their formative environments, people often take it as as a step down. For example, from my youth I recall the importance of a high fidelity stereo setup. These days, that high fidelity is not as important as mobile access – of having those ear buds in and listening to something, no matter how bad the quality.
If I think about it, it makes sense to have instant access anywhere – but it’s a little disconcerting to realize the kids really don’t seem to care about quality, only about access.
But let’s take this thought a little further – let’s add in the idea, the concept, of people who do not try to approach morality from a rational point of view, but from a static, “revealed” point of view. To such a person, where morality is the Word of God, completely perfect, what does it mean when the world around them changes in some meaningful way? When they lack an intellectual approach to morality?
If you can’t evaluate change in a meaningful way, you can either panic or condemn, to be overly blunt about it. The idea that a moral system is imperfect is the first step to evolving that moral system so that it doesn’t permit obvious unjust situations. A “revealed” moral system, as its source is God, is difficult to evaluate since there will be many who take joy in the emotional proclamation of its existence. And logic is easy: if it’s from God, it’s perfect, so don’t mess with it..
And, yes, that’s overly blunt: We no longer burn witches, stone adulterers, or whatever it is we’re supposed to do – if you’re in the Christian tradition. People do think, often against their will, but eventually the received word is modified to a form less likely to leave society riven with tragedy and mutual hatred. But it is a painfully slow and murky process.
(And let me say right here that “rational morality” is simply my code phrase for people behaving in a thinking and reasonable manner. While someday I intend to explore the ramifications of rational morality, it’s not happening here.)
Secondly, let’s consider what I loosely term tribalism, the tendency to congregate and put the group ahead of the individual. I’ve been meditating on this since I read this Daily Kos piece on sexual abuse in a fundamentalist family.
As I had described in a previous post, my stepfather, who was popular and handsome, insisted that we function as a “Christian” family. He was also a violent pedophile living a double life, one as a child abuser, and the other as the male head of a church going Christian family. …
At some point the pastor spoke to my parents. He encouraged my mother that she was fulfilling the will of God by staying married to a pedophile who molested all three of her kids because God hates divorce. My stepfather broke down and cried when confronted saying he was sorry for what he did. He claimed to repent (only when he was caught and confronted) and the pastor felt that the chapter was closed. I was firmly told that my stepfather had repented and that he was forgiven and transformed by God, and I should forgive him too. It seemed that Jesus would not forgive me for my sins unless I forgave others for theirs. I was directed to receive pastoral counseling from another area pastor. My stepfather wasn’t expected to get any counseling at all. The pastor I received Christian counseling from also believed in the transformative power of Christ which it seemed would be the key to my healing.
The social dynamics are fascinating once we toss in thoughts about revealed morality vs rational morality. The group, as it offers a moral system, becomes paramount as morality is perceived as the primary mechanism through which a peaceful and successful society is to be achieved; more importantly, as the group and its moral system is definitionally good, if something of a non-good nature should occur within the group, then this is a threat to the moral system, which should only have good outcomes. Those who’ve put their trust in the group, who’ve made it a fundamental part of what they are, will not willingly accept that their morality has led to a bad outcome. In the above, the stepfather insists on a Christian family, thus he must be Christian; his activities that are not-good, then, are a product of the “revealed” moral system.
So there are a few logical paths: you can proclaim abusing your children as good; you can proclaim that the victims brought it upon themselves; or, as in the above, you can repress the evidence, because it’s a danger to this moral system which, having been dispensed by God, is good and is the mechanism through which the group is held together.
Add in a few leaders that have become addicted to power – a common human fallibility – and the victims are enmeshed in a web that reinforces itself so long as the leaders are more or less human. The group is paramount – which, it could be argued, is a survival mechanism – and when the morality is static, the group becomes static and then twisted as the inability to allow for flaws in morality, to transform it into something better, is not available.
In case you missed it, Rosetta’s Philae lander has reawakened! Here’s the Rosetta Blog:
“Philae is doing very well: It has an operating temperature of -35ºC and has 24 Watts available,” explains DLR Philae Project Manager Dr. Stephan Ulamec. “The lander is ready for operations.”
For 85 seconds Philae “spoke” with its team on ground, via Rosetta, in the first contact since going into hibernation in November.
(h/t Al Kolman-Stich, Kathy Melaas, CNN)
General Benjamin F. Butler, commander of Fort Monroe, declared that fugitive slaves reaching his command were contraband. This legal maneuver led to their freedom. Archaeology‘s Marion Blackburn has the story of Fort Monroe and how the city of Hampton, abandoned burned by the Confederates to prevent its use, instead gave the slaves free reign to build their own community:
In command at Fort Monroe was Major General Benjamin F. Butler, a criminal defense lawyer from Boston who had accrued a fortune by winning clients’ freedom on technicalities. Before the war, he had become known as something of a social activist for instituting a 10-hour workday—a reform at the time—in a mill he had purchased. Using his familiarity with legal loopholes, on May 24, 1861, Butler made what has come to be known legally as the “contraband” argument. Because the enemy considered slaves property, he reasoned, and because their labor was being used for the war effort, Butler concluded that runaway slaves were to be treated as any other illegal war goods would be—as contraband, subject to seizure by the Union, rendering them free.
Butler was “a lawyer first, and a general second,” says Michael Cobb, curator of the Hampton History Museum, adding, “He had the disposition to help people who were defenseless in many ways.” An agent for Charles King Mallory, [three escaped slaves’] owner, visited Fort Monroe to collect his “property,” and Butler explained that the law no longer applied in Virginia, which claimed to have seceded—but that he would return slaves to any owner who pledged loyalty to the Union.
“Butler’s fugitive slave law,” as it came to be known, drew thousands of slaves to Fort Monroe from as far away as North Carolina and Maryland, provided valuable Union labor, and represented a threat—real and existential—to local Confederate loyalists. Just months after Butler’s decision, on the order of Brigadier General John B. Magruder, the Confederate commander at Yorktown, the Confederates abandoned and burned Hampton. Their destruction of the city may have been intended as a provocation to the Union, but it had a different effect. It left a city’s worth of land and materials, albeit charred, for the newly freed people.
This was before the Emancipation Proclamation, making the legal maneuver all the more clever; it set an example that was emulated in more than 100 locations. Butler, however, was not without controversy and suffered military defeats, which may explain why he’s not remembered today. It’s a lovely article, and, judging from Wikipedia, Butler was quite the progressive.
