Morning Fog

Dies'l Kill Ya!

It's rather amazing to hear that a pending study on the health effects of diesel fuel exhaust in certain enviroments, conducted by two respected government agencies, has been pending for 20 years because private industry hates even the idea of such a study, and even now its publication has been further delayed by mining companies and others who fear its conclusions, and would like to control them.

Amazing, because it is so clearly a false story, made up of whole cloth.  Against the assertions made in the article, we have only to juxtapose what we know from experience and common sense, to wit:

Any fool knows that companies, especially mining companies, set safety as their number one priority and never, ever let the making of a profit stand in the way of their workers' well-being.

It's a longstanding tradition in our country that business interests actively welcome government regulations and standards.

As the Republican Chairman of the House Committee on Education and Workforce has suggested in this article, the Republican party is only interested in assuring that the report meets the "highest standards" of science.  We can take his word for that, because we are all aware that Congressmen generally, and especially Republican ones, are highly trained in science and competent to correct "errors" that less competent scientists might make.  They've already told us, for example, that climate change is a hoax; they've warned us away from the dangers of stem-cell research; and kept us from being led down the garden path by those who claim human history goes back more than 4,000 years.    

If all that weren't convincing enough proof that Mr. Morris's article is irresponsible misinformation (maybe the poor fellow was duped), we can just turn to the evidence of our own senses.  We've been breathing diesel fumes for years, and not just in mines.  We're still alive, so it's obvious that diesel exhaust could not possibly have a deleterious effect on anything or anyone.  Diesel exhaust is not harmful; quite the contrary, it's refreshing and makes us feel happy.  Why else do people go out of their way to get trapped behind a bus in traffic?   Or, take my own experience:  One of the things I recall with greatest joy from my younger years is my experience at Fort Knox being trained as a "tank platoon leader," sitting atop a tank belching diesel fumes for hours on end, making my eyes stream tears, irritating my nasal passages....

Well, that certainly brings me to my senses!  Let's get serious for a minute.  We really can turn to our common sense on this, and we probably don't need no stinkin' report to tell us that diesel cannot conceivably be all that different from other fossil fuels, like wood, refined gasoline, and coal, all of which are known to have deleterious effects on various aspects of human health.  So we know ahead of time what the report will say, and so do the mining companies and Republican politicians who seek to suppress it. 

Ignoring Science

Back in the 1960s, spurred by competition with the Soviet Union, the U.S. made an immense commitment to education in science that not only carried us into space but sparked entire new industries.  That seems to have lasted a generation or so but now, as the baby boomers start pushing into their retirement years, their sons and daughters seem more devoted to anti-science.  When we have politicians (or others who make policy for us) claiming that climate change doesn't exist; or professing creationism and insisting on its being taught in schools; or even scoffing at President Obama's efforts to provide even meager funding for investment in education in future, then we have to be worried.

A fellow who wrote a "Letter to the Editor" of the Washington Post yesterday said it well, I think.  The writer was responding to a review in the paper of the current controversy over "global warming": 

This seems rather like the political powers in Italy in 1632 disagreeing with Galileo that the Earth revolved around the sun. The Catholic Church took this position because Galileo’s conclusions did not support church dogma, and it is obvious that some of our political leaders approach the global warming issue with their own dogmatic biases.

Along with his letter was another (see the same link, above) authored by a former undersecretary of Energy (1988-1989), which complained that the Post had not thoroughly covered the scientists who deny that global warming is caused by human activity.   The second letter provides perfect illustration of the danger outlined in the first -- someone in a policy position (however  briefly) who seems prepared to ignore science in favor of dogma.  

Scientific opinion is seldom monolithic; of course one can always find a scientist or two to argue that the overwhelming majority of their colleagues are wrong.  In the case of climate change (a more neutral term), however, no one even bothers to argue it's not happening.  The data are clear.  And I'd suggest for the scoffers that its cause (manmade or natural?) is irrelevant.  Given that it threatens to severely alter our planet, possibly even make it uninhabitable, the real issue is what we can do about it.  The answers on that are pretty clear.  It seems worse than foolish to ignore damaging trends that we may be able to mitigate.  

Costs Of Daylight Time Outweigh Benefits, Says Morning Fog

Regular readers by now might think I had not noticed that the U.S. went on daylight saving time last Sunday.  Rest assured that I didn't.  

Yes, spring is in the air, the witch hazel bloomed as usual in February, the forsythia has sythed, the crocuses have croaked, and daffodils are poking out, the birds are getting more active -- and across all this timeless scene of cheer and renewal, we choose to cast a pall of darkness.   One day the morning walk is pleasant, and the next, it's back to stumbling around in the dark.

I've pointed out many times that "daylight saving" saves nothing, least of all energy, a fact that even Congressman Ed Markey's skewed attempt at self-justification (a Department of Energy study) has been unable to refute. 

We need to realize that any infinitesimal saving of energy that might result from "daylight time" (accidental and random, if any) is counterbalanced by more measurable negative effects:

• The increase in heart attacks as we shift from daylight to "normal" time and back again has been documented.
• Working folks who need to get their exercise before going to work (or who are just plain early risers) are deprived of sunlight, which stimulates the body to produce essential vitamin D.  What are the health consequences to the nation?  Will we all look as pasty as Congressman Markey?
• The time and effort involved in running around setting our clocks forward and back, if it were studied, would surely turn out to be significant.  Of course the electronic gadgets reset themselves automatically these days (unless you're the owner of an iPad, apparently) but oddly, the number of those that do not is also growing.  In the latter category, around my house, are the microwave (admittedly old), security system (likewise), and four recently installed thermostats, all of which must be reset manually.  Not to mention a half-dozen clocks, two or three wristwatches, and the clock in the car.  It takes an hour to get to them all.  And that's just a single home.  Multiply by millions.  Multiply by adjustments needed in factories and workplaces.  It's huge, and it far overshadows those much-touted but fictitious benefits we derive from "daylight saving."

Saving Energy - The Self-Powering House

An exciting effort is underway to construct and test a house that could conceivably produce -- "in-house," as it were -- all the power its occupants would need for heating, cooking, bathing, and other activities.  This self-sustaining power structure is now getting known as "net-zero" approach, is feasible through the use of (mainly) solar power and the best insulation and ventilation technologies. 

The current effort is a joint project designed by Building Science Corp., to be built by Therrien Waddell Construction Group and Bethesda Bungalow, and sited in Bethesda, MD at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which will ultimately run the tests and evaluate the performance of the project. 

One interesting aspect is that the house won't be occupied by real people, but will be evaluated by having systems switched on and off to simulate someone's concept of a typical family's activities, and by using "people simulators."  I understand the need for measurable, accurate results but at the same time, must suggest that we won't know as much as we need to know until we build such a house and let real people live in it.  That's the only way we'll figure out the real-world benefits, because people-simulators don't take extra-long showers when they feel like it, or leave doors open, or make any of the other irrational decisions that factor into energy usage.

On the whole, though, I applaud this effort, look forward to reports on its progress, and hope that an anti-science Congress won't decide to cut the funding for it.  If successful, design of this kind could be an important part of a long-term solution to some of our fossil-fuel and pollution problems.

Energy-Saving Through CFLs - Does It Work?

Got CFLs? 

In theory, at least, these bulbs save you money on your electric bill because they use far less power.  The other part of the savings equation is that although they cost much more than “regular” bulbs, they will also last much longer – up to 10 years under ideal conditions.

But there are drawbacks and misrepresentations:

Energy savings are marginal.  Two years ago we replaced all the bulbs in the lamps and fixtures in our house that stay on the longest – kitchen, bathroom, favorite reading lamps, and such.  Since then we’ve replaced many more bulbs as the old ones expired.  But no drop in electricity usage was detectable on our bill.  

Advertising now claims that changing over 10 bulbs in a typical household will save $35 per year.  That's a pittance, and wouldn't be noticeable on your monthly bill, but it would still be something, except that the bulbs don’t last as long as they're supposed to.  Of those I installed just two years ago, about ¼ have failed (some almost immediately).  Ten years’ life is a environmentalist’s figment.  If you read the fine print, you’ll find that CFLs oriented downward rather than up will have a shorter life; that CFLs in enclosed fixtures will have a shorter life; that CFLs are made in China, that bastion of quality production.

And, there is still a certain lack of convenience.  You’re probably aware that (most) CFLs cannot be used with dimmer switches.  Very recently, I also found that CFLs, because of the large, bulky base that sits athwart the screw-in part, will not fit into many existing fixtures, or even newly purchased ones – the base will bump up against the fixture before it screws in completely, preventing contact with the flow of current. (The “bright” side is that such bulbs are extreme energy-savers, of course!)

The bottom line on saving is, as with many of the recommended environmentally sound, “green” steps individuals can take, is that significant savings occur only on the macro level.  If millions of people adopt CFLs (or if the same number recycle just a couple more newspapers every week), the cumulative advantages can be significant.  If you do go hogwild for CFLs (as we have), do it knowing you’ll contribute your small bit for the earth, but not because you expect to save meaningful money on your electric bill.  You won’t.  

Meantime, be prepared for lots of needless frustration trying to replace your early-demise CFLs, due to the mismatches and incompatibilities that are prevalent in the market now.

U.S. Economic Stagnation - The Lesson Of Light Bulbs

Today's Washington Post carries a front-page story entitled "How Innovation Killed the Lights."  It's a tale already told in other places and in other contexts, of how a small General Electric plant that had been manufacturing the now old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs is closing down.  It focuses on the human impact of a couple of hundred lost jobs, and suggests (as the title indicates) that "innovation" was responsible. 

Well, in a way, yes.  Technology advanced to a new concept of residential light bulbs, the compact fluorescent (CFL for short) and the end result was the expiration of this plant.  But that's a little too "post hoc, ergo prompter hoc" for my taste.  I see the story differently.

To me, this demise of this plant demonstrates not the effects of scientific/technological innovation, but the results of a lack of manufacturing/business innovation.   The latter is at the root of our current economic doldrums.  New ideas are always coming along, sometimes driven by technology, sometimes by changes in society's approach to a product.  In the case of light bulbs, it was both.  This kind of change is a given. New techniques, new materials, new ideas ... all these can wreak major changes in a product or an entire industry.

But the success of our economy depends on how well business adapts to it.  It's said (even in business circles at times) that if you're not a part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  More germane here is a slight rephrasing:  If you're not a part of the future, you're part of the past. 

As CFLs were developed (in the U.S.!), with a clear advantage in much lower energy consumption, a sharp company would have begun to look at ways of producing.  Of course there were problems (early versions needed to be hand-blown) but the Chinese solved them (and now have moved beyond that labor-intensive stage). 

Couldn't we have done that in the U.S.?  Yes, most certainly; but the first reaction of General Electric was to oppose any efforts at legislation that would create incentives to switch, or to make it easier to begin producing CFLs.  So GE, often touted as one of our best and most innovative companies, immediately became not an innovator, but a defender of the status quo. 

Eventually, years too late, GE checked out the costs of producing the new bulbs in the U.S., but they looked only at the prospect of converting the old plant to the new production, even though it's pretty well known that retrofitting can be more expensive than building anew.  Not surprisingly they found it would cost too much, and the product would have to be priced significantly higher than the Chinese-produced ones.  (It's worth noting also that GE already had an investment in the alternate, but second-class, technology of halogen lighting.)

So General Electric, a paragon of U.S. industrial might, ceded the market to foreign manufacturers, following two principles that seem to have become ingrained in U.S. business thinking since the 1960s, both detrimental to our leading position in trade and manufacturing:

1.  Keeping up with technology is expensive and its benefits are usually longer term; seek protection from innovation, stick with what you know, and just keep producing it, modernization be damned.  This errant thinking has infected the course of events in U.S. industries as disparate as automobiles, major home appliances, and energy (which latter industry still insists on defining itself in terms of coal, gas, or oil and ignores alternate energy sources). 

2.  Manufacturing is old hat; making physical products isn't important; focus instead on shuffling assets to create an impression of growth.  Weird new financial instruments and the sale of "services" are where the real profits lie. 

And thus have we lost millions of manufacturing jobs over recent decades.  Captains of industry became corporals.  This outcome was not inevitable; but until American industry regains a keen sense of risk-taking and a willingness to innovate, we're likely to see further deterioration of our economy. 

In the same issue of the Washington Post, Steven Pearlstein makes a cogent case that we won't make much headway in reducing unemployment until we can restore a manufacturing sector that remains competitive in good times and bad.  

Jindal Channels Big Oil

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has published an opinion piece in which he laments the efforts of the U.S. Government to declare a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf.  Jindal claims this will "add insult to injury" (the injury being the leak and its economic effects) by denying people in the region the well-paying jobs on those deepwater rigs. 

From Jindal's parochial point of view, it's clear:  Louisiana is hurting economically, and the loss of income from the deepwater wells (not just in jobs but in other ways) is going to extend the pain.  Also, there's a certain common-sense appeal about keeping things going as long as they appear to do no harm.  Morning Fog argued this point in connection with A Whale, whose status and effectiveness remained in doubt as of last week.  No reports since then, but at least there are no claims that it hurt anything.

On the other hand, it's unreasonable to suggest, as Jindal does, that shutting down drilling is equivalent to grounding all airlines after a single plane crash -- unlike airplanes, these wells operate 24/7; a failure in another one would almost certainly have far more serious and widespread consequences than the loss of a couple hundred more lives in a second air disaster.  And, while we can understand that Jindal's concern is his own state, the rest of us (and our government) might want to take into account the potential for a similar oil spill polluting other coastlines - Florida or Texas anyone?

So what's the answer?   I'd say, let drilling operations continue wherever they are currently in progress.  The government's moratorium sought to block both new AND ongoing operations, which seems too much of a reach.  There is risk, of course, but it is more sensible for companies to be required to check and test (is that even possible?) blowout preventers in the near term, perhaps within 90 days.  The only problem with that last part is that the companies which so like to complain of government slowness would howl that such a deadline is too short.  No doubt they'd file suits to prevent or indefinitely delay checks.

Which brings me to the real crux of the matter.  In all the resistance to a moratorium, or even to added safety measures, it's not the economy, stupid - it's the politics.  Here's an issue on which economically or technologically, different views are possible, but so are compromise solutions.  Politically, though, it's not that easy.  Jindal, and very possibly the judge who ruled originally against the first moratorium attempt, live in Louisiana, a state that can be plausibly argued to be an oil-industry-captive or, as Steven Mufson has put it, the "closest thing America has to a petro-state."  

Jindal's entire opinion article is based in the politics of the moment, garbed for decency in more saleable mantras about jobs and "human impact."  Although he begins with a complaint about "the pace at which the government has worked," but nowhere does he criticize BP - not for its faulty equipment that caused the spill, nor its failure to conduct effective safety tests, nor its pace of operation on the cleanup, nor its many efforts to disguise the truth about the extent of the disaster.  No, indeed.  Jindal conjures up an imagined conspiracy in which the federal government has launched a covert operation against the state of Louisiana and the defenseless oil companies that operate there. 

Costly cleanup or not, BP and its industry "competitors" still have plenty of money to spend.  They're spending it heavily again (after about a 30-day lull of mourning for the Gulf) for television commercials against new taxes on the industry (there's that pesky government conspiracy again!), and they'll spend it elsewhere to fight anything that could inconvenience them.  Jindal knows on which side his bread is buttered (or oiled?).

Environmental Cleanup

The tale of the tanker A Whale is an interesting one.  The giant ship has been modified to work as a super-sized oil skimmer and has arrived in the Gulf, ready to go to work.  The people of the Gulf, in fact all of us in the U.S., at BP, and around the Caribbean rim, ought to be grateful for the idea and action of the ship's Taiwanese owner.

This is good news, overall.  Let's hope it works.  But even if it doesn't work quite as advertised, it seems almost certain to contribute significantly to mitigating the effects of the disaster.

So I have to agree with the quoted "local officials," including Louisiana Governor Jindal, who question why the ship wasn't put into immediate operation.  Technically, it was because the EPA "hadn't signed off" on the quality of the water A Whale would pump back into the Gulf. 

But isn't this enough of an emergency that the EPA could suspend rules that weren't designed for this kind of problem anyway?  Couldn't the White House and Congress by now have ginned up emergency legislation that would make this step and others possible?  Possibly man-in-charge Thad Allen could be given authority to order such things at his discretion.

After all, it's hard to see how simply taking in polluted seawater and discharging it again could possibly make it worse than it already is.  Even if it didn't remove a drop of oil!

Oil, Coal, Canaries, Pelicans - And Dinosaurs

Hard on the heels of Obama's talk to the nation yesterday evening, regressives are busily criticizing him for trying to "exploit" the Gulf of Mexico oil spill crisis to advance "his" agenda.   

These critics are people whose attitudes about the environment appear to have been shaped back when dinosaurs roamed the earth and all that underground petroleum was being formed.  The basic premise is, "what good is the gol-durn environment anyway, if we can't exploit it however we want?" 

Many in this group would also put a religious spin on it, too: "Gawd gave us this environment to be exploited by man."  So of course God (whose name in Slavic languages, "bog," bears a clear relationship to the cradle of petroleum) must either have a plan (is he/she just trying to give us an on-the-surface pool of oil to make it easier for us to get at?) or is going to fix it for us in the end. 

Other critics don't have a "prophet" motive, but a clearer and more rational, if also more venal, $profit$ motive.  They are the oil/gas/coal industries and their well-paid representatives in Congress.  This group is working hard to paint BP as the only bad apple among them; and they're working hard against government efforts to tighten inspection of their activities, and to prevent even a temporary halt to drilling still more offshore wells.  This perception (or lack of perception) of the issues raised by is no less antediluvian.  It doesn't even seem reliably self-preserving, because one oil company (BP) is almost certain to disappear as a result of this spill and the same fate may stalk others.

In coal mines, canaries were used to detect the presence of deadly gasses. (Technology put the canaries out of work but that's OK, it was hard on the canaries.)  The pelicans might be seen as the equivalent messengers of catastrophe in the petroleum mines.  So, this little accident involving one underwater well and one oil company is a wake-up call.

Just as our last President "exploited" the terrorist attacks of September 11 to accomplish things he considered necessary to enhance our security in the longer term, our current President is entirely correct to try to "exploit" the current disaster to break us out of our uncritical reliance on fossil fuels.  Presidents' calls for action are not (or shouldn't be seen as) "their" personal agendas; they are trying to deal with issues that are (or should be) on "our" agenda.

By the way, it's worth noting that what Bush was able to do in anti-terrorism at the time was really only baby steps toward improved vigilance, more intelligence, and better focus on combating the problem.  Some of those steps were difficult and costly; some are only now bearing fruit; some never will; and the truth is that despite the lack of terrorist successes so far in bringing off another attack on the U.S., we can't really say we've eliminated the problem.  The same undoubtedly will be true of measures we take now to revamp our energy policies.  Change in this area will also be difficult, possibly costly, but a start needs to be made.

On The Edge Of The Oil Spill

Again today, news from the Gulf of Mexico is disappointing:  neither the "top kill" nor the "junk shot" has worked to stop the flow.  Once again I urge, let's face the truth and deal with it:  This is a catastrophic accident, made more apocalyptic by the fact that the end is not in sight, but it is an accident.   Call it an act of god, or if you prefer, an act of man, but cope. People of the Gulf Coast in particular can be forgiven for being emotional (James Carville, hysteria does not become you, take it down a notch!) -- but all the talk of blame, or of action not being taken fast enough, is empty and useless.

Meanwhile, some more random observations related to this calamity.

It's been said already, but if ever there were a compelling argument for effective government regulation of industry, this is surely it.  I stress "effective" since people who say there's no need for government or for taxes to pay for it are suddenly looking to government to handle this problem, or to blame government because of failings in oversight.  But oversight must be ongoing; and the setting of standards, the conduct of inspections, and similar functions cost money.  We can't starve regulatory agencies and rely on private enterprise to police itself in good times, then expect government after the fact to have done a job it wasn't given resources to do.  For conservatives: Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify."  Why shouldn't that apply to business?  Could effective oversight have prevented the blowout?  I doubt it, but I do believe operations managers are more cautious when they know someone's looking over their shoulder.

State and local officials have been ducking for cover too, hoping to blame somebody else.  But while there is a lot of talk also about the deleterious effects of the spill on the local economy, Louisianans and their politicians, from Governor Jindal on down, need to think about their own decisions, years ago, regarding the economic mix.  I have no doubt that when these rigs were built, local officials pushed strongly for approval of offshore drilling, just as Virginia's new governor, Robert McDonnell, who has no drilling but covets the prospective revenues, continues to do today.  Risks were downplayed, on the assumption the huge gains were worth the chance.  That may still turn out to have been true, in the long run, but in the short run, some parts of the region's economy will be hard-hit.  Lives were lost, too, but we aren't hearing a lot these days about those fellows who died when the platform exploded and collapsed. 

Finally, I'm surprised that so far, no one has raised the specter of terrorism related to this incident.  Is that a possible explanation for this?  Probably not -- no one has claimed responsibility. It does however, raise the question of the security of these oil platforms, largely unprotected, in mid-ocean.  Look for the movie soon, if not the reality.