Category Archives: Rant

Rant, Science

America COMPETES by cutting Science

2 Comments

It wasn’t so long ago that Congress passed and Bush signed the America COMPETES act (I’m sure COMPETES is some big acronym for a goofy-sounding title, but I’m too lazy to look it up).  Anyways, this was supposed to be some big new initiative to reinvigorate America, to develop the areas that need developing to ensure America is competitive.  One of the main aspects of this act was to increase the funding for both science and science education.

Well, initiatives like this are useless if they aren’t funded.  Congress just passed a budget, which Bush signed.  Bush had threatened to veto it if it wasn’t under a certain amount.  Well, the only way to get it under that amount and to pay for the wars was to cut a lot of stuff, including science funding.  America COMPETES is essentially an unfunded mandate.  As a result, the skills necessary to ensure that America will be competitive in the future will not be honed; the innovations needed to keep America at the forefront of science will not be developed;  the discoveries that America is known for — and has won so many Nobel prizes for — will not be found.

It seems to me that this is one of the biggest casualties of the two wars.  (This and the loss of liberties for the sake of security, but that is another story.)  The US is already losing ground, due to, amongst other things, the reduction in foreign graduate students in our universities (because of increased immigration difficulties).  In the long run, America will be safer, possibly, but we will also be more mediocre.

And a personal note related to this.  I, with some colleagues, had a proposal pending for the Office of Basic Energy Science’s (BES) call on Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems (ANES).  This was a proposal we submitted about this time last year.  As a result of the reduced funding for science, all of BES’s open solicitations were closed and all proposals currently pending were effectively killed.  This was not only for the ANES call, but also the Instrumentation, Solar, and Hydrogen calls.  To give some perspective on how much time was effectively wasted, then, on just the ANES call, each national laboratory was allowed to submit 4 proposals to BES.  Lets say 10 of the labs submitted the maximum number of proposals, so about 40 proposals.  A proposal takes quite a lot of time to write.  I personally spent the better part of two weeks working on ours, and others on our team spent considerable time as well.  So, lets say 5 people spending about 50-80 hours each, so 250-400 hours.  If you consider all 40 proposals, that is between 1 and 2 complete years of effort nation-wide.  Already, we were competing for a small pot of money ($8 million, which seems like a lot, but when you consider each proposal is for $1.5-$3 million, it means only 3-6 proposals would be funded).  So, our expectations weren’t necessarily great, but at least there was a shot.  But, now, since the call is dead, there is absolutely nothing to show for that proposal.  Or any of the proposals that were written.

Thus, as a result of the cuts, not only is America as a whole going to be significantly less competitive that we might have been, but a lot of us have wasted a lot of time with nothing to show for it.

Rant

Is it torture?

Leave a comment

There has been a lot of discussion about Bush’s nominee for Attorney General, Michael Mukasey, and whether he views waterboarding as torture.  Like most executive branch people, he hems and haws and never really answers the question.  See, for example, this LA Times article.

It seems to me that the question that needs to be asked of these guys is this:  Is the US doing anything to prisoners that we would not want done to our soldiers if they were captured by the enemy?  If your son or daughter were captured, would you be uncomfortable with the enemy doing the same things to them that we do to our prisoners?  Cuts to the heart of the matter, at least to me.

The whole reason for the Geneva Convention, it seems to me, was to make sure that our guys were treated well enough when they were captured during war.  So, we (and other countries) said we would treat the enemy in a certain way so that our guys would be too.   So, that is the litmus test: are we treating the enemy in a way we would want our guys treated?

Life, Rant

Prius vs Hummer

4 Comments

A friend of mine came into work the other day, touting an article very similar to this one (the one he had was written by a James Martin for a senior citizens’ publication, but I can’t find a good link to it online; in any case, the content is essentially the same as the one above). The basic conclusion of this article is that the Hummer is more eco-friendly than the Prius (recall, Lisa and I just bought a used Prius).

I won’t go into all the reasons that I think this article is BS, as the main points have been refuted already by a number of others (see, for example, this Wikipedia article, this Better World Club article, and this topic on the Hybrid Cars forum). However, there are a few comments I wanted to add to those already made.

First, the main crux of the argument that the Hummer is more eco-friendly has to do with the mining of nickel that is used in the batteries of a Prius. Much (most? all?) of the nickel Toyota uses comes from a mine in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada (also, interestingly, the home of Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, or SNO, an underground neutrino detector built in an abandoned mine in Sudbury). The article claims that there is a great deal of pollution associated with that mine and, if you consider that pollution in the production of a Prius, it makes the Hummer look as green as can be. As some of the other links point out, though, the main pollution from Sudbury occured several decades ago, long before Toyota started producing the Prius, and has since been cleaned up to a remarkable degree. Furthermore, Toyota only buys 1% of the nickel mined in Sudbury. To blame the entire pollution produced there on Toyota is like blaming the Iraq war on Hummer because of the oil we need to run them.

Second, I don’t think that the original article considered at all the post-production cost to the environment. Probably, because it is hard to quantify. But, even Bush is starting to admit that global warming is real and human caused. If there is a large-scale effort to try to reverse things, to try to clean up the environment to reverse some of the climate change we’ve caused, shouldn’t those costs be added to the Hummer’s cost of driving? I’m guessing, based on how much more CO2 those spew, it would far outweigh any pollution Toyota is responsible for by purchasing 1% of the nickel produced in a relatively clean mine in Canada.

Finally, in looking for sites discussing the original article, I couldn’t help but note the comments people left on sites hosting it and the bile in their comments. There were comments like “there isn’t anything that makes me happier than seeing a Prius broken down on the side of the road” and other things like that. These people really hate the Prius. And it makes me wonder why. They claim it is because of the in-your-face “environmentalism” the Prius represents. To be honest, Lisa and I bought our Prius for a simple fact: it uses less gas. I drive ~40 miles each way to work and I just wanted something that uses less gas, both for my pocket book (though, to be honest, the extra cost of the Prius means it will be a while before I break even there) and for the environment (why spew as much crap if I don’t have to). But these people seem threatened by the car. I’m guessing it reminds them of how crappy their cars do and how they aren’t willing to do anything to help fix the problem. Just because some of us try to do at least a little bit to make things better for the climate and environment, doesn’t mean these people have to feel so threatened.

But, if you want to talk about an in-your-face vehicle, what is the Hummer? Is there a vehicle that is more in-your-face than that one? Why does anyone but the military need such a beast? Aren’t Hummer drivers showing the rest of us (a) how much money they have to afford such a thing and (b) how little they care about the rest of us, in terms of sharing the road and using resources?

Rant, Science

Al Gore?!??!

1 Comment

I just can’t believe that Al Gore just won the Nobel Peace Prize. I don’t understand why he is so deserving of the award. I understand that he has brought a lot of attention to the problem of global warming. And, I personally believe this is a huge problem, one that is, before all is said and done, going to require huge changes in how we live. As a result, I do think that Gore is doing something useful and necessary. But, I don’t believe he deserves the Nobel Prize.

To me, it seems that Gore is like many celebrities. He has found a cause he can champion and is doing a great job at that. Just like all the celebrities that champion a free Tibet, ending the war in Iraq, and so on. But, really, what has Gore done? It is said he has brought great awareness to the plight of global warming. I admit that he has increased awareness in the US somewhat. Not to the extent needed, really, for real change, but ok, more people are aware it is an issue. But has he done this on a global scale? It is my understanding that people in Europe are familiar with his movie, but did that make them aware of the problem? It seems to me that Europe was already aware of global warming and already taking steps to deal with it (like the congestion toll in London, for example). And has he reached anyone in countries like China and India, where it will be most crucial (just think of what happens if the people in those two countries reach consumption levels we have in the US)? It doesn’t seem so to me.

And even in the US, is our increased awareness really attributable to Gore?  Isn’t it the better science underpinning our understanding of climate change that is making the difference in how people perceive global warming?  Don’t the lists of respected scientists that support the view of human activity causing some measure of global warming carry orders of magnitude more weight than Gore’s movie?  And who did his movie convince anyways?  Did any Republicans watch his movie?  Did he change the mind of anyone who wasn’t already on his side?  It seems to me that Gore’s impact has really not been so great as people say.  Clearly, he is part of our greater awareness of the issue, but is he really that central of a piece?  I personally don’t think so.

Gore hasn’t done anything to understand climate change and global warming. That is the work of the scientists dedicating their lives to the cause. It is because of them and their computer models and measurements of the environment that Gore even has data to present (somewhat mistakenly, it seems at times). So, he isn’t doing anything to understand the problem. Is he doing anything to fix it? Not in his personal life, unless you count his carbon offsets, which amount to planting trees in some far-off land. And probably cost him less in a lifetime than he gets via revenue from his movie or the money associated with the Nobel. And I haven’t seen any real serious proposals on his part on how to fix it. So, I just don’t understand why he deserves the Prize. Why aren’t the people who are working to understand and fix the problem getting the recognition? (Though, admittedly, that might be the role of the UN Panel on Climate Change that was also recognized, I’m not too sure (though, see below).)

Part of my problem with Gore is that, while I believe he is sincere about his concern about global warming, it almost seems secondary to me. It seems that his primary focus is himself. That the publicity for himself is more important than the actual cause. I don’t get this feeling, for example, from Jimmy Carter, another ex-national politician who has also dedicated himself to personal causes. With Carter, I get the feeling that the cause is first and all the attention is second. With Gore, it seems the other way around.

The only thing I can figure is that the Nobel committee wants to keep global warming front and center, and they can only recognize individuals in any significant way, and Gore is as good a figure head as any for the cause of global warming. Probably better than most. And so this is the committee’s way of weighing in on global warming, pointing out how they also see it as a huge and important problem. In the end, from the perspective of trying to fix global warming, this is the best the Nobel committee could do.  And, in that light, maybe it is worth giving the prize to a figurehead, a celebrity who has taken up the cause.  But does that mean Gore as a person deserves the Peace Prize? It sure doesn’t feel that way to me.

I just heard on NPR a report on the UN Panel that was the co-winner of the Prize.  Now these seem like the people who deserve it, to me.  While not the scientists who are necessarily conducting the actual research, these 2000-odd people are scientists who collate and distill of the science on climate change going on in the world and parse it so politicians can understand.  These are the guys that write the reports that define our understanding of our role in global warming and try to get politicians to do something about it.  These are the people who deserve this kind of recognition, in my opinion.