China is planning a vast increase in its use of wind and solar power over the next decade and believes it can match Europe by 2020, producing a fifth of its energy needs from renewable sources, a senior Chinese official said today.
Zhang Xiaoqiang, vice-chairman of the of China's national development and reform commission, told the Guardian that Beijing would easily surpass current 2020 targets for the use of wind and solar power and was now contemplating targets that were more than three times higher.
In the current development plan, the goal for wind energy is 30 gigawatts. Zhang said the new goal could be 100GW by 2020.
"Similarly, by 2020 the total installed capacity for solar power will be at least three times that of the original target [3GW]," Zhang said in an interview in London. China generates only 120 megawatts of its electricity from solar power, so the goal represents a 75-fold expansion in just over a decade.
"We are now formulating a plan for development of renewable energy. We can be sure we will exceed the 15% target. We will at least reach 18%. Personally I think we could reach the target of having renewables provide 20% of total energy consumption."
That matches the European goal, and would represent a direct challenge to Europe's claims to world leadership in the field, despite China's relative poverty. Some experts have cast doubt on whether Britain will be able to reach 20%. On another front, China has the ambitious plan of installing 100m energy-efficient lightbulbs this year alone.
Beijing seeks to achieve these goals by directing a significant share of China's $590bn economic stimulus package to low-carbon investment. Of that total, more than $30bn will be spent directly on environmental projects and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
But the indirect green share in the stimulus, in the form of investment in carbon-efficient transport and electricity transmission systems, would be far larger.
HSBC Global Research estimated the total green share could be over a third of the total package.
China also believes the price reforms that will take place in its economic recovery programme will lead to more efficient use of resources and an increased demand for renewable energy.
"Due to the impact of global financial crisis, people are all talking about green and sustainable development," Zhang added. "Enterprises and government at all levels are showing more enthusiasm for the development of solar for power generation, and the Chinese government is now considering rolling out more stimulus policies for the development of solar power."
He said the government would also plough money into the expansion of solar heating systems. He said the country was already a world leader, with 130m square metres of solar heating arrays already installed, and was planning to invest more. The US goal for solar heating by 2020 is 200m square metres.
Zhang was speaking in London on a day China came under increased pressure from Washington to do more cut its emissions.
David Sandalow, the US assistant secretary of energy, said the continuation of business as usual in China would result in a 2.7C (36.9F) rise in temperatures even if every other country slashed greenhouse gas emissions by 80%.
"China can and will need to do much more if the world is going to have any hope of containing climate change," said Sandalow, who is in Beijing as part of a senior negotiating team aiming to find common ground ahead of the crucial Copenhagen summit at the end of this year.
"No effective deal will be possible without the US and China, which together account for almost half of the planet's carbon emissions."
Zhang said China was pursuing "a constructive and a positive role" in negotiations aimed at agreeing a deal in Copenhagen. As part of that agreement, he said developing countries would have to pursue "a sustainable development path", and said Beijing was open to the idea of limits on the carbon intensity of its economy (the emissions per unit of output).
"We have taken note of some expert suggestions on carbon intensity with a view to have some quantified targets in this regard. We are carrying out a serious study of those suggestions," Zhang said.
Zhang told the all-party parliamentary China group in Westminster todaythat Beijing's stimulus package was already showing signs of re-energising the Chinese economy. He said it grew by 6.1% in the first quarter of this year, and growth in the second quarter would be stronger than the first. He predicted that China would meet its target of 8% growth this year.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Road particles pose 'higher risk'
Children may be at greater risk from the microscopic particles in traffic pollution than was previously thought.
Early findings from a major study in London seen by the BBC show that the lung capacity of 8- and 9-year-olds is 5% lower than the national average.
And 7% of the children - surveyed in the Tower Hamlets area - have lung function reduced to a level internationally regarded as hazardous.
The London study is being led by Professor Jonathan Grigg.
He works out of the Centre for Paediatrics at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry.
Leaf clues
The particles - so-called "particulates" - are produced in vehicle exhaust and are far smaller than the width of a human hair.
Less than 10 microns across, they are often referred to as PM10.
The results come as researchers at Lancaster University warn that levels of particulates are often higher than shown by official monitoring devices.
Analysing the particulates collected on roadside leaves, the research shows that the pollution can be most intense at the height of many children.
Britain already faces penalties from the European Union for multiple breaches of standards for particulate pollution.
Professor Grigg told BBC News: "Our findings in the East End of London are that children living here have slightly lower lung function than what we'd expect from the national average.
"Now, if that's due to air pollution, as we suspect, they're going to be at increased risk from a range of respiratory disorders such as asthma and infection, and may be at risk in adulthood."
Cough test
A total of 203 children at 10 different schools are taking part in regular tests over several years.
Interim findings from 149 children show that 11 of them have lung capacity that is 80% or lower than the national average - a threshold regarded by researchers as vulnerable to a range of breathing conditions.
One test involves encouraging the children to cough - so the carbon content of their sputum can be analysed.
Microscope analysis shows how particulates are reaching deep into the lungs.
These results will add pressure on the government over Britain's failure to meet European Union air quality standards.
The EU requirement is for average PM10 concentrations to stay below 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air - but most of the country's major conurbations record higher levels.
And the new research by Lancaster University shows that the particulate levels may be even worse than official figures show.
The official data is gathered at automatic monitoring stations which typically sample air at a height of three metres - mainly to avoid the risk of vandalism.
But Professor Barbara Maher and her team have devised a new technique for measuring the magnetic response of particulates on roadside leaves - many of the particles contain fragments of metal.
Barbara Maher from Lancaster University offers her tips on avoiding traffic pollution
And the readings show higher concentrations of particulates at lower levels.
'Progress made'
Interviewed beside a busy road in Lancaster, Professor Maher said: "We're surrounded by this invisible mist of these millions of toxic particles - you can't see them but we know, we've measured them, they're here.
"When we do our leaf magnetic measurements, our research shows that down at small child height the concentrations - the number - of these very fine particles is sometimes twice the current EU regulation standard."
One set of measurements, outside the Cathedral School in Lancaster, revealed particulate levels that were above the EU standard.
The school's head, Anne Goddard, said the findings were "quite worrying".
"It's the only playground we have at the school and it's right next to the road. The levels are high so obviously the effect on the children, especially those with asthma, is a concern."
The Environment Secretary Hilary Benn admits there is a problem but says 24 out of 27 members of the European Union are in breach of the standards and that most of the landmass of Britain does meet the requirements.
He also said that "huge progress" had been made in the last few decades with the Clean Air Act and changes in vehicles standards.
"But we need to do more and principally that will be about cars and lorries and buses," he said.
"And we've been working with other countries in Europe to improve the standards to get these PM10 particles down because we know it has an effect on our health."
Early findings from a major study in London seen by the BBC show that the lung capacity of 8- and 9-year-olds is 5% lower than the national average.
And 7% of the children - surveyed in the Tower Hamlets area - have lung function reduced to a level internationally regarded as hazardous.
The London study is being led by Professor Jonathan Grigg.
He works out of the Centre for Paediatrics at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry.
Leaf clues
The particles - so-called "particulates" - are produced in vehicle exhaust and are far smaller than the width of a human hair.
Less than 10 microns across, they are often referred to as PM10.
The results come as researchers at Lancaster University warn that levels of particulates are often higher than shown by official monitoring devices.
Analysing the particulates collected on roadside leaves, the research shows that the pollution can be most intense at the height of many children.
Britain already faces penalties from the European Union for multiple breaches of standards for particulate pollution.
Professor Grigg told BBC News: "Our findings in the East End of London are that children living here have slightly lower lung function than what we'd expect from the national average.
"Now, if that's due to air pollution, as we suspect, they're going to be at increased risk from a range of respiratory disorders such as asthma and infection, and may be at risk in adulthood."
Cough test
A total of 203 children at 10 different schools are taking part in regular tests over several years.
Interim findings from 149 children show that 11 of them have lung capacity that is 80% or lower than the national average - a threshold regarded by researchers as vulnerable to a range of breathing conditions.
One test involves encouraging the children to cough - so the carbon content of their sputum can be analysed.
Microscope analysis shows how particulates are reaching deep into the lungs.
These results will add pressure on the government over Britain's failure to meet European Union air quality standards.
The EU requirement is for average PM10 concentrations to stay below 40 micrograms per cubic metre of air - but most of the country's major conurbations record higher levels.
And the new research by Lancaster University shows that the particulate levels may be even worse than official figures show.
The official data is gathered at automatic monitoring stations which typically sample air at a height of three metres - mainly to avoid the risk of vandalism.
But Professor Barbara Maher and her team have devised a new technique for measuring the magnetic response of particulates on roadside leaves - many of the particles contain fragments of metal.
Barbara Maher from Lancaster University offers her tips on avoiding traffic pollution
And the readings show higher concentrations of particulates at lower levels.
'Progress made'
Interviewed beside a busy road in Lancaster, Professor Maher said: "We're surrounded by this invisible mist of these millions of toxic particles - you can't see them but we know, we've measured them, they're here.
"When we do our leaf magnetic measurements, our research shows that down at small child height the concentrations - the number - of these very fine particles is sometimes twice the current EU regulation standard."
One set of measurements, outside the Cathedral School in Lancaster, revealed particulate levels that were above the EU standard.
The school's head, Anne Goddard, said the findings were "quite worrying".
"It's the only playground we have at the school and it's right next to the road. The levels are high so obviously the effect on the children, especially those with asthma, is a concern."
The Environment Secretary Hilary Benn admits there is a problem but says 24 out of 27 members of the European Union are in breach of the standards and that most of the landmass of Britain does meet the requirements.
He also said that "huge progress" had been made in the last few decades with the Clean Air Act and changes in vehicles standards.
"But we need to do more and principally that will be about cars and lorries and buses," he said.
"And we've been working with other countries in Europe to improve the standards to get these PM10 particles down because we know it has an effect on our health."
ENVIRONMENT: Global warming endangers oceans, senators told
In Washington state, oysters in some areas haven’t reproduced for four years, and preliminary evidence suggests the increasing acidity of the ocean could be the cause.
In the Gulf of Mexico, shrimp disoriented by oxygen-depleted water jump into the air in what the locals call a “shrimp jubilee.”
Yet even as researchers, scientists and Jacques Cousteau’s granddaughter painted a bleak picture Tuesday of the future of oceans and the “blue economy” of the nation’s coastal states, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., had to hurry off to another meeting where senators voted to allow more offshore oil drilling.
“It’s crazy they are discussing more drilling,” said Cantwell, suggesting the real priority needs to be slowing or halting what could be irreversible damage to oceans from climate change. “It’s incredibly important, and we need to get a handle on it.”
The hearing before Cantwell’s oceans subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee was expected to focus on how the degradation of the oceans was affecting marine businesses and coastal communities.
But instead, much of the testimony focused on how the waters covering 70 percent of the plant are already changing because of global warming.
In the Gulf of Mexico, shrimp disoriented by oxygen-depleted water jump into the air in what the locals call a “shrimp jubilee.”
Yet even as researchers, scientists and Jacques Cousteau’s granddaughter painted a bleak picture Tuesday of the future of oceans and the “blue economy” of the nation’s coastal states, Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., had to hurry off to another meeting where senators voted to allow more offshore oil drilling.
“It’s crazy they are discussing more drilling,” said Cantwell, suggesting the real priority needs to be slowing or halting what could be irreversible damage to oceans from climate change. “It’s incredibly important, and we need to get a handle on it.”
The hearing before Cantwell’s oceans subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee was expected to focus on how the degradation of the oceans was affecting marine businesses and coastal communities.
But instead, much of the testimony focused on how the waters covering 70 percent of the plant are already changing because of global warming.
Environmental Report On Richmond Refinery Rejected
A Contra Costa County Superior Court judge ruled Friday that an environmental impact report on Chevron's proposed upgrade to its Richmond refinery failed to disclose whether the project would enable the refinery to process heavier crude oil.
The ruling voids the environmental impact report on the refinery's Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, which was approved in July by a divided Richmond City Council, Jessica Tovar with Communities for a Better Environment said Monday.
The project included replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.
Refinery officials said that the upgrade would increase the refinery's flexibility to process a larger variety of crude oil and improve the plant's energy efficiency and reliability.
In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of the project.
Experts at Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the West County Toxics Coalition - plaintiffs in the lawsuit - said that the upgrade would allow the refinery to process heavier crude oil, which would result in increased pollution and increased risk of explosion at the plant.
Heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems, according to Communities for a Better Environment.
"Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income communities of color, already suffer from industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. Chevron's refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region," plaintiffs said in a news release issued Monday.
Processing heavier crude also takes higher temperatures, which increases the likelihood of upset or explosion, Tovar said.
Tovar said that the proposed project is similar to an upgrade at a Chevron refinery in Mississippi that has allegedly enabled that plant to process heavier crude oil.
In her ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga wrote that under the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental impact report should enable the public, interested parties and public agencies to weigh the proposed project against its environmental costs and consider appropriate mitigation measures.
The ruling went on to state that the environmental impact report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing" and therefore "fails as an informational document."
Also at issue in the lawsuit was the refinery's plan to mitigate increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Plaintiffs argued that the refinery had not submitted a plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, but instead deferred the mitigation plans to a later date, which excluded the public from the process.
In her ruling, Zuniga found that under state Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to a later date. She found that the "city has improperly deferred formulation of greenhouse gas mitigation measures."
Plaintiffs also alleged that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a proposed pipeline that would transport hydrogen from the new hydrogen processing plant to the Shell refinery in Martinez and the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo.
The ruling stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.
Tovar said that if Chevron decides to pursue its plans to upgrade the refinery, it will have to begin the environmental review process over again and include all of the information that was missing in the current environmental impact report.
"Chevron is disappointed and believes that the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project was properly permitted and that the benefits of the project are identified in the thorough environmental review conducted by the city of Richmond staff and the city's environmental consultant," Chevron spokesman Brent Tippen said Monday.
Tippen said Chevron officials were reviewing the specifics of the court's decision and would be determining a course of action in consultation with the city
The ruling voids the environmental impact report on the refinery's Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project, which was approved in July by a divided Richmond City Council, Jessica Tovar with Communities for a Better Environment said Monday.
The project included replacing the refinery's 1960s-era hydrogen plant and its 1930s-era power plant.
Refinery officials said that the upgrade would increase the refinery's flexibility to process a larger variety of crude oil and improve the plant's energy efficiency and reliability.
In September, three environmental justice groups filed a lawsuit challenging the city's approval of the project.
Experts at Communities for a Better Environment, Asian Pacific Environmental Network and the West County Toxics Coalition - plaintiffs in the lawsuit - said that the upgrade would allow the refinery to process heavier crude oil, which would result in increased pollution and increased risk of explosion at the plant.
Heavier crude oil can contain higher amounts of contaminants such as mercury and selenium, which can cause serious health problems, according to Communities for a Better Environment.
"Communities in Richmond, particularly low-income communities of color, already suffer from industrial pollution-related health problems, including high rates of asthma and cancer. Chevron's refinery is the largest industrial polluter in the region," plaintiffs said in a news release issued Monday.
Processing heavier crude also takes higher temperatures, which increases the likelihood of upset or explosion, Tovar said.
Tovar said that the proposed project is similar to an upgrade at a Chevron refinery in Mississippi that has allegedly enabled that plant to process heavier crude oil.
In her ruling, Superior Court Judge Barbara Zuniga wrote that under the California Environmental Quality Act, the environmental impact report should enable the public, interested parties and public agencies to weigh the proposed project against its environmental costs and consider appropriate mitigation measures.
The ruling went on to state that the environmental impact report "is unclear and inconsistent as to whether the project will or will not enable Chevron to process a heavier crude slate than it is currently processing" and therefore "fails as an informational document."
Also at issue in the lawsuit was the refinery's plan to mitigate increased greenhouse gas emissions.
Plaintiffs argued that the refinery had not submitted a plan to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions during the environmental review process, but instead deferred the mitigation plans to a later date, which excluded the public from the process.
In her ruling, Zuniga found that under state Environmental Quality Act guidelines, the formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred to a later date. She found that the "city has improperly deferred formulation of greenhouse gas mitigation measures."
Plaintiffs also alleged that the environmental impact report failed to analyze a proposed pipeline that would transport hydrogen from the new hydrogen processing plant to the Shell refinery in Martinez and the ConocoPhillips refinery in Rodeo.
The ruling stated that because the pipeline is an integral part of the project, it should have been addressed in the environmental impact report.
Tovar said that if Chevron decides to pursue its plans to upgrade the refinery, it will have to begin the environmental review process over again and include all of the information that was missing in the current environmental impact report.
"Chevron is disappointed and believes that the Energy and Hydrogen Renewal Project was properly permitted and that the benefits of the project are identified in the thorough environmental review conducted by the city of Richmond staff and the city's environmental consultant," Chevron spokesman Brent Tippen said Monday.
Tippen said Chevron officials were reviewing the specifics of the court's decision and would be determining a course of action in consultation with the city
UN Environment Chief Urges Ban On Plastic Bags
Single-use plastic bags should be banned because of their degrading effects on the planet says the United Nation's top environmental official.
Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), whose office advises U.N. member states, said, "Single use plastic bags which choke marine life, should be banned or phased out rapidly everywhere. There is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere." He was quoted Monday by McClatchy Newspapers.
Although recycling bags is on the rise in the United States, an estimated 90 billion thin bags a year, most used to handle produce and groceries, still go un-recycled. In fact, they were the second most common form of litter after cigarette butts at the 2008 International Coastal Cleanup Day sponsored by the Ocean Conservancy, a marine environmental group.
The UN's anti-plastic declaration comes amid a UNEP report that labels plastic as the most common form of ocean litter, which poses hazards "because it persists so long, degrading into tinier and tinier bits that can be consumed by the smallest marine life at the base of the food web."
In the United States, only San Francisco has completely banned plastic bags, while Los Angeles is slated to do so in 2010. Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.'s city council is set to vote on a five-cent-a-bag tax later this month. Similar proposals have failed in New York and Philadelphia.
Leading plastic bag manufacturers dispute the claim that a ban on plastic would be good for the environmental and say the real goal is for companies to increase the recycled content of plastic bags to 40 percent by 2015, reducing waste by 300 million pounds a year.
"Recycling is what we see as the best approach for the U.S.," Keith Christman of the American Chemistry Council said. "Plastic is just too valuable to waste."
Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), whose office advises U.N. member states, said, "Single use plastic bags which choke marine life, should be banned or phased out rapidly everywhere. There is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere." He was quoted Monday by McClatchy Newspapers.
Although recycling bags is on the rise in the United States, an estimated 90 billion thin bags a year, most used to handle produce and groceries, still go un-recycled. In fact, they were the second most common form of litter after cigarette butts at the 2008 International Coastal Cleanup Day sponsored by the Ocean Conservancy, a marine environmental group.
The UN's anti-plastic declaration comes amid a UNEP report that labels plastic as the most common form of ocean litter, which poses hazards "because it persists so long, degrading into tinier and tinier bits that can be consumed by the smallest marine life at the base of the food web."
In the United States, only San Francisco has completely banned plastic bags, while Los Angeles is slated to do so in 2010. Meanwhile, Washington, D.C.'s city council is set to vote on a five-cent-a-bag tax later this month. Similar proposals have failed in New York and Philadelphia.
Leading plastic bag manufacturers dispute the claim that a ban on plastic would be good for the environmental and say the real goal is for companies to increase the recycled content of plastic bags to 40 percent by 2015, reducing waste by 300 million pounds a year.
"Recycling is what we see as the best approach for the U.S.," Keith Christman of the American Chemistry Council said. "Plastic is just too valuable to waste."
Plan to combat global warming? Pie in the sky
For years, Democrats, enthralled by the cargo cult of the Kennedy presidency, have used the moon landing as proof that no big government ambition is beyond our reach.
The latest example of anthropogenic-lunar empowerment is global warming. Al Gore and Barack Obama routinely cite the Apollo program as proof that we can make good on the president's messianic campaign pledge to stem the rising ocean tides and hasten the healing of the planet.
The problem with the "if we can put a man on the moon, we can certainly spend trillions on this or that" formulation is that it sees political and scientific accomplishments as interchangeable. The moon landing was a daunting but nonetheless discrete challenge. Throw in enough brainiacs and blank checks -- and heroes willing to risk their lives -- and it was almost foreordained that someone would make that small step for man and that giant leap for mankind.
But politicians see things through a political lens -- every great accomplishment looks like a political accomplishment. Kennedy cultists seem to think that JFK's pledge succeeded in part because he was eloquent and inspiring and popular. No doubt all that helped. But if Kennedy had promised that by the end of the decade America would have a fully functioning perpetual motion machine, his grand challenge would be remembered as a joke.
Recall that Kennedy's successor, with far more political capital than Kennedy had, promised to defeat poverty. Historian Steven Hayward notes that, in 1966, Lyndon Johnson's commander in the War on Poverty, Sargent Shriver, told Congress that the White House believed poverty in America would be eliminated within 10 years. "Why," Hayward wryly asks, "should social science be more difficult than rocket science?"
I don't know that one is more difficult than the other, but I do know that they are not interchangeable. Physics is good at figuring out how to split atoms. Sociology, not so much.
Obama seems to be on both sides of the lesson. The president says he wants to invest massively in scientific research, eventually spending 3% of gross domestic product on R&D on eliminating fossil fuels. Who knows? That might work.
But at the same time, the Democrats are pushing their cap-and-trade scheme -- the Waxman-Markey climate bill -- through Congress, and it surely won't work.
The Apollo engineers' motto was "Waste anything but time." Waxman-Markey seems to do that one better, promising to waste everything, including time. It's a legislative blunderbuss that fails any remotely honest cost-benefit analysis, as Jim Manzi painstakingly demonstrates in the current issue of National Review. Under the bill, the government would sell or give away waivers -- call them ration cards -- for carbon emissions, worth tens of billions of dollars. The system is destined to become politicized. Waivers will be granted to favored industries and donors in states with political clout.
If everything worked exactly according to plan, it would cost the economy trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Meanwhile, climatologist Chip Knappenberger -- administrator of the World Climate Report, an avowedly global-warming-skeptical blog -- uses standard climate models to show that the payoff would be to reduce global temperatures by about 0.1 degree Celsius by 2100. Sponsors of the legislation haven't offered a competing analysis.
"The costs would be more than 10 times the benefits," writes Manzi, "even under extremely unrealistic assumptions of low costs and high benefits." All the while, China, India and other countries are simply scoffing at the suggestion they curtail their carbon emissions.
Now, I am more skeptical about the threat of global warming than Manzi is, never mind the Al Gore chorus. But let us assume the chorus is right and it is the moral equivalent of a war for our very survival as a civilization. The question remains: Why? Why this approach? Why see global warming as an excuse to expand government regulation and taxation rather than invest in problem-solving?
The U.S. government could spend trillions on research into scrubbing carbon from the air, bioengineering organisms to eat greenhouse gases or crafting substances to reflect more heat back into space. We could establish prizes for development of long-life batteries or clean coal technologies. And if any of these investments paid off, decades from now, the benefits would still dwarf Waxman-Markey at a fraction of the cost. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to see that
The latest example of anthropogenic-lunar empowerment is global warming. Al Gore and Barack Obama routinely cite the Apollo program as proof that we can make good on the president's messianic campaign pledge to stem the rising ocean tides and hasten the healing of the planet.
The problem with the "if we can put a man on the moon, we can certainly spend trillions on this or that" formulation is that it sees political and scientific accomplishments as interchangeable. The moon landing was a daunting but nonetheless discrete challenge. Throw in enough brainiacs and blank checks -- and heroes willing to risk their lives -- and it was almost foreordained that someone would make that small step for man and that giant leap for mankind.
But politicians see things through a political lens -- every great accomplishment looks like a political accomplishment. Kennedy cultists seem to think that JFK's pledge succeeded in part because he was eloquent and inspiring and popular. No doubt all that helped. But if Kennedy had promised that by the end of the decade America would have a fully functioning perpetual motion machine, his grand challenge would be remembered as a joke.
Recall that Kennedy's successor, with far more political capital than Kennedy had, promised to defeat poverty. Historian Steven Hayward notes that, in 1966, Lyndon Johnson's commander in the War on Poverty, Sargent Shriver, told Congress that the White House believed poverty in America would be eliminated within 10 years. "Why," Hayward wryly asks, "should social science be more difficult than rocket science?"
I don't know that one is more difficult than the other, but I do know that they are not interchangeable. Physics is good at figuring out how to split atoms. Sociology, not so much.
Obama seems to be on both sides of the lesson. The president says he wants to invest massively in scientific research, eventually spending 3% of gross domestic product on R&D on eliminating fossil fuels. Who knows? That might work.
But at the same time, the Democrats are pushing their cap-and-trade scheme -- the Waxman-Markey climate bill -- through Congress, and it surely won't work.
The Apollo engineers' motto was "Waste anything but time." Waxman-Markey seems to do that one better, promising to waste everything, including time. It's a legislative blunderbuss that fails any remotely honest cost-benefit analysis, as Jim Manzi painstakingly demonstrates in the current issue of National Review. Under the bill, the government would sell or give away waivers -- call them ration cards -- for carbon emissions, worth tens of billions of dollars. The system is destined to become politicized. Waivers will be granted to favored industries and donors in states with political clout.
If everything worked exactly according to plan, it would cost the economy trillions of dollars over the coming decades. Meanwhile, climatologist Chip Knappenberger -- administrator of the World Climate Report, an avowedly global-warming-skeptical blog -- uses standard climate models to show that the payoff would be to reduce global temperatures by about 0.1 degree Celsius by 2100. Sponsors of the legislation haven't offered a competing analysis.
"The costs would be more than 10 times the benefits," writes Manzi, "even under extremely unrealistic assumptions of low costs and high benefits." All the while, China, India and other countries are simply scoffing at the suggestion they curtail their carbon emissions.
Now, I am more skeptical about the threat of global warming than Manzi is, never mind the Al Gore chorus. But let us assume the chorus is right and it is the moral equivalent of a war for our very survival as a civilization. The question remains: Why? Why this approach? Why see global warming as an excuse to expand government regulation and taxation rather than invest in problem-solving?
The U.S. government could spend trillions on research into scrubbing carbon from the air, bioengineering organisms to eat greenhouse gases or crafting substances to reflect more heat back into space. We could establish prizes for development of long-life batteries or clean coal technologies. And if any of these investments paid off, decades from now, the benefits would still dwarf Waxman-Markey at a fraction of the cost. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to see that
How a Mild Virus Might Turn Vicious
The swine flu virus is rapidly making its way around the world, but it has been relatively mild so far, causing only 139 confirmed deaths. Could it mutate into something more lethal?
Scientists looking at its genetic structure say there is no obvious pressure for it to do so — no reason for this virus to “want,” in the Darwinian sense, to kill more of its hosts.
It is already doing a near-perfect job of keeping itself alive by invading human noses and inducing humans to cough it from one to another, said Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, director of the Center for Infection and Immunology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.
“A really aggressive flu that quickly kills its host” — like SARS and H5N1 avian flu — “gives itself a problem,” Dr. Lipkin said.
But flu viruses are highly mutable, and anything could happen in the next two years, the time a new strain normally takes to circle the globe. After all, Spanish influenza began as a mild strain, then turned horrifically virulent, killing 20 million to 100 million people in 1918-19.
But Dr. Peter Palese, head of microbiology at Mount Sinai Medical School and part of the team that rebuilt that virus in 2005 from fragments found in old lung tissue, said that strain was a “once-a-millennium or once-every-10-millennia event — things like it don’t happen very often.”
Nor is it clear, he added, that viruses really “want” a particular outcome.
“For me, that’s too much anthropomorphic thinking,” Dr. Palese said. “Look, I believe in Darwin. Yes, the fittest virus survives. But it’s not clear what the ultimate selection parameter is.”
A mutation that confers lethality, he explained, may confer another advantage scientists have not pinned down.
The new virus has been described as “a real mutt” by Walter R. Dowdle, the former chief of virology for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, because of its unique mix of Eurasian and American swine, human and bird genes.
Flu chromosomes are quite simple — eight short strands of RNA that issue the genetic code for a grand total of 11 proteins. They break apart in a jumble inside cells they infect, and then they reassemble, picking up random bits of other flus, which makes the results unpredictable.
The current swine flu strain lacks several genes believed to increase lethality, including those that code for two proteins known as PB1-F2 and NS-1, and one that codes for a tongue-twister called the polybasic hemagglutinin cleavage site.
PB1-F2 appears to weaken the protective membrane of the energy-producing mitochondria in an infected cell, ultimately killing the cell. Specifically, it attacks dendritic cells, the sentinels of the immune system. Its lethality could be accidental — a protein good at killing sentries might just go on killing other cells once inside the fort.
All pandemic flus, including those of the Spanish, Hong Kong and Asian flus, make PB1-F2. So does the H5N1 bird flu. The current swine strain does not.
The NS-1 protein also maims the immune response by blocking interferon, an antiviral protein made by cells.
Very lethal bird flus also have the unusual cleavage site, which allows the hemagglutinin spike on the virus’s shell to split and inject its genetic instructions into different kinds of cells, like those in the lungs and the gut.
Such an addition to the novel H1N1 would be very dangerous. But because it has been found only in avian flus, it is unlikely to become a component of a human flu, Dr. Palese said. Even the 1918 virus, which was avian in origin, lacked it.
A much more likely change, scientists have said, is that the H1N1 swine flu will become resistant to the antiviral drug Tamiflu. A gene for Tamiflu resistance is now almost universal in seasonal H1N1 flus.
If that happens, the world’s Tamiflu stockpiles will be all but worthless, and doctors may have to switch to Relenza, which is a powder used with an inhaler, which makes it more expensive and harder to take.
Depending on the mutation, older antiviral drugs like rimantidine may be useful, but so much resistance to them developed in seasonal flu that they were largely abandoned a few years ago.
Dr. Palese was asked about another notion concerning likely mutations. There has been outrage at Egypt’s decision to kill all the pigs belonging to its Coptic Christian minority. It has been depicted as misguided and motivated by religious bigotry, because the “swine flu” is really now a human flu.
But Egypt is also in an especially dangerous situation. The new swine flu reached it just last week. The H5N1 avian flu has circulated in its backyard chickens since 2006, defying all eradication efforts. In the last year, dozens of H5N1 cases have been confirmed in toddlers, almost all of whom have survived — which led some experts to speculate that those are cases of a less lethal version of H5N1 that is better adapted to humans.
In that case, might it be wise to get rid of the country’s relatively small pig population, since pigs are “mixing vessels” that can catch both human and bird flus?
“I agree with the premise, if you really could eliminate an animal reservoir,” Dr. Palese said. “But the virus is out of pigs now — and it’s more important that those poor people have something to eat.”
Scientists looking at its genetic structure say there is no obvious pressure for it to do so — no reason for this virus to “want,” in the Darwinian sense, to kill more of its hosts.
It is already doing a near-perfect job of keeping itself alive by invading human noses and inducing humans to cough it from one to another, said Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, director of the Center for Infection and Immunology at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health.
“A really aggressive flu that quickly kills its host” — like SARS and H5N1 avian flu — “gives itself a problem,” Dr. Lipkin said.
But flu viruses are highly mutable, and anything could happen in the next two years, the time a new strain normally takes to circle the globe. After all, Spanish influenza began as a mild strain, then turned horrifically virulent, killing 20 million to 100 million people in 1918-19.
But Dr. Peter Palese, head of microbiology at Mount Sinai Medical School and part of the team that rebuilt that virus in 2005 from fragments found in old lung tissue, said that strain was a “once-a-millennium or once-every-10-millennia event — things like it don’t happen very often.”
Nor is it clear, he added, that viruses really “want” a particular outcome.
“For me, that’s too much anthropomorphic thinking,” Dr. Palese said. “Look, I believe in Darwin. Yes, the fittest virus survives. But it’s not clear what the ultimate selection parameter is.”
A mutation that confers lethality, he explained, may confer another advantage scientists have not pinned down.
The new virus has been described as “a real mutt” by Walter R. Dowdle, the former chief of virology for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, because of its unique mix of Eurasian and American swine, human and bird genes.
Flu chromosomes are quite simple — eight short strands of RNA that issue the genetic code for a grand total of 11 proteins. They break apart in a jumble inside cells they infect, and then they reassemble, picking up random bits of other flus, which makes the results unpredictable.
The current swine flu strain lacks several genes believed to increase lethality, including those that code for two proteins known as PB1-F2 and NS-1, and one that codes for a tongue-twister called the polybasic hemagglutinin cleavage site.
PB1-F2 appears to weaken the protective membrane of the energy-producing mitochondria in an infected cell, ultimately killing the cell. Specifically, it attacks dendritic cells, the sentinels of the immune system. Its lethality could be accidental — a protein good at killing sentries might just go on killing other cells once inside the fort.
All pandemic flus, including those of the Spanish, Hong Kong and Asian flus, make PB1-F2. So does the H5N1 bird flu. The current swine strain does not.
The NS-1 protein also maims the immune response by blocking interferon, an antiviral protein made by cells.
Very lethal bird flus also have the unusual cleavage site, which allows the hemagglutinin spike on the virus’s shell to split and inject its genetic instructions into different kinds of cells, like those in the lungs and the gut.
Such an addition to the novel H1N1 would be very dangerous. But because it has been found only in avian flus, it is unlikely to become a component of a human flu, Dr. Palese said. Even the 1918 virus, which was avian in origin, lacked it.
A much more likely change, scientists have said, is that the H1N1 swine flu will become resistant to the antiviral drug Tamiflu. A gene for Tamiflu resistance is now almost universal in seasonal H1N1 flus.
If that happens, the world’s Tamiflu stockpiles will be all but worthless, and doctors may have to switch to Relenza, which is a powder used with an inhaler, which makes it more expensive and harder to take.
Depending on the mutation, older antiviral drugs like rimantidine may be useful, but so much resistance to them developed in seasonal flu that they were largely abandoned a few years ago.
Dr. Palese was asked about another notion concerning likely mutations. There has been outrage at Egypt’s decision to kill all the pigs belonging to its Coptic Christian minority. It has been depicted as misguided and motivated by religious bigotry, because the “swine flu” is really now a human flu.
But Egypt is also in an especially dangerous situation. The new swine flu reached it just last week. The H5N1 avian flu has circulated in its backyard chickens since 2006, defying all eradication efforts. In the last year, dozens of H5N1 cases have been confirmed in toddlers, almost all of whom have survived — which led some experts to speculate that those are cases of a less lethal version of H5N1 that is better adapted to humans.
In that case, might it be wise to get rid of the country’s relatively small pig population, since pigs are “mixing vessels” that can catch both human and bird flus?
“I agree with the premise, if you really could eliminate an animal reservoir,” Dr. Palese said. “But the virus is out of pigs now — and it’s more important that those poor people have something to eat.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)