Reason Magazine - Staff

Proof That Murphy Was an Optimist

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:43:00 EDT

The invaluable Null Hypothesis: The Journal of Unlikely Science reproduces an amusing article about research done for British Gas in 2004 into Sod's Law. On this side of the pond, Sod's Law is more generally known as "Murphy's Law." The research found:

...based on over 1,000 people's experiences, that the original Sod's Law - ‘anything that can go wrong, will go wrong' - is only half the story. It can now be improved by the use of a new rule - ‘Things don't just go wrong, they do so at the most annoying moment'.
This explains why your email will most likely crash as you try to send something important, how the chances of your spilling a drink down your clothes are highest just before a date, and why it's a safe bet that your heating will most often break down during a cold snap.
Previous studies have shown that Sod's Law isn't a myth - toast will fall butter-side down, odd socks do breed and string can tie itself in knots. Our formula now allows people to calculate the chances of Sod's Law striking, and thus try to beat it.

Check out their formula here. Some other corollaries are:

HOWE'S LAW. Every man has a scheme which will not work.
ZYMURGY'S FIRST LAW OF EVOLVING SYSTEM DYNAMICS. Once you open a can of worms, the only way to re-can them is to use a larger can.
SKINNER'S CONSTANT. The quantity which must be multiplied by, divided by, added to or subtracted from the answer you get to give the answer you should have got.
LAW OF SELECTIVE GRAVITY. An object will fall so as to do the most damage.

A list of other ~~Sod's Law~~ *corollaries to Sod's Law is available here.

*A Sod's Law attack during editing.

Oink! Oink! Oink!

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Fri, 09 May 2008 11:02:00 EDT

The Washington Post reports that the solons on Capitol Hill have finalized their negotiations on the farm bill payola. The bill has wide support. The Post notes:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) supports the bill. Congressional leaders plan to bring it to the House and Senate floors next week for votes that could test the depth of support for it.

Here are some Post low-lights:

The package, the product of weeks of closed-door bargaining, is stuffed with plums for key constituencies. Dairy farmers will get as much as $410 million more over 10 years to cover higher feed costs, and negotiators tucked in an annual authorization of $15 million to help "geographically disadvantaged farmers" in Alaska, Hawaii, American Samoa and Puerto Rico.
The bill assures growers of basic crops such as wheat, cotton, corn and soybeans $5 billion a year in automatic payments, even if farm and food prices stay at record levels...
...new protections for sugar beet and sugar cane growers that will require the government to buy excess quantities of Mexican sugar and resell it to ethanol plants at a loss...
...bill increases support prices and guaranteed prices for more than a dozen crops, making the United States vulnerable to trading partners' claims that it violates subsidy limits.

Only taxpayers and consumers are the losers. President Bush says he'll veto the bill, but a lot of Republicans are in thrall to the farm lobby so this turkey of a bill is likely to pass over his veto. Go to Post story here.

Are Voters Stupid Enough to Sell Their Votes for Just $27 and Change?

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:00:00 EDT

During the 1992 Democratic presidential primaries, former Massachusetts Sen. Paul Tsongas denounced rival Gov. Bill Clinton (D-Ark.) as a "pander bear" who "will say anything, do anything to get votes." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) is clearly following in her husband's electoral footsteps by proposing a "gas tax holiday" for the summer driving season. When primary votes are at stake, who needs to heed the laws of economics or even good sense?

Clinton's idea, which is also endorsed by Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), is to suspend the 18.4 cents per gallon federal gas tax for three months in order to give cash-strapped motorists relief at the pump. Assuming that dropping the tax would actually lower the price per gallon by the full 18.4 cents, how much would this actually save the average family?

Let's make a rough calculation, using an average commute of 20 miles per day in an automobile with a 15 gallon tank getting the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) mileage of 27.5. A commuter would then fill up every 20 days. There are 98 days between Memorial Day and Labor Day, so that means five fill-ups over the summer. Five 15 gallon fill-ups at 18.4 cents per gallon less would mean that motorists would save a total of $13.80 for the summer. Let's double that for vacation driving and shopping and that comes to a grand total of $27.60 in savings. About enough to buy five Big Mac Combos.

But would prices actually go down by 18.4 cents? Not likely. As the Tax Foundation reports, most economists assume "that a temporary gas tax holiday would merely increase the profits of the oil industry due to the inability of domestic supply to respond to increased demand in the short run."

In addition, if the federal gas tax is dropped for the summer, the highway trust fund that pays for the upkeep of our crumbling roads and bridges will be short $10 billion. Not to worry, says Sen. Clinton: We'll make up for that fiscal shortfall by taxing the excess profits of Big Oil.

Clinton clearly hopes that primary voters will want to stick it to the greedy oil companies. After all, Exxon Mobil just announced $10.9 billion in profits for the final quarter of 2007. So Sen. Clinton says she'll take away some of those profits to pay for her gas tax holiday. And Clinton's not alone. Her Democratic rival, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is also calling for a windfall profits tax on oil companies. But will it work?

The last time the United States imposed a windfall profits tax on oil companies was in 1980 and it lasted until 1988. The result, according to a 1990 Congressional Research Service analysis, was that the tax on oil company profits decreased domestic production by 3 percent to 6 percent and increased dependence on foreign oil by 8 percent to 16 percent. Keep in mind that the big private oil companies actually control only about 6 percent of the world's known oil reserves—the rest are owned by gigantic foreign national oil companies. And just where do private oil companies get the billions they invest in projects to increase supplies? That's right; their profits. In other words, Clinton actually ends up sticking it to consumers when she tries to stick it to Big Oil.

Sen. Clinton may be feeling the pain of motorists right now, but once she's in the White House, she plans to inflict more pain at the pump. In fact, all three presidential hopefuls plan to do this. Why? Because Clinton champions "the most aggressive approach to reducing global warming out there." She wants to cut the emissions of greenhouse gases that warm the planet by 80 percent by 2050. To do this she favors a cap-and-trade market on carbon dioxide emissions. The Progressive Policy Institute has calculated that a relatively modest $15 per ton price for carbon dioxide emissions would boost the price of gasoline by 15 cents per gallon. But Sen. Clinton is counting on voters failing to connect the dots between gasoline prices and her global warming policies.

This past weekend, on ABC News' Sunday talk show, "This Week," Sen. Clinton was asked by host (and former Bill Clinton aide) George Stephanopoulos, "Can you name one economist, a credible economist who supports the suspension?" Sen. Clinton replied, "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists." For their part, economists are certainly not putting their lot in with Clinton. According to Bloomberg News, 200 prominent economists, including four Nobelists, have signed a petition denouncing Clinton's gas tax holiday as a "bad idea." Even the New York Times' Clinton votary economist Paul Krugman grumbled that her ploy is "pointless, and disappointing."

We will find out soon if Democratic Party primary voters are really stupid enough buy into this cynical Clinton pander.

Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Sugar Coating the Farm Bill

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:19:00 EDT

The Washington Post is rightly calling "foul" on a provision of the execrable new farm bill that is wending its expensive and deleterious way through the halls of Congress. There is no reason for the U.S. to produce so much as a gram of sugar, yet Congress has propped up Big Sugar for decades with import restrictions and subisidies.

There was some hope that this cozy arrangement might begin to unravel as provisions of two free trade agreements opened the U.S. sweetener market to some imports from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. But Big Sugar's friends in Congress are rushing to the barricades to prevent this. As the Post editorial notes:

Among the least defensible provisions under discussion is a plan by those lawmakers to prop up U.S. sugar cane and sugar beet farmers. The background to this is long-standing federal protection for sugar, which takes the form not of direct subsidy payments but of interlocking price supports and import quotas. For decades, U.S. sugar policy has hurt sugar farmers and cane-cutters in poor countries and raised prices of candy and soda for U.S. consumers (admittedly not altogether a bad thing, given the obesity epidemic). It has also driven some U.S. candy producers either out of business or overseas.

The 2005 Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA), as well as newly effective provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, threatened to upset this cozy arrangement by opening a sliver of the U.S. market to sugar from Mexico and the DR-CAFTA countries. A sugar-lobby effort to restore the old status quo failed earlier this year, so the lobby and its Capitol Hill supporters have come up with an ingenious new way to protect the industry: raising the support price for U.S. sugar, already above the world price, for the first time in 23 years, while requiring the federal government to set aside a certain quantity of imported sugar for conversion to ethanol. Never mind the untested economics of sugar-based ethanol production in the United States. The Sweetener Users Association, an organization of sugar-using industries, estimates that the farm bill will add $2 billion to grocery bills over five years. Commodity prices and farm incomes are exploding, imposing higher food costs on American consumers and threatening poor people around the world with outright hunger. Perhaps only in the U.S. Congress could it seem like a good time to compound the problem with a dose of sugar shock.

This is just outrageous. My column on other Farm Bill Follies here.

How Dare You Insult Chlorophyll-Kind!

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Mon, 05 May 2008 10:23:00 EDT

Nature News is reporting that the Swiss government's ethics committee on non-human biotechnology has issued guidelines instructing researchers how to avoid offending the dignity of plants. If their projects are ruled as affronts to plants, their funding will be pulled.

What might constitute undignified interference with plants?

The committee has created a decision tree presenting the different issues that need to be taken into account for each case. But it has come up with few concrete examples of what type of experiment might be considered an unacceptable insult to plant dignity. The committee does not consider that genetic engineering of plants automatically falls into this category, but its majority view holds that it would if the genetic modification caused plants to 'lose their independence' - for example by interfering with their capacity to reproduce. The statement has confused plant geneticists, who point out the contrast with traditional plant-hybridization technologies, for example in roses, which require male sterility, and the commercial development of seedless fruits.

Let's forget modern biotechnology. What about such egregious violations of vegetal dignity as grafting cabernet sauvignon shoots to alien American grape rootstock? And might not hybridization be considered forced plant miscegenation? Also, what could be worse for plant "independence" than domestication? After all, domesticated plants can't thrive without human nurturing. We've turned such crops as corn, wheat, oats, potatoes, and tomatoes into photosynthetic slaves. Finally, what could be more outrageously disrespectful to chlorophyll-kind than being eaten by people? The horror, the horror!

State Legislators Prove Devolution Is Possible

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:04:00 EDT

Fox News reports on various state level efforts to smuggle the teaching of intelligent design (creationism in modern drag) into public school science classrooms:

The debate over evolution is evolving. Although federal courts have banned teaching "creation theory" or "intelligent design theory" in public schools, legislators in several states are seeking new ways to allow teachers to cast doubt on the theory of evolution.

The Florida House of Representatives passed a bill this week that will require schools to teach "critical analysis" of evolution.
On Tuesday Michigan introduced a similar "academic freedom" bill. Louisiana, Alabama and Missouri also have legislation under debate, although no state has adopted a law yet.

Intelligent designers like the folks at the Discovery Institute are pretending that all the legislation aims to do is protect "free speech."

John West, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute — a Seattle-based think tank that supports intelligent design and offered language that most state legislatures have used to pattern their bills — said the measure merely encourages discussion, not outright teaching, of intelligent design.

"We oppose intelligent design mandates," West said. "The text of both (Florida) bills make very clear that this isn't protecting the right to give religious critiques."

Fox News adds:

Dean Falk, Chairwoman of Florida State University's Department of Anthropology, agreed. "I was totally taken aback. Florida already has a reputation for being very conservative when it comes to education and teaching science. This underscores that, so I think it's an embarrassment," she said.

Embarrassment. That's an understatement. Whole Fox News item here.

Hat tip to RS Davis over at Freedom Files.

Does Genetic Testing Doom Private Insurance?

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Fri, 02 May 2008 10:09:00 EDT

Americans are concerned about how their genetic information might be used against them by insurers and employers. To address these fears, both the House and Senate have passed the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) which outlaws such discrimination by health insurers and employers. The law does not apparently apply to long-term care and life insurers.

The idea of insurance is that people pool premiums together in order to cover unknown risks. What happens when individual risks are no longer unknown? Do better and more accurate genetic tests create the possibility of an adverse selection spiral? Perhaps. People who find that their genetic tests indicate that they have a much higher risk of a particularly debilitating illness, say Alzheimer's disease, might load up with gold-plated insurance. As more and more high-risk people buy insurance, insurers would have to raise their rates in order to pay for their medical care. Higher rates would then discourage relatively healthy people from buying insurance which then means insurers would have to raise their rates further and so forth until bankruptcy.

The prospect of such an adverse selection spiral is not displeasing to advocates of government-supplied health care. As the New York Times reports:

It may also give ammunition to those who argue for universal health care. “Ultimately unlocking all these genetic secrets will make the whole idea of private health insurance obsolete,” said Karen Pollitz, director of the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University.

Will pervasive genetic testing ineluctably lead down the slippery slope to government medical care? I believe that one way to avoid that outcome may be mandatory private insurance based on community rating. No doubt about it, the dawning of the era of genetic diagnoses holds great promise for treating and preventing diseases but also clearly poses many policy conundrums.

Disclosure: Even before GINA passed, I sent my DNA into 23andMe for testing. Look for a future reason article in which I reveal all of my genetic flaws.

Homelessness: The New Low-Carbon Lifestyle?

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Thu, 01 May 2008 11:29:00 EDT

A nifty new study by some Massachusetts Institute of Technology students finds that even the average American homeless person uses about double the amount of greenhouse gas emitting energy than is the world average. Below are some of their conclusions:

...none of the life styles studied here ever resulted in an energy requirement below 120GJ (in 1997). This includes the life style of a five year old child, a homeless person and a Buddhist monk. While 120GJ is about one third the American average in 1997 (350GJ) [gigajoules], it is almost double the global average energy use in that year (64 GJ).

Furthermore, such a level, we believe, is not obtainable for the average American on a voluntary basis. Which brings us to our second point ... the magnitude of possible reductions in energy use for people in the United States by voluntary changes in spending patterns appears limited...

When we explored large but tolerable changes in a given life style in the middle range of expenditures i.e., $30k, we found that only relatively small improvements were possible, on the order of 30%....

...many people don’t want to make these changes. A detailed look at several middle income life styles found that a 50% reduction in energy use would require dramatic changes which we believe would be unacceptable to most people. Of course, what is acceptable or not, is debatable,....

Whole MIT study here.

Addendum: For more analysis along these lines see AEI scholar Steven Hayward's recent Wall Street Journal op/ed on "The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change." One excerpt:

Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy's most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.
Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.

Whole op/ed here.

And lest anyone think that I'm saying that these levels of carbon emissions can't be technologically achieved, I'm not. However, I do think that we need to clearly see what is at stake not only for the climate but also for human economic well-being.

Organic Food Myths Debunked

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Thu, 01 May 2008 10:24:00 EDT

I am not against organic foods per se. In fact, I buy organic foods at our local farmer's market all the time--usually because I think they taste better, especially the heirloom tomatoes. That being said, I am strongly against over-hyped sustainability and nutritional claims for organic foods.

The Independent is running a good article on "The great organic myths." I highly recommend reading the whole article, but below are some highlights:

Myth one: Organic farming is good for the environment

The study of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for the UK, sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, should concern anyone who buys organic. It shows that milk and dairy production is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). A litre of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than conventional milk to produce, has 20 per cent greater global warming potential, releases 60 per cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes 70 per cent more to acid rain....

Myth two: Organic farming is more sustainable

Organic potatoes use less energy in terms of fertiliser production, but need more fossil fuel for ploughing. A hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one.

Heated greenhouse tomatoes in Britain use up to 100 times more energy than those grown in fields in Africa. Organic yield is 75 per cent of conventional tomato crops but takes twice the energy – so the climate consequences of home-grown organic tomatoes exceed those of Kenyan imports...

Myth four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous

The proponents of organic food – particularly celebrities, such as Gwyneth Paltrow, who have jumped on the organic bandwagon – say there is a "cocktail effect" of pesticides. Some point to an "epidemic of cancer". In fact, there is no epidemic of cancer. When age-standardised, cancer rates are falling dramatically and have been doing so for 50 years...

Myth five: Organic food is healthier

To quote Hohenheim University: "No clear conclusions about the quality of organic food can be reached using the results of present literature and research results." What research there is does not support the claims made for organic food.

Large studies in Holland, Denmark and Austria found the food-poisoning bacterium Campylobacter in 100 per cent of organic chicken flocks but only a third of conventional flocks; equal rates of contamination with Salmonella (despite many organic flocks being vaccinated against it); and 72 per cent of organic chickens infected with parasites...

The Independent article concludes:

In a serious age, we should talk about the future seriously and not use food scares and misinformation as a tactic to increase sales.

Amen to that. Go ahead and buy organic foods, but just don't do so under the illusion that you are somehow helping to save the planet.

My own deconstruction of one overhyped study on the alleged sustainability of organic farming here.

You can ferret out the remaining myths by going to the Independent here.

Disclosure: I wish I still owned those 50 shares of Monsanto considering that they have more than doubled in value in the last year.

Thomas Friedman : Unintentional Comedian?

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Thu, 01 May 2008 09:40:00 EDT

Ignoring the merits or demerits of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's op/ed yesterday advocating tax breaks for solar and wind power, his (apparently unironic) quotation from a clean tech lobbyist was hilarious. To wit:

It is also alarming, says Rhone Resch, the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association, that the U.S. has reached a point “where the priorities of Congress could become so distorted by politics” that it would turn its back on the next great global industry — clean power — “but that’s exactly what is happening.”

Distorted by politics? Congress? Who would have thunk it?

Papers Please!

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Thu, 01 May 2008 19:44:00 EDT

Brandi Calderwood and her steer, Walker, were thrown out of the Colorado State Fair last year—not because Calderwood had cheated but because she hadn’t registered Walker with the federal government.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is rolling out its National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The aim is to tag and track every farm animal in America, including llamas, elk, and deer. Ultimately, every Bessie, Daisy, and Wilbur will wear a unique 15-digit radio frequency ID tag. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) claims the tags are necessary to help the feds track down disease outbreaks, either natural or bioterroristic, within 48 hours.

Small farmers object that the NAIS is an expensive paperwork nightmare that requires them to inform Washington every time they sell a cow or a sheep. They also note that they are competing against big feedlot operators who sell whole herds and aren’t required to register and track individual animals.

The USDA is careful to claim the program is “voluntary at the federal level,” and indeed, the Bush administration failed when it tried to ram through a mandatory version in 2005. But the agency has other ways of compelling compliance. It offers performance grants to states and farm groups to enroll farmers; groups such as the National FFA (formerly known as Future Farmers of America) and the Colorado 4-H Clubs have already signed up. The Colorado State Fair board also voted to require that all 4-H Club and FFA members provide proof of NAIS registration to participate in livestock auctions and other activities. Hence Calderwood and Walker’s ejection.

Colorado State Fair officials eventually paid Calderwood what Walker would have earned at auction, and the Colorado House of Representatives Agriculture Committee is considering legislation to overturn the registration requirement. Adding insult to injury, the White House admits that the eight head of cattle President Bush runs on his Crawford, Texas, ranch are not registered with the USDA.

'Technology Is at the Center'

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:00:00 EDT

Global Warming May Take a Holiday and That's a Problem

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:41:00 EDT

Reuters is reporting that a new article in Nature argues that we can expect global average temperatures to stagnate, or even cool a bit, for the next decade or so. That's right, no global warming for a while. Why do researchers think this will happen? According to Reuters:

Natural climate changes may offset human-caused global warming over the next decade, keeping ocean temperatures the same or even temporarily cooling them slightly, German researchers said on Wednesday.

However, this short-term situation might create a problem if policymakers regarded it as a sign they could ease efforts to limit greenhouse gases or play down global warming.

"The natural variations change climate on this timescale and policymakers may either think mitigation is working or that there is no global warming at all," said Noel Keenlyside, a climate researcher at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany who led the study.

Climate researchers have long predicted more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would spur a general warming trend over the next 100 years. The study in the journal Nature is one of the first to take a shorter-term view.

This is useful because natural changes as opposed to human causes may play a bigger role in the short term, Keenlyside said.

His team made a computer model that takes into account natural phenomena such as sea surface temperatures and ocean circulation patterns.

They checked their work by producing a set of forecasts using data recorded over the past 50 years and found the retrospective forecasts were accurate, Keenlyside said.

Keenlyside immediately identified the real problem lurking in his prediction:

"This is important because policies are made in the short term," Keenlyside said. "Our results show we might not have as much change in climate over the next 10 years."

At the Bali Climate Change Conference in December the world's governments committed to finalizing a new treaty by 2009 to control the emissions of greenhouse gases thought to be warming the atmosphere. At the Bali Conference I was heartened to hear the following prediction from the U.K.'s climate modelers at the Hadley Centre:

"We are now using the system to predict changes out to 2014. By the end of this period, the global average temperature is expected to have risen by around 0.3 degrees Celsius compared to 2004, and half of the years after 2009 are predicted to be hotter than the current record hot year, 1998."

I noted:

Since various temperature records—surface, satellite and weather balloons—have shown a temperature trend that increases at about 0.2 degrees per decade or less, this is a truly bold prediction.

I was heartened by the Hadley Centre prediction because it gives the world a chance to validate the predictions of climate models for future man-made warming in a policy relevant time frame. However, if the new research is correct, there will not be a strong empirical global warming signal in the next few years. That means the world's governments will largely be trusting the outputs of computer models as they try to effect vast changes in how the world's economy is fueled. That's very troubling.

Hat tip to H&R commenter Mick.

A Home-Grown Solution to High Oil Prices?

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:00:00 EDT

Perspicacious Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson has a simple elegant suggestion for boosting oil production and helping to lower prices. Why not drill for crude at home? He points out:

It may surprise Americans to discover that the United States is the third-largest oil producer, behind Saudi Arabia and Russia. We could be producing more, but Congress has put large areas of potential supply off-limits. These include the Atlantic and Pacific coasts and parts of Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. By government estimates, these areas may contain 25 billion to 30 billion barrels of oil (against about 30 billion barrels of proven U.S. reserves today) and 80 trillion cubic feet or more of natural gas (compared with about 200 tcf of proven reserves).

What keeps these areas closed are exaggerated environmental fears, strong prejudice against oil companies and sheer stupidity. Americans favor both "energy independence" and cheap fuel. They deplore imports -- who wants to pay foreigners? -- but oppose more production in the United States. Got it? The result is a "no-pain energy agenda that sounds appealing but has no basis in reality," writes Robert Bryce in "Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of 'Energy Independence.' " ...

Members of Congress complain loudly about high oil profits ($40.6 billion for Exxon Mobil last year) but frustrate those companies' desire to use those profits to explore and produce in the United States. Getting access to oil elsewhere is increasingly difficult. Governments own three-quarters or more of proven reserves. Perversely, higher prices discourage other countries from approving new projects. Flush with oil revenue, countries have less need to expand production. Undersupply and high prices then feed on each other.

Whole remarkably sensible column here.

Farm Bill Follies

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:00:00 EDT

The $300 billion farm bill is being cobbled together by Congress this week. As Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) noted, "It's not just a farm bill. This is a farm and a food and an energy bill."

As Otto von Bismarck quipped, "Laws are like sausage. It's better not to see them being made." Let's take a look at these three aspects of this unappetizing piece of sausage.

First, what do the farmers get? Answer: A lot. Last year, net farm income reached a record level of nearly $89 billion due to high crop prices. Farm household income averaged $84,000 in 2007, according to the Environmental Working Group (the 2006 average for all U.S. households was $66,000). Despite such good times, the federal government showered $5 billion in direct payments on 1.4 million farmers.

These direct payments have nothing to do with crop productivity or a safety net in case of low prices—they are basically gifts to farmers just because they are farmers. In fact, farmers with gross incomes up to $2.5 million have been eligible for these payments. President Bush wants to cap that at $200,000 in income, but the House is considering a cap of $500,000, and the Senate voted to cap the payments at $750,000 per year in income. Overall, Congress shaved just 2 percent off of the direct payments of $5 billion per year over the next four years. While this is a barely discernible improvement, one would think record high farm incomes combined with a world food crisis would make this a good time for Congress to scrap farming subsidies altogether.

It is true that about two-thirds of farm-bill spending funds nutrition programs such as school lunches and food stamps. Lawmakers added $10 billion to the food stamp program to help lower-income Americans address higher food prices. But why are food prices higher in the first place? Part of the reason is the federal government's subsidies and its mandate to turn food into fuel—which brings us to the legislation's energy policy madness.

In December, Congress passed and President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which mandated that the U.S. produce 9 billion gallons of conventional biofuels this year. The Act requires that 15 billion gallons of conventional biofuels be produced by 2015 and that 36 billion gallons of conventional and "advanced" biofuels be produced by 2022. How does this affect food prices?

Higher corn prices result from biofuel mandates and subsidies, which encourage farmers to plant fewer acres of wheat and soybeans—which in turn raises their prices. In addition, corn is the chief feed grain for which producers of beef, poultry, and pork must pay higher prices which they will eventually pass along to consumers. In 2006, a bushel of corn sold for just under $2; today it sells for nearly $6.

Currently, most biofuels are produced by turning corn into ethanol. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that the 2008 corn crop will be 14.6 billion bushels, of which 3.2 billion[*] bushels will be fermented into ethanol. In other words, about 22 percent of our corn crop will be floating out the tailpipes of our automobiles next year.

The new farm bill contains a small gesture in the direction of sanity by reducing bioethanol subsidies from 51 cents per gallon to 45 cents per gallon. This should reduce the price of a bushel of corn by about 3 cents, according to the Des Moines Register. On the other hand, Congress is trying get around the unintended consequences of its biofuels policy by offering $1.01 per gallon subsidy for so-called cellulosic ethanol. Large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol has yet to take off, so the farm bill also disperses $400 million in tax credits in the hope of jumpstarting such production. In addition, the bill extends the tariff on imported ethanol until 2012.

The biofuel mandate is not the only reason for higher food prices—higher oil and fertilizer prices as well as commodity speculation also contribute substantially.

But there's no excuse for Congress to make matters worse with this farm bill. As Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.) declared, "Negotiators managed to avoid every opportunity to reform wasteful, outdated subsidies while piling on additional layers of unnecessary spending." As a consequence, Americans can look forward to thinner wallets as they struggle to fuel their cars and feed their kids.

Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

[*]: Due to an editing error, this originally read million.

Food Miles: Eating Globally, Acting Locally

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:36:00 EDT

Feeling guilty about all those food miles (and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with them) your provender travels to get to your table?

A new study from two Carnegie Mellon University researchers says you can counter greenhouse gas emissions and earn some climate change absolution (while continuing to eat out-of-season foods) simply by giving up red meat for one day per week. Here's the abstract:

Despite significant recent public concern and media attention to the environmental impacts of food, few studies in the United States have systematically compared the life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food production against long-distance distribution, aka “food-miles.” We find that although food is transported long distances in general (1640 km delivery and 6760 km life-cycle supply chain on average) the GHG emissions associated with food are dominated by the production phase, contributing 83% of the average U.S. household’s 8.1 t CO₂e/yr footprint for food consumption. Transportation as a whole represents only 11% of life-cycle GHG emissions, and final delivery from producer to retail contributes only 4%. Different food groups exhibit a large range in GHG-intensity; on average, red meat is around 150% more GHG-intensive than chicken or fish. Thus, we suggest that dietary shift can be a more effective means of lowering an average household’s food-related climate footprint than “buying local.” Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG reduction than buying all locally sourced food.

Whole paper here.

Clinton and McCain's Gasoline Tax/Carbon Market Conundrum

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:18:00 EDT

Both Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) favor a "gasoline tax holiday" this summer. For three months the burden of the 18 cents per gallon federal gas tax would be lifted. That's good politics since motorists now paying more than $60 per fill up would be happy.

But wait. Don't both senators support imposing a cap-and-trade market on carbon emissions to combat man-made global warming? In a Washington Post op/ed last year, two RAND researchers calculated that a ~~relatively modest~~ $30 per ton of ~~carbon~~ carbon dioxide price would boost gasoline prices by 35 cents per gallon (and household electricity bills by 20 to 30 percent).

I'm sure that the public would just love to hear some "straight talk" about that.

See Reason Foundation transportation maven Robert Poole's response to the gas tax holiday proposal here.

Comes Now the Dread Humanzee?

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:43:00 EDT

The Scotsman has published a somewhat overwrought article about the possible creation of chimp/human hybrids. The Scotsman reports:

A LEADING scientist has warned a new species of "humanzee," created from breeding apes with humans, could become a reality unless the government acts to stop scientists experimenting.

In an interview with The Scotsman, Dr Calum MacKellar, director of research at the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, warned the controversial draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill did not prevent human sperm being inseminated into animals.

He said if a female chimpanzee was inseminated with human sperm the two species would be closely enough related that a hybrid could be born.

He said scientists could possibly try to develop the new species to fill the demand for organ donors.

Leading scientists say there is no reason why the two species could not breed, although they question why anyone would want to try such a technique.

Actually, such interbreeding might just work. Back in 1977, a researcher published results in the journal Anatomical Record showing that human sperm could penetrate gibbon eggs. But would it be wrong to breed such hybrids?

The Scotsman turns to some of the ethical considerations:

Professor Hugh McLachlan, professor of applied philosophy at Glasgow Caledonian University's School of Law and Applied Sciences, said although the idea was "troublesome", he could see no ethical objections to the creation of humanzees.

"Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past," he said.

"If it turns out in the future there was fertilisation between a human animal and a non-human animal, it's an idea that is troublesome, but in terms of what particular ethical principle is breached it's not clear to me.

"I share their squeamishness and unease, but I'm not sure that unease can be expressed in terms of an ethical principle."

I discussed some of the ethical issues involved with "uplifting" animals to human-level intelligence in my column "Humanizing Animals." Whole Scotsman article here.

No ETs Is Good News for Humanity's Future?

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:11:00 EDT

Philosopher and director of the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, Nick Bostrom has a fascinating article in the current issue of Technology Review in which he hopes that Mars turns out to be a barren lifeless rock. Why? Because that would mean that the "Great Filter" is more likely behind us than ahead of us. So far the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) has been a dud. Bostrom argues that there may be two explanations for this.

First, the evolution of intelligent life may be extremely unlikely despite the fact that the galaxy's stars are orbited by billions and billions of planets. Some "filter," say the development of ~~prokaryotic~~ eukaryotic cells, must be passed before intelligence evolves. If intelligence is extremely hard to evolve that would explain why we have encoutered no ETs nor overheard them chattering among the stars.

The alternative explanation for the silence of skies is more sobering. As Bostrom explains it:

The more disconcerting hypothesis is that the Great Filter consists in some destructive tendency common to virtually all sufficiently advanced technological civilizations. Throughout history, great civilizations on Earth have imploded--the Roman Empire, the Mayan civilization that once flourished in Central America, and many others. However, the kind of societal collapse that merely delays the eventual emergence of a space-colonizing civilization by a few hundred or a few thousand years would not explain why no such civilization has visited us from another planet. A thousand years may seem a long time to an individual, but in this context it's a sneeze. There are probably planets that are billions of years older than Earth. Any intelligent species on those planets would have had ample time to recover from repeated social or ecological collapses. Even if they failed a thousand times before they succeeded, they still could have arrived here hundreds of millions of years ago.
The Great Filter, then, would have to be something more dramatic than run-of-the mill societal collapse: it would have to be a terminal global cataclysm, an existential catastrophe. An existential risk is one that threatens to annihilate intelligent life or permanently and drastically curtail its potential for future development. In our own case, we can identify a number of potential existential risks: a nuclear war fought with arms stockpiles much larger than today's (perhaps resulting from future arms races); a genetically engineered superbug; environmental disaster; an asteroid impact; wars or terrorist acts committed with powerful future weapons; superintelligent general artificial intelligence with destructive goals; or high-energy physics experiments. These are just some of the existential risks that have been discussed in the literature, and considering that many of these have been proposed only in recent decades, it is plausible to assume that there are further existential risks we have not yet thought of.
The study of existential risks is an extremely important, albeit rather neglected, field of inquiry. But in order for an existential risk to constitute a plausible Great Filter, it must be of a kind that could destroy virtually any sufficiently advanced civilization. For instance, random natural disasters such as asteroid hits and supervolcanic eruptions are poor Great Filter candidates, because even if they destroyed a significant number of civilizations, we would expect some civilizations to get lucky; and some of these civilizations could then go on to colonize the universe. Perhaps the existential risks that are most likely to constitute a Great Filter are those that arise from technological discovery. It is not far-fetched to imagine some possible technology such that, first, virtually all sufficiently advanced civilizations eventually discover it, and second, its discovery leads almost universally to existential disaster.
So where is the Great Filter? Behind us, or not behind us?
If the Great Filter is ahead of us, we have still to confront it. If it is true that almost all intelligent species go extinct before they master the technology for space colonization, then we must expect that our own species will, too, since we have no reason to think that we will be any luckier than other species. If the Great Filter is ahead of us, we must relinquish all hope of ever colonizing the galaxy, and we must fear that our adventure will end soon--or, at any rate, prematurely. Therefore, we had better hope that the Great Filter is behind us.
What has all this got to do with finding life on Mars? Consider the implications of discovering that life had evolved independently on Mars (or some other planet in our solar system). That discovery would suggest that the emergence of life is not very improbable. If it happened independently twice here in our own backyard, it must surely have happened millions of times across the galaxy. This would mean that the Great Filter is less likely to be confronted during the early life of planets and therefore, for us, more likely still to come.

You really should treat yourself to Bostrom's thoughtful article "Where Are They?: Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing."

Hat tip to Darrell Brookstein.

"If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for," says biologist.

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:29:00 EDT

The anti-evolution "documentary" Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (which alerts viewers to its subject matter with its subtitle), opened little more than a week ago. Supporters are claiming that its opening weekend is either "the second largest gross box office receipts on opening weekend of any political documentary ever" and/or it "is now #26 on the all-time box office list of documentaries. Among those documentaries, only Fahrenheit 9/11 and Tupac The Resurection had better opening weekends." Total receipts for the weekend: $3.2 million.

One the movie's shticks is to grill atheist advocates of biological evolution as a way to warn viewers about the corrosive effects on science on religious belief. But are faith and reason incompatible? Not all scientists think so.

The New York Times has a nice profile of evolutionary biologist, National Academy of Sciences member, and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Francisco Ayala who spends a great deal of time trying to explain evolutionary biology to the public. From the Times profile:

Dr. Ayala, a former Dominican priest, said he told his audiences not just that evolution is a well-corroborated scientific theory, but also that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God. In fact, he said, evolution “is more consistent with belief in a personal god than intelligent design. If God has designed organisms, he has a lot to account for.”

Consider, he said, that at least 20 percent of pregnancies are known to end in spontaneous abortion. If that results from divinely inspired anatomy, Dr. Ayala said, “God is the greatest abortionist of them all.”

Or consider, he said, the “sadism” in parasites that live by devouring their hosts, or the mating habits of insects like female midges, tiny flies that fertilize their eggs by consuming their mates’ genitals, along with all their other parts.

For the midges, Dr. Ayala said, “it makes evolutionary sense. If you are a male and you have mated, the best thing you can do for your genes is to be eaten.” But if God or some other intelligent agent made things this way on purpose, he said, “then he is a sadist, he certainly does odd things and he is a lousy engineer.”

That is also the message of his latest book, “Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion” (Joseph Henry Press, 2007). In it, he writes that as a theology student in Spain he had been taught that evolution “provided the ‘missing link’ in the explanation of evil in the world” — a defense of God’s goodness and omnipotence, despite the existence of evil.

“As floods and drought were a necessary consequence of the fabric of the physical world, predators and parasites, dysfunctions and diseases were a consequence of the evolution of life,” he writes. “They were not a result of a deficient or malevolent design.”

Despite his religious training, the Times notes:

Dr. Ayala will not say whether he remains a religious believer.

My review of Expelled here. Some of my thoughts on the two non-overlapping magisteria argument. The Times' Ayala profile here.

Addendum: Charles Darwin was also troubled by the cruelty of nature. He cited the example of the ichneumon wasp which paralyzes caterpillars live and lays its eggs in them. Its offspring then dine off the tasty live caterpillars as they mature. In his 1860 letter to Asa Gray, Darwin wrote:

"With respect to the theological view of the question: This is always painful to me. I am bewildered. I had no intention to write atheistically, but I own that I cannot see as plainly as others do, and as I should wish to do, evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to me too much misery in the world. I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance."

It's OK to Want to Live Forever, Says Brilliant* Bioethicist

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:39:00 EDT

In his column, "It's not immoral to want to be immortal," brilliant University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan refutes those who say that we should all just "go gentle into that good night." From his column:

What is particularly interesting is that many of those raising the question of the ethics of immortality do so with an answer already in mind — “No, it’s not right!” Both conservative and liberal writers alike are expressing a lot of moral angst in recent books, articles and opinion pieces about the prospect of people hanging around long, long after the last broadcast of "The Price Is Right" has aired, which could be an eternity.

Caplan ably shoots down the usual suite of anti-longevity arguments: (1) more decrepitude, (2) against God and/or nature, and (3) what about the kids? The point of (1) is not to be older longer, but to be younger longer; (2) in the Bible lots of people lived centuries and Mother Nature could care less one way or the other how long you live; and (3) we can take care of the kids.

He correctly concludes:

Despite a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing, it is not obvious that wanting to live a lot longer is evil or immoral. The case against trying is not convincing.

*Obviously so because he agrees with me.

Temps Have Gone Up, Say Ninety-Seven Percent of Climate Scientists

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:15:00 EDT

In addition, 84 percent believe that man-made global warming is occurring. These are among the results from a Harris Interactive poll commissioned by the D.C.-based Statistical Assessment Service (STATS). Other findings include:

A slight majority (54%) believe the warming measured over the last 100 years is not “within the range of natural temperature fluctuation.”

A slight majority (56%) see at least a 50-50 chance that global temperatures will rise two degrees Celsius or more during the next 50 to 100 years. (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cites this increase as the point beyond which additional warming would produce major environmental disruptions.)

Based on current trends, 41% of scientists believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years, compared to 13% who see relatively little danger. Another 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous.
Seventy percent see climate change as very difficult to manage over the next 50 to 100 years, compared to only 5% who see it as not very difficult to manage. Another 23% see moderate difficulty in managing these changes.

Science is not done by voting, but these results are pretty interesting. Go here for more of the STATS climate science poll results.

Disclosure: Before some H&R commenters denounce me for not disclosing the "fact" that STATS is some kind of corporate front (and you know who you are), I direct your attention to the STATS entry at Sourcewatch. By the way, have you ever noticed how much nicer Sourcewatch's entries for left-leaning organizations like the Tides Foundation and Environmental Defense are? Here's Sourcewatch's entry on Sourcewatch. If you care to, take a look, here's their entry on the Reason Foundation which publishes reason magazine. Finally, I generally find that STATS offers useful and insightful analyses of leftwing statistical hype.

Of Course, Doctors Can Read. Thank God They No Longer Have To!

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:30:00 EDT

Busy doctors and nurses often don't have the time to actually read patient charts or medicine labels any more. Not to worry, the folks who run one of my favorite online publications, Null Hypothesis: The Journal of Unlikely Science, point out that a French think tank is developing road-sign inspired icons to label drugs. The Null Hypothesis editors have made some helpful suggestions of their own which I include below:

Twelve new icons:

For the whole story click over to Null Hypothesis here.

Happy DNA Day!

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:13:00 EDT

Move over National Gazpacho Day. Step aside National Skydiving Safety Day. Today, April 25th, is DNA Day! On this day of days, we celebrate the double helix which is arguably the beautiful iconic image of the 21st century.

Deoxyribonucleic acid began winding its twisty way into our consciousnesses 55 years ago when its structure was first published in Nature on April 25, 1953. April 25th is also the day that the human genome project was officially declared complete 5 years ago.

Demand for Gasoline May Be Relatively Price Inelastic But Eventually....

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:02:00 EDT

Businessweek reports that Americans appear to be burning less gasoline as a result of driving less. To wit:

Traffic levels are trending downward nationwide. Preliminary figures from the Federal Highway Administration show it falling 1.4% last year. Now, with nationwide gasoline prices having recently passed the inflation-adjusted record of $3.40 a gallon set back in 1981, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is predicting gas consumption will actually fall 0.3% this year. That would be the first annual decline since 1991. Others believe the falloff in consumption is actually steeper than the government's numbers show. "Our canaries out there tell us they are seeing demand drop much more considerably than the fraction the EIA is talking about," says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at Oil Price Information Service, a market research firm in Gaithersburg, Md.

Back in 2005, Goldman Sachs issued a report that suggested that demand for gasoline was not so much tied to price per gallon as percentage of income. As Reuters reported:

During 1980-1981, gasoline spending in the United States corresponded to an average 4.5 percent of GDP, 7.2 percent of consumer expenditures, and 6.2 percent of personal disposable income.

The report added that at around $100 per barrel for oil, gasoline spending in the U.S. reaches 3.6 percent of forecasted GDP, 5.3 percent of consumer expenditures, and 5.0 percent of personal disposable income. Still not as high at the bad old days of the 1970s and early 1980s.

The Goldman Sachs report also suggested that the price of oil might have to reach $135 per barrel before consumer expenditures on gasoline as a percent of income would reach levels comparable to the 1970s. Yesterday, the price was north of $118 per barrel.

According to Reuters Goldman Sachs' researchers concluded:

``Perhaps the ultimate answer to high how oil prices need to go before demand destruction occurs is derived from knowing when American consumers will stop buying gas guzzling sport utility vehicles and instead seek fuel efficient alternatives.

``Based on our analysis of gasoline spending and the economy noted above, we estimate that U.S. gasoline prices may need to exceed $4 per gallon.''

The Businessweek article notes:

Just look at the latest auto sales figures. Sales fell 8% overall during the first quarter of 2008, and those of gas-guzzling large SUVs and pickup trucks dropped off a cliff, down 27% and 14%, respectively.

Whole informative Businessweek article is here.