We have met the 1%, and he is us

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

In explanation of my title, I fear I’ll have to go on a bit of a digression. Let me tell three stories, about people in three different parts of our amazing planet.

STORY THE FIRST: In my early thirties, about forty years ago now, through a series of misunderstandings and coincidences I spent some time as the first mate on a sailboat in the Philippines. At one point we spent a couple months anchored up offshore from the Manila Yacht Club while we were getting some boat repairs done. As befits a young man with more testosterone than sagacity, I spent the evenings in the dives and nightclubs in the local red-light district. Not paying for the favors of the ladies of the evening, you understand, that always seemed creepy to me. Just drinking and having a good time. One of the bars had a piano. It also had what they euphemistically called “hostesses”, who I was told could be very welcoming and most hospitable in one of the upstairs rooms for a small donation to a good cause …

It became my habit that each evening after work, I would go ashore. I’d walk the six blocks or so over to the bar and play the piano for a few hours, and talk to the “hostesses” and the bartender, and watch the evening go by. After a while, I was just another fixture in the bar, I was the piano man. People coming in thought I was just part of the floor show, and I was. The management liked having me play, so they paid me … in free drinks and bar food, which was more than welcome.

And being the piano man in a “hospitality house”, isn’t that every musician’s dream of heaven?

In any case, I got to be friends with the bartenders, and with the “hostesses”, and they would tell me their stories. One of the women working there was a “hostess” named Helena. She and I got to be good friends. We were never lovers, although I wouldn’t have minded one bit. We just hung out together and had a good time in the bar, singing songs, telling stories. Sometimes on the weekends we would meet and wander around the city and she would explain to me the local customs, tell me what was going on. She taught me just enough Tagalog to get in trouble. It was great.

Figure 1. Slums in Manila

During this time, Helena kept telling me that I was rich. I always laughed and said no, no, in America I was a very poor man. And that was true—I was an itinerant sailor and fisherman and a boat bum. She just laughed back at me. But she never asked me for anything, not for one penny, not for one gift. Well, that’s not quite true. She asked me for cigarettes for her father. So I kept her old man in smokes. I figured it was the least I could do. She had her pride.

One other thing she wouldn’t do. I kept asking her to invite me over to the place where she lived. But she always refused. I wouldn’t like it, she said with her impish crooked smile. So one afternoon I decided I’d just go over there on my own. I got her address from one of the bartenders. He advised me against visiting there, saying it was in a bad section of town. I said okay. I was young. I was foolish. What did I know?

When I told the taxi driver where I was going, he turned around in his seat and looked at me. “Are you sure you want to go there”, he asked? “Yeah I’m sure”, I said with more certainty than I felt. “OK”, he said, “but you gotta pay me the money now, I’m not waiting around once we get there” … I gave him the money and off we went.

Helena’s place turned out to be located in a shantytown covering an entire city block. The buildings had been demolished at some point in the past and then abandoned. An entire community had sprung up there over the years. As soon as I got out of the taxi, the driver sped away. I turned around and was confronted by the most astounding warren of structures that I had ever seen.

Every possible building material was on display. Concrete blocks, short sticks of wood, old highway signs, flattened out tin cans, cardboard of every color and description, car doors and windows, random bits of glass, hunks of corrugated iron, shipping pallets, foam from appliance boxes. And this potpourri of materials was all strapped and held and cajoled into staying together by a motley assortment of rusty nails, bits of wire, rubber straps, pieces of leather, sections of vine, lengths of duct tape, strips of cloth, the variety of fasteners was endless. There were buildings on top of buildings added onto buildings built underneath buildings.

I asked the first person I came to where Helena lived. He gave me a series of instructions that, as near as I could understand, included obscure directives like “go over that direction except stay this side” and “don’t go under the third walkway, go where the man is selling balut” and “be careful to avoid the other opening”. All of these directions were delivered in what to a casual passerby would have passed for English, but on closer examination appeared to have been assembled from random phrases culled from instruction manuals.

I thanked the man and wandered off in the general direction he had indicated. I stopped at intervals to get new sets of partially intelligible instructions from random strangers. These led me through and over and into more of the 3-D maze. The way to her house went by means of a bizarre collection of passageways that were neither streets nor alleys. I could not tell public from private areas. Eyes looked out of every opening. I knew that I could not find my way back out without a guide. The passageway wandered over and around structures, at points seemingly going through people’s back yards with life in full swing. At other points, the way passed along a ditch running foul sewage, complete with a strange assortment of floating objects that did not bear close inspection. After accidentally looking at one particular piece of flotsam, I repented and quickly switched to carefully looking at the other side of the path, and I eschewed further reckless eyeballing until I left that ditch far behind.

Now, people mistake the Philippines for a nation. In reality, it is much more like a really big family with a bunch of kinda strange relatives. Not bad, just strange. And of course, on this city block of houses-in-wonderland, everybody knew everybody. The nature of communications in the area was such that by the time that the kindness of strangers had brought me to where Helena lived, she had heard the news already and had gotten spruced up and was prepared to meet me at the door. She invited me into what she explained was her aunt’s house. She had a room in the back. She offered to show it to me.

We stepped inside her room. Of course, we could not close the door, that was not proper … nor all that practical given the miniature size of the room. But it wouldn’t have made much difference, there was no privacy. You could hear everything everywhere, the walls were paper-thin. And I suppose that shouldn’t have been surprising, because one wall was actually made of paper, but I was surprised by that detail nonetheless. I noted in passing that the paper wall was made up of pasted together advertising posters for Hindi Bollywood movies, lending a pleasant, almost carnival atmosphere to the place.

Her room was tiny. A small sleeping pallet took up almost all of the available floor space. Inside the room were all of Helena’s worldly belongings. They consisted of a small wooden box which contained a few dresses and blouses and undergarments, and another smaller wooden box which contained a few items of makeup, a mirror, and some little trinkets and costume jewelry that obviously were precious to her. Other than that, there was one pair of shoes, and a cross and a picture of Jesus on the wall. Oh, there was the cloth pallet on which she slept, but that scrap of sewn-together rags likely belonged to her auntie. And that was the sum total of her possessions, all contained in a minuscule room with one wall made of paper …

That was it … that was all that she owned. A few dresses and a picture of Jesus. Now I understood why she thought I was rich. Because by her terms, I most assuredly was rich. I was incredibly wealthy in her world.

I talked with her a while there in the house, and with her aunt. Her uncle was out working. Her aunt had a small sewing business in her house. Life was not bad, life was not good, life was just life. Helena didn’t like her work, but that was the only job she could find, she had no education and no skills. And it paid the bills. Helena translated, her aunt spoke only Tagalog. We laughed some. They had a roof over their heads, albeit one of flattened tin cans laid as shingles. They had each other. We watched the almost-liquid warmth of the Manila gloaming slowly pouring over the city, and we soaked in the last rays of the day.

After while, Helena showed me how to get back to the street, and found me a taxi. I wouldn’t have been able to find the street without her, and no taxi would have stopped for me there at dusk, but they knew Helena. She left me there, she had to go back and get changed and get to work. I said I was going back to the ship, I’d see her later that evening, play some piano.

In the taxi, on my way back to the ship, I reflected on how incredibly wealthy I actually was. I finally realized, with some embarrassment, why she had laughed so heartily when I was so foolish and naive as to claim that I was poor. The only remaining mystery to me was how her laughter at my blindness had been so free of even the slightest hint of reproach for my colossal bumbling ignorance.

STORY THE SECOND: Fast forward five years. I’m working in sub-Saharan Africa, in Senegal. My workmate and I are in some godforsaken village out near the Kaolack salt flats. A 3-D relief map of the turf would look like a flat sheet of paper—it’s the land god stepped on. We get invited to dinner by some farmer, and by custom, we cannot refuse. He lives in the proverbial mud hut, with his wife, a scad of kids, a wooden planting stick, a wooden mortar and pestle for grinding grain, a three-rock firepit out back for cooking, a leaky roof, and not much else.

Having grown up on a ranch, I automatically note when we get there that he has two scrawny chickens wandering the yard. When we go into the house, he confers for a moment with his wife. She disappears. I hear squawking. I realize the man now has one scrawny chicken wandering the yard. The farmer and my associate and I drink sickly sweet tea and talk about the doings in the area. After a while, his wife brings in the chicken cooked up all nice, and offers it to us, the honored guests. The kids watch from the corners of the room.

But I can’t eat that damned bird. I can’t do it. I can’t bear the eyes of the kids. Don’t misunderstand me. It’s not like they are watching me with reproach in their eyes or anything, that wasn’t the problem at all. The thing I can’t bear is that the kids can’t take their eyes off of the chicken. Their eyes caress it. As the poet said, they watch that bird “as one who hath been stunned and is of sense forlorn”. They are blind to everything else. I can’t take it.

Plus I am shamed by the easy generosity of the man and his wife. They have nothing, and yet he offers us half of what they have without missing a beat. I am reminded of Rabelais’ will: “I have nothing, I owe a great deal, and the rest I leave to the poor”. The farmer’s wife has cooked and served the chicken, both of them temporarily appropriating the easy air of people who have hundreds of chickens, people who have chicken for dinner every night. My heart hangs, suspended. I hear the lone remaining chicken complaining outside.

So I trot out my old threadbare excuse from Mexico, and I blame my much-maligned liver. In Mexico, they blame their liver for everything. I have found it’s quite a useful excuse—over the years my liver has cheerfully soaked up the blame for a host of my idiosyncrasies. So I take one small bite for form’s sake, and then (in French, it being Senegal) I compliment the woman and the man on the chicken. I tell them the doctor has said that chicken is bad for my liver,  le médecin has said that le poulet is downright mauvais for my greatly-abused old foie, so as much as I liked the delicious flavor, and as much as I was deeply grateful for the honor they were offering me, I say I’m terribly sorry but I can’t possibly eat any more, they’ll just have to finish it off for me. And I tuck into the rest of the meal, the part that my liver doesn’t mind, to prove my bonafides.

They make the appropriate noises of disappointment that I’m not eating, and they have the grace not to look overjoyed. The children’s eyes are full of expectation. They look at that poor scrawny little representative of the great avian nation with unconcealed longing. The wife takes the plate into the back. In contrast to their earlier raucous play, the children vanish soundlessly on bare feet along with her. It seems that none of them dare to make a sound in case the mirage all disappears, like Cinderella after midnight. Not the time to get mom mad …

I avert my eyes from the disappearing chicken and the children. I look at the man and my workmate. We lapse into small-talk with no reference at all to poultry, or to children, chatting light-heartedly as though nothing meaningful had just occurred.

Thinking on it now, I consider how many times I’ve bought some random chicken in the supermarket on a whim, and how little it represents to me. I could buy fifty chickens if I chose, five hundred if need be. And I think about what that one scrawny chicken meant to that family.

STORY THE THIRD: Fast forward another five years, to when I lived on an atoll in the Solomon Islands, a remote bunch of tropical islands in the South Pacific north of Australia. Because I ran a shipyard, I met lots of yachties who were on boats sailing through the Solomons. Often they would complain to me about the high prices being asked by the islanders for their beautiful wood carvings. After the first few complaints, I developed the following analogy which I used over and over.

I told the yachties, imagine that one day an alien spaceship lands in your front yard. It is made out of solid gold, and it is encrusted with rubies, diamonds, sapphires, and emeralds. The alien steps out of the spaceship. He is dressed in cloth picked out in gold and silver threads, and his shoes have platinum buckles and diamonds everywhere, including on the soles … he comes up to you, and through his universal vocoder he says, “I say, old fellow, I rather fancy that old pickup truck of yours. How much money would it take to convince you to part with it?”. 

Now, you know the old truck is worth maybe a hundred dollars, and that’s on a good day with a following wind. And no one can predict the future, but you are kinda sure that this opportunity will never come again … which means the real question is, would you tell the diamond-studded alien “Oh, I could be persuaded to let it go for a million dollars, it’s kinda precious to me”, or would you only say “a hundred thousand dollars”?

Seriously, I’d tell the yachties, you get a one-time chance like that, you have to take your shot. You have to ask for the moon. Might not get it, but why not ask?

Next, consider the average Solomon Islander, I would tell the yachties. The average guy in some outer island village might only see a hundred Solomon dollars in cash all year, that’s thirty bucks US. I said to the yachtie, your watch is worth thirty dollars US. Your yachting shorts set you back forty-five, the cool sunglasses were seventy-five dollars, the Izod polo shirt was fifty-five, the belt was thirty bucks. Your stylish yachting cap was sixty bucks. The nice Sperry Topsider boat shoes were seventy-five dollars. Not counting your socks or your skivvies or your jewelry,  just what you are wearing alone is worth about what cash the average outer islander might make in ten or twelve years. It’s worth a decade of his labor, and that’s merely what you are wearing as you pass through his world.  That doesn’t count the cash in your pocket, or the credit cards in your pocket. It doesn’t count the value of the rest of your wardrobe. And we haven’t even gotten to the money you might have in the bank or your other assets …

So yes, when you sail up to the village in a yacht and ask how much something costs, they will ask a hundred dollars Solomon, or three hundred dollars, who knows? Because to them, you’re an alien wearing gold cloth, with diamonds on the soles of your shoes. They’d be mad not to ask top dollar for their carvings.

And I told the yachties, you know what? Given both that huge disparity in net worth between you and the woodcarver, and the world-class quality of the woodcarving in the Solomons, you’d be mad not to pay top dollar for whatever carvings catch your fancy.

============ END OF THE THREE STORIES =============

Now, I have told these three tales in order to provide a context for a couple of quotes. The context that I am providing is that there is an almost inconceivable distance from the top of the heap to the bottom of the heap. The top of the heap is the 1%, not of the US, but of the global population. That 1% is made up of the people like you and me and the folks who read this, folks who live in the western world, the top few percent of the global population who enjoy the full benefits of development, the winners on the planet. It’s a long, long way from where we stand down to the bottom of the heap, that dark and somewhat mysterious place we don’t like to think about where far too many of the planet’s people eke out a living on a dollar or three a day, and we wonder how on earth they can do so. To them, we are as unknown and distant as aliens in golden jeweled spaceships with diamonds on the soles of our shoes. I offer the stories to give you some idea of the constraints on those people’s lives, and the contrasts between their lives and ours.

Those people have no slack. They have no extra room in their budgets. They have no ability to absorb increases in their cost of living, particularly their energy spending. They have no credit cards, no credit, and almost no assets. They have no health insurance. They are not prepared for emergencies. They have no money in the bank. They have no reserve, no cushion, no extra clothing, no stored food in the basement, no basement for that matter, no fat around their waist, no backups, no extras of any description. They are not ready for a hike in the price of energy or anything else. They have damn well nothing—a wooden digging stick, a spare dress, a picture of Jesus, a paper wall, a scrawny chicken, a bowl of millet.

It is in that context, the context that acknowledges that about half the world, three billion people, live on less than three dollars a day (2005 PPP),  that I bring up the following two quotes:

 “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the [US] price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”

and

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

Here’s my problem with these brilliant plans. Regardless of whatever hypothetical possible future benefit they might or might not bring in fifty years, right here and now in the present they are absolutely devastating to the poor.

The US Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, the author of the first quote, wouldn’t have his commute to work imperiled if US gasoline prices were to rise to $8/gallon and thus reach the levels in Europe. He can buy all the gasoline he wants for any purpose. But if you are a poor single mom with a couple of kids and a clapped-out car that gets you to work and back and drinks gasoline faster than your good-for-nothing ex-husband drank whiskey before he left, for you a doubling of the gas prices means the kids eat less or something else goes by the board, because you have to get to work. It’s not optional.

And if the cost of electricity for the US and the White House “skyrockets”, Obama won’t be sleeping cold in the winter. Nor will I, for that matter. That would be the poor renter in upstate New York who can’t afford to turn on the electric heater.

The difference between rich and poor, between developed and developing, is the availability of inexpensive energy. A kilowatt-hour of electricity is the same amount of energy as a hard day’s labor by an adult. We can buy that for fifteen cents. We’re rich because we have (or at least had) access to the hardworking servants of inexpensive energy. We have inexpensive electrical and mechanical slaves to do our work for us.

This is particularly important for the poor. The poorer you are, the larger a percentage of your budget goes to energy-intensive things like transportation and heat and electricity. If you double the price of energy, everyone is poorer, but the poor take it the hardest. Causing an increase in energy prices for any reason is the most regressive tax imaginable. At the bottom of the pile people make a buck a day and pay fifty cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity … there’s no give down there at the bottom of the heap, no room for doubling the price of gasoline to European levels, no space for electric prices to skyrocket.

So I find it both reprehensible and incomprehensible when those of us who actually are in the 1% of the global 1%, like President Obama and Secretary Chu, blithely talk of doubling the price of gasoline and sending the cost of electricity skyrocketing as though there were no negative results from that; as though it wouldn’t cause widespread suffering; as though cheap energy weren’t the best friend of the poor.

What Chu and Obama propose are crazy plans. They are ivory-tower fantasies of people who are totally out of touch with the realities faced by the poor of the world, whether inside the US or out. Now please, I’m not making this political. There are people on both sides of the aisle who have signed on to the crazy idea that we should raise energy prices.

When I was a kid, everyone was quite clear that inexpensive energy was the key to a fairly boundless future. Our schoolbooks told of the Tennessee Valley project, and how it lit up the whole region, to everyone’s benefit. In particular, electricity was seen, and rightly so, as the savior of the rural poor. How did we lose that? Just how and when did deliberately making energy more and more expensive become a good thing?

I don’t buy that line of talk, not for one minute. Expensive energy is not a good thing for anyone, wealthy or poor. And in particular, more expensive energy condemns the poor to lives of increased misery and privation.

As far as I know, other than the completely overblown “peak oil” fears, about the only argument raised against the manifold benefits of inexpensive energy is the claim that increasing CO2 will lead to some fancied future Thermageddon™ fifty years from now. I have seen no actual evidence that such might be the case, just shonky computer model results. And even if CO2 were to lead to a temperature rise, we have no evidence that it will be harmful overall. According to the Berkeley Earth data, we’ve seen a 2°C land temperature rise in the last two centuries with absolutely no major temperature-related ill effects that I am aware of, and in fact, generally beneficial outcomes. Longer growing seasons. More ice-free days in the northern ports. I don’t see any catastrophes in that historical warming. Despite the historical warming, there is no sign of any historical increase in weather extremes of any kind. Given two degrees C of historical warming with no increase in extreme events or catastrophes, why should I expect such an increase in some hypothetical future warming?

So I’m sorry, but I am totally unwilling to trade inexpensive energy today, which is the real actual salvation of the poor today, for some imagined possible slight reduction in the temperature fifty years from now. That is one of the worst trades that I can imagine, exchanging current suffering for a promise of a slight reduction in temperatures in the year 2050.

Finally, for those who think that these quotes and ideas of Chu and Obama only affect the US, nothing could be further from the truth. Sadly, the policies are being exported and imposed, both by force and by persuasion, on the poorer countries of the world. To take just one example, pressure on the World Bank from the western countries and NGOs is denying financing to coal-fired plants in countries like India with coal resources. So the poor of India are denied inexpensive coal-fired electricity, they end up paying the price for the western one-percenters’ guilt and fear ridden fantasies about what might happen fifty years in the misty future.

Heck, even if the dreaded carbon menace were real, raising the price on fossil fuels would be the last way on earth I’d choose to fight it. Like I said … big current pain for small future maybes, that’s a lousy trade. Now, I don’t think CO2 is worth fighting. But if you do, I implore you, first do no harm—any rise in energy prices harms the poor. If you want to fight CO2, there are other ways.

w.

[UPDATE: a reader has pointed out that I am not describing the poorest of the poor, and he is quite correct. Helena had her job. The African farmer had a house and land, and not to mention originally two, but lately only one, chicken. The people in the Solomons had their bush gardens and the bountiful ocean.

The poorest of the poor have none of these things. They are a whole level below the people I talk about. You don’t want to consider where they sleep or what they eat. And yes, they are hit by rising energy prices like everyone else. -w.]

5 19 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

454 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
An intrigued student
January 14, 2013 1:58 pm

@johnrobertson
I apologize for missing the details. However 97% only further reinforces my point. As for Hydrogen, you may be right. At the moment it may be insanely expensive. It may seem far off. However you may or may not be aware of a phenomenon known as the Rand Learning Curve. When research progresses far enough, cost will drop sharply as new techniques are quickly developed by corporations to beat competitors.
Besides, while fossil fuel is an option right now, it won’t be in the future. However much oil we have left, we don’t have dozens of millions of years worth. We can’t exactly make new oil the old way, with out resorting to biofuels such as ethanol or propanol.

January 14, 2013 2:12 pm

An intrigued student,
It didn’t take long for you to show your true colors:
“…97% only further reinforces my point.”
Anyone who refers to the “97%” has no understanding of the issue. And:
“…while fossil fuel is an option right now, it won’t be in the future. However much oil we have left, we don’t have dozens of millions of years worth.”
Nice strawman, you set him up and knocked him right down again, you strawman killer, you.
The fact is that there is ample fossil fuel available. We are not discussing “dozens of millions of years worth,” we are debating whether fossil fuels are running out, or whether ther is sufficient supply for the foreseeable future.
You may note that it takes deliberate effort on the part of government to restrict the availability of fossil fuels. Without that government obstructionism, we would have fossil fuels coming out our ears, and the price would drop precipitously.
So to recap: the true “consensus’ [for whatever that is worth] is on the side of scientific skeptics. There is only a relatively small clique of climate alarmists. Unfortunately, they get most of the media’s attention.
And fossil fuels are available in great abundance. Only government intervention to restrict supply keeps prices high and rising. As Willis points out, that hurts the poor the most.

January 14, 2013 2:21 pm

An intrigued student:
At January 14, 2013 at 1:58 pm

Besides, while fossil fuel is an option right now, it won’t be in the future. However much oil we have left, we don’t have dozens of millions of years worth. We can’t exactly make new oil the old way, with out resorting to biofuels such as ethanol or propanol.

That Malthusian nonsense has be refuted repeatedly on WUWT. Please search Peak Oil and read the threads.
If there were a problem with foreseeable crude oil supplies (there is not) then synthetic crude can be already be made from coal at competitive price with natural crude. And there is sufficient coal for at least 300 years (probably 1000 years).
Times and technology change with time.
Nobody knows what energy sources will be used 300 years in the future but they are not likely to include crude oil. 300 years ago the major transport fuel was hay for horses but it is not now.
Richard

January 14, 2013 2:29 pm

E.M.Smith says:
January 14, 2013 at 4:17 am
@GungaDIn:
Love those Thomas Sowell quotes.
====================================================
Here’s another good quote regarding the “very, very rich” paying for Utopia, whatever you may think of the source.
A liberal (US definition) is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money. — G. Gordon Liddy

davidgmills
January 14, 2013 2:36 pm

Willis:
I am a lawyer and I have read like a fiend 8-14 hours a day for 40 years. I read far faster than most humans. I too get very frustrated with anything that takes me far more time to see than I can read. But on a very, very few occasions, a video comes across better than anything I have read. And for me this is one of those times. This is partly because of Ken Sorensen, the NASA engineer that is attempting to bring thorium power back. He is the featured speaker for most of this video, is just a very unique guy, and most of the video is from excerpts of his lectures.
Please take me up on this for a few minutes. It might change how you view the prospects of the world.
[Which link? Mod]

Tad
January 14, 2013 2:44 pm

You’ve led quite a life, Willis. And you’ve got part of what would make a great book in what you’ve written here. Write it and I will buy it.

January 14, 2013 3:19 pm

Willis writes,
” . . . by and large the Native Americans were hunter-gatherers living in small groups.”
Actually, that was more the exception than the rule. Most of the pre-Columbian Indians lived in settled communities; depending on where you look, most were horticulturists, exploiting the land and the forests (and the sea, where proximate) equally, and of course in Meso- and South America many lived in cities. Even on the East Coast, where the northern Europeans landed, there were extensive populations practicing agriculture. A terrific and well-referenced book documenting the state of affairs immediately prior to the European invasion is Charles C. Mann’s 1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus,(New York, 2006).
Regarding whether scattered hunter-gatherers are less vulnerable to epidemics, I’m sure that there have been epidemiological studies of such groups; arguably small bands (such as you may find in remote areas like the Amazon) might be less vulnerable than more concentrated populations, but where totally new diseases brought by invaders, coupled with (as has been speculated) genetic vulnerability to them, are concerned, I’d guess all bets are off.
The topic, of course, is tangential to this thread. But Mann’s book is worth a read.
/Mr Lynn

Tucci78
Reply to  Mr Lynn
January 14, 2013 3:47 pm

At 3:19 PM on 14 January, Mr Lynn had written:

Regarding whether scattered hunter-gatherers are less vulnerable to epidemics, I’m sure that there have been epidemiological studies of such groups; arguably small bands (such as you may find in remote areas like the Amazon) might be less vulnerable than more concentrated populations, but where totally new diseases brought by invaders, coupled with (as has been speculated) genetic vulnerability to them, are concerned, I’d guess all bets are off.

I’m not gonna cite squat, but in sources all over the place it’s sufficiently well-documented to make it plain at the Discovery Channel level of appreciation that the pre-Columbian peoples of the North American continent had extensive trade networks well established for centuries prior to their encounters with 15th and 16th Century European explorers, trappers, traders, and colonists.
In particular, items they considered luxury goods (commonplace in one region, treasured rarities in another) got lugged all over the place. Archeologists investigating grave goods have made that plain enough.
Modern epidemiologists – dealing with international air travel in our era of HIV-1, Ebola virus, influenza, SARS, and all the rest of those devastating microbes – know full well that a population can be “innoculated” with only a few initial contacts, particularly if the pathogen has a reasonable lag phase between infection and symptomaticity. One ambitious moccasin-shod pack peddler could haul a great deal more than Narragansett and Wampanoag first-quality wampum west and south of what became Rhode Island, spreading pestilence in his wake like a veritable Johnny Smallpox.
And from where he’d visited, local traders would’ve exported it further, and relatively quickly.
These “noble savage” hunter-gatherers liked new and interesting geegaws from faraway places, and were perfectly happy to make it profitable in a barter economy for inoffensive solitary strangers to come-a-calling.
Heck, how long did it take for the Europeans to twig about the germ theory of disease?

January 14, 2013 4:24 pm

Tucci78 says:
January 14, 2013 at 3:47 pm
Yes,Charles Mann cites evidence that the Incas of Peru were falling prey to the Euro-germs before the Spanish landed. Trade, as you suggest, was extensive throughout the Americas, doubtless more so amongst the urbanized populations (the Incas had cities larger than many in Europe).
/Mr Lynn

jx8989
January 14, 2013 4:37 pm

So… Everyone against renewables:
We can all agree fossil fuels are finite, yes?
When should we start relying on renewables?
When oil runs out? Will we start to invest in wind and solar and biofuel then?
Maybe not global warming, but a shortage of oil would drive prices through the roof, unregulated. The poor would really be up a creek without a paddle then.

Tucci78
Reply to  jx8989
January 14, 2013 5:33 pm

At 4:37 PM on 14 January, jx8989 had snerked:

We can all agree fossil fuels are finite, yes?

You betcha. So is sand. So frelkin’ what?
You didn’t read
Ken Gregory‘s post (at 1:03 PM on 13 January) upstairs?
Well, heck. Let me recapitulate for you:

The Potential Gas Committee, in their latest assessment, estimated that the U.S. has a total natural gas resource base of about 2,074 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). The US consumption is 24.4 Tcf/year, giving a life index of 85 years. This resource base exclude methane hydrates.
A frequently quoted estimate of the global methane hydrate resource is 700,000 Tcf. The US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement estimates there is 21,000 Tcf in-place methane hydrate resources in the northern Gulf of Mexico, with about 6,700 Tcf of this resource in relatively high-concentration accumulations in sandy sediments. At 35% recovery factor, this would deliver 2,350 Tcf recoverable gas, increasing the US life index by a further 96 years. There is a further 85 Tcf recoverable on the north slope Alaska, 70 Tcf recoverable in high quality sandstone reservoirs around the Arctic Islands (Canada). Methane hydrate in marine sands is estimated to contain 1,000’s to 10,000’s of Tcf, and hydrate dispersed through marine muds is estimated to contain 100,000’s of Tcf.
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/Hydrates/2011Reports/MH_Primer2011.pdf
Alberta Oil Sands have reserves of 170 billion barrels. Production is forecast to rise to 1.2 billion barrels per year by 2019, giving a life index of 140 years.
http://www.ercb.ca/learn-about-energy/oilsands

Okay, so “fossil fuels are finite.” Of course, they’re “finite” in amounts that far exceed anticipated needs for centuries, and then we get down to hydrocarbon fuels that aren’t “fossil,” in which case your use of the term “finite” matters only on scales commonly used by cosmologists, not petrochemicals people.
If I’m not making the point with adequate clarity here, would somebody please kick in a little assistance? These “peak oil” clowns have been giving me twitching thumbs for the last forty years, and I’m having vivid mental visions of blunt-force tracheostomies.

John M
January 14, 2013 4:40 pm

Intrigued student
It’s pretty clear that you can’t come up with a link to back up your original statement that

I have read from numerous reputable sources that 90% of climatologists have stated they believe that “climate change”, as is the correct term, is indeed largely generated by human activity, and will increase the frequency and severity for Extreme Weather Events.

Even if you try to fall back on “97% only further reinforces my point”, you still have to back up the “Extreme Weather Event” (is that trademarked now?) part of your claim.
Of course, anyone remotely familiar with the 97% claim would know it’s pretty bogus.
And as far as the Learning Curve? One would have to climb not one curve but a curve for each of the following:
1) economically generating hydrogen from a non-carbon source
2) economically storing the hydrogen
3 economically transporting the hydrogen
and oh by the way
4) devising a hydrogen fuel cell that’s economical and reliable. To Willis’ point, fuel cells have been around since 1839.
Perhaps a fuel cell that’s portable and can operate on natural gas would be a more realistic target.

an intrigued student
January 14, 2013 4:48 pm

Mr. Eschnbach,
I found the Article at this link: http://www.astronautix.com/articles/costhing.htm
I may have misinterpreted the article. I apologize if so. In any case I want to thank everyone for being patient with me. It is clear from some of the discussions taking place I still have a LOT to learn in this field. I will try to do so with an objective state of mind.
A Final question: As it was pointed out to me, 97% of scientists agree on this topic. Even if they are hugely mistaken, is it impractical to take precautions? If the frequency and severity of Extreme Weather Events do increase, I think it is safe to say that the poor will be hit the hardest.
I most certainly do not have the answer, but current options seem unacceptable, with the poor getting the short end in both cases.
Can alternatives be looked at?

January 14, 2013 5:02 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2013 at 2:52 pm
[To ‘intrigued student’] . . . First, if you want to be a better student, you desperately need to learn to document your claims. For example, you say that we “may or may not be aware of a phenomenon known as the Rand Learning Curve”. Since I wasn’t aware of it I went to Google … only to find that Google, like me, isn’t aware of a phenomenon known as the Rand Learning Curve either.

Perhaps Intrigued meant this,
http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P0267.html
which Bing found. It looks like something I might have typed on my well-worn Olivetti portable typewriter back c. 1970.
/Mr Lynn

January 14, 2013 5:51 pm

Thank you Willis. Your three stories tied together beautifully. I believe the vast majority of Americans living today have absolutely no idea how good they have it. We think poverty is a 5 year old car and last year’s flat screen TV. Not everyone has the means or the nerve to travel where you have and see what you describe, but everyone has access to a library (thank you Andrew Carnegie) and can read some history of what America and the rest of the developed world was like before industrialization.
Before we had mechanical power from fossil fuels to do our bidding, “work” meant physical labor, usually dirty and often dangerous. Life expectancy was much shorter and many died in infancy from infections easily treated today. Water was frequently not safe to drink and often had to be carried in buckets from a local fountain or well. Cholera epidemics were common in major cities in the Summer through the 19th century (Tchaikovsky’s death in 1893 in St. Petersburg is generally attributed to it). Until industrialization, the average citizen of Rome lived longer and better than his counterparts in Europe and America.
Today, I flick my finger and lights come on bright as I need and for as long as I want. I twist my wrist at any one of a dozen places inside my house and water flows — hot, cold or any temperature in between that I desire. Another flick of my wrist in the kitchen and I have heat to prepare meals, without having to gather wood or brush or animal dung.
Compared with other parts of the world Willis described or even our own society 200 years ago, this is not wealth; this is magic. We are surrounded by magic bequathed us by previous generations and instead of being grateful, we demonize it as “dirty”.
In addition to the obvious afflictions of poverty, the many of the today’s wretchedly poor live under governments which are incompetent, corrupt or frequently both. They neither provide the services and stability necessary for a modern technical society nor leave their people alone to provide what they can for themselves.

an intrigued student
January 14, 2013 6:19 pm

Mr. Eschenbach
I will be frank. I have no idea what sort of alternatives are out there. I was asking for a general third opinion from any of the thread’s
Followers
The two options that seem to be proposed by this Thread are:
Continue with fossil fuel usage until a less expensive alternative occurs. Risk chance of climate change
Raise oil prices in hopes of reducing Carbon emissions (and perhaps expedite renewables research?) while pressuring the poor with higher energy costs.
Neither seems satisfactory.
However, I have wondered if an energy type switch might require pretty expansive infrastructure changes. Wouldn’t it be better to start cycling in renewables into the grid to alleviate the shock of a transition from fossil fuels to renewables?

John Norris
January 14, 2013 8:35 pm

Excellent story Willis. As always, you have been very entertaining and very educational all in one post.
I find myself checking my own sense of appreciation of being born in the US and the advantages it provided me. In the past I got angry when the country took a political turn away from allowing the market to finds its way. Now I am just very disappointed. How can people not see that the market driven solution is the simplest solution, and therefore the most efficient?
In any case i’ll dispose of my disappointment and just appreciate all the freedom and wealth that low cost energy and other market driven results hath bestowed upon me. I’ll standby and hope that someday soon the rest of the country will catch on and my children and grand children can prosper as well.

Justa Joe
January 14, 2013 8:41 pm

Climate Ace says:
“For example, if I were writing a new constitution for the US, I would get rid of the states, thereby getting rid of a completely unnecessary and wasteful level of government. It would save trillions per decade”
—————————————
The same naïve know-it-all nonsense that you’re given to spout about AGW implicity being to blame for some local fire you now apply to the US government.
-You seem a tad uniformed about the origin of the US Constituion. It was created by the several states and not the other way around.
-The Federal and the state governments do not perform the same functions. They not supposed to constitutionally. They are not wholey redundant layers of government. -There are many issues of states’ rights and checks and balances on power that are involved. These concerns cannot just be brushed aside based based on your notion of efficiency.
-Even tiny (by population) Australia I’m sure has a Federal, (state, regional, or provisional) government and local governing bodies. This is basically how every country I’m familar with is organized. Why is that a bad thing when it comes to the USA?
Leave our State governments alone and look after your many cats.

January 14, 2013 9:49 pm

@Climate Ace: You wrote:
“Lento by name and lento by nature? I don’t ‘blame’ AGW for anything, in the same way as I don’t ‘blame’ lightning for starting bushfires.”
Then what did you mean when you wrote this?
“AGW will affect the poor and the least resilient far more than it will affect the wealthy. They will be able sail their yachts to the least-affected places plus they will, in any case, have more ocean around which to sail as sea-levels continue to rise.”
It’s apparent that you ramble, and don’t make sense. I think you just like the attention so at least you are smart enough to know how to write precisely the opposite of anything intelligent.

accordionsrule
January 14, 2013 11:41 pm

A solar panel on every roof and windmill on every hill. A nice feel-good diversity of energy sources, kind of like a farmer raising a few chickens in his yard. But chickens can’t pull a plow any more than a solar panel can push a train over the Cascades or a windmill can power a steel mill.
Do you think the farmer should shoot his oxen in order to give his chickens a level playing field? It’s premature to kill the heavy lifters: coal, oil, gas.
We need lots and lots of prosperity. Prosperity breeds leisure, leisure breeds intellectual pursuits. You do want those 20 billion budding Einsteins to have an education, don’t you?
Instead, we’re frittering away our resources on chicken-power. It’s almost like we don’t trust the next generation to invent anything better.
Don’t be mislead into thinking carbon-taxed, unaffordable oil and gas for the U.S. will mean more plentiful, cheaper energy for developing countries. In the words of the President’s energy advisor, Daniel Schrag, the goal is zero net CO2 emission, and nothing less will do.
That requires leaving the energy in the ground where it is, out of the hands of anyone, rich or poor.