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.]

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 19 votes
Article Rating
454 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Braqueish
January 15, 2013 4:36 am

At last! As someone with a leftish world view it gets tiresome to endlessly read commentary on climate where the only sense seems to come from conservatives. A sensible critique of the failure of modern environmental “left” is how reactionary it is. Fundamentally it confuses “anti-capitalism” with anti-industrialism. Karl Marx himself mourned the breakdown of complex mediaeval social relations and their replacement with “callous cash payment” as the sole mediator. But he wasn’t against industrialisation — quite the opposite.
There can be no mistake that the mobilisation of unprecedented productive forces is an immense force for good. Look at China. It has undergone an industrial revolution which pulled nearly a billion people out of rural squalour with frequent famines and built a modern industrial society. Chinese workers are treated horribly, but like their predecessors — the Japanese during the 1960’s and the S. Koreans in the 1980s — they are now organised and will build trades unions to drive up their conditions and win democracy. All done with political will and cheap energy.
Next, Africa.
For all their hand-wringing and films of dying children, the NGOs with their “sustainable development” have driven a stake through a similar aspirations — prolonging the cycle of deprivation and death. Even corrupt kleptocratic dictators can see the problem and are increasingly looking to China rather than the West.
People who are completely consumed by where the next meal for their children is coming from and how to keep warm and dry have no interest in “environmental concerns”. That’s why poverty is so devastating to the environment (viz Haiti). Being “green” is a luxury relatively rich people can indulge. And they do, of course. Because when you are free from want and disease, you also start to become concerned with your neighbourhood, your political standing and your leisure. The great stench of 1860s Chicago, New York and London was cleaned up at great expense with sewage works and clean water supplies under popular pressure and because the frequent outbreaks of typhoid and diphtheria were “bad for business”.
Modern “environmentalism” has its roots in the generation who read Tolkien as teenagers and mythologised native Americans. It’s a weird mixture of “Touch the Earth” animism and a yearning for the return of a fantasy “Merrie England” populated by a simple yeomanry who till the earth and live in villages. Add in a toxic hatred of Saruman-like industrialists and eternal guilt-tripping and you come up with a movement which finds 90% of human beings surplus to requirements.
That thousands of old people should die every year from cold and hunger in the richest nations on Earth is scandal enough. That these plump campaigners should fly off to conferences in order to develop schemes that make fuel more expensive is outrageous.

Reply to  Braqueish
January 15, 2013 5:26 am

At 4:36 AM on 15 January, Braqueish had observed:

Modern “environmentalism” has its roots in the generation who read Tolkien as teenagers and mythologised native Americans. It’s a weird mixture of “Touch the Earth” animism and a yearning for the return of a fantasy “Merrie England” populated by a simple yeomanry who till the earth and live in villages. Add in a toxic hatred of Saruman-like industrialists and eternal guilt-tripping and you come up with a movement which finds 90% of human beings surplus to requirements.

Ah, so I’m not the only one who has for decades despised that shell-shocked Luddite philologist and his precious putzelry about hobbits and elves and socioeconomic stagnation as the ideal condition of sapient life.
A fantasy chronology of literally thousands of years’ worth of Middle Earth “history,” but military technology doesn’t even get to the level of the Romans’ manipular legion (much less firearms), and there is complete and gormless ignorance regarding Murphy’s Laws of Combat Operations, emphasis (at Helm’s Deep) on:


Make it too tough for the enemy to get in, and you won’t be able to get out.

Anthony
January 15, 2013 5:52 am

The global warming scam, and hence the “need” to increase energy costs, has its roots in population control, particularly, population in the undeveloped countries like Africa. The early founders of this scam and the radical environmental movement that acts as one of its promoter along with Hypocrite of the World, Al Gore, included the likes of Margaret Mead, Paul Erlich, Prince Phillip of Great Britain, Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, and Thomas Huxley of Great Bitain. They viewed the populations of undeveloped countries as unworthy of life. Most came out of the Eugenics movement of the 1940s.. On top of population control the scam has added re-distribution of wealth as one of its primary goals, “Global Warming” simply being a smoke screen for their true intentions. The wealth will not be used to raise the standards of undeveloped countries but to keep them from being industrialized and developed by forcing them to use solar and wind power for energy. Try running a steel mill or manufacturing plant with that.

January 15, 2013 7:30 am

You know how the EPA requires an “environmental impact statement” whenever someone does anything that might affect the “environment” even slightly? How about an Economic Impact Statement for any new regulation, prohibition, tax, etc? Reductions in standards of living shorten lives. We know that the lower the standard of living in a given country, the shorter the life span. We should require a reckoning of how many lives will be lost and shortened by schemes that will impoverish us.

rgbatduke
January 15, 2013 8:08 am

Beer is still nasty. 😉
Well, when it is the corn-sugar-based fermented swill that passes for beer when mass-produced by companies whose only goal is to provide the ignorant with a cheap way to catch a buzz, it is pretty nasty, I agree. I made the mistake of getting a twelve pack of Budweiser’s “experimental” brews this Christmas, for example, and I honestly don’t understand how they could even imagine that it would pass as a craft brew — sickly sweet, underhopped, wrongly hopped, just awful.
On the other hand, beer and ale made strictly from barley, water, yeast and hops, naturally carbonated in the bottle and made to the precise specifications of mixed sweetness, bitterness, and aroma that you personally prefer — that isn’t nasty at all. It is, in fact, actively healthful when consumed in moderation.
rgb

rgbatduke
January 15, 2013 8:26 am

Which is why the best plan is to do nothing and trust in the market. When we went from wood to coal, and then later from coal to oil, nobody was putting in the infrastructure beforehand. It’s almost a parody of putting the cart before the horse … we’ll do just fine, as soon as it makes economic sense to use some new fuel, we’ll figure out how to do it at minimum cost.
A plan I heartily endorse, although “do nothing” does not include research (as you noted elsewhere, Willis). We need do nothing but continue to invest in research that will very likely produce a commercially viable alternative energy resource (where a number of possibilities exist, some of them long shots, some of them nearly sure things given time). I also think that it is perfectly reasonable for us to establish regulations concerning actual pollutants (e.g. particulate soot, partially burned fuels, heavy metals, aromatics) produced by automobiles, power plants, and other places where we engage in heavy duty chemistry, as there is ample historical evidence that in the absence of such regulation companies will all too often seek short term profits at the expense of long term fouling of our own nest. At one point in time, that was the primary function of the EPA and I heartily endorse it.
In the meantime, treating CO_2 itself as a pollutant is absurd. Even in the case of actual pollutants, there is a cost-benefit/risk equation to be considered — cars are dangerous and dirty but their benefits outweigh their integrated costs and risks, to most of us. In the case of CO_2 the benefits are having civilization at all, and there are few risks or projected costs that would be greater than giving up civilization or even risking economic collapse because of an absurd diversion of resources into ameliorating CO_2 at all costs now, before there are any visible costs associated with it.
Finally, I will believe that the political administrations of the world really believe what they claim about the risks of CO_2 the day that I see them begin to push nuclear power, as fast and hard as they can. Solar will eventually (IMO) be cost-beneficial in at least some venues and hence will happen without subsidy or encouragement (it is very close now, in some venues, although it arguably only makes the cut because of artificial inflation of the costs of conventional carbon based power). Wind has yet to break even anywhere, AFAIK, and seems somewhat unlikely to ever make the cut as an unreliable and intermittent resource, at least without storage. But nuclear is cost-effective today, now, and produces no CO_2 at all.
rgb

john robertson
January 15, 2013 8:43 am

Anthony, I think you’re on the money.
Tucci78, why blame a story teller?No one is forced to read Tolkien’s works.
I blame Tiny Tim.:)
The law of unintended consequences has struck again.the anti-human movement has become too successful.The originators of this scam are now under threat.
The deliberate destruction and growing impoverization of the under developed countries, with the enrichment, thro corrupt practices, of the self proclaimed planet saviours is now blatant.
Rule of law has been warped beyond recognition, our civilization teeters above the abyss.
The cost of civilization, is the wealth we pay to support a group of actors, to maintain the illusions that make it possible.
The primary illusion is rule of law. Without our faith, that all are equal before the law, production falls off, civilization shrinks. Why would I produce and create, only to have my works stolen by force? Better to hoard what I have and can protect.
The political bureaucracy exists to maintain the illusions that bind us together, these illusions allow us to cooperate and trust we will survive and have opportunity to prosper.
These are actors, who live off of the largess of productive people.
We feed them as the illusion they maintain is has value.
But our” betters” have forgotten the cost and no longer even pretend that rule of law applies to all.
They have become as rapacious as the wolves they were supposed to help protect us from.
And no-longer make any pretence of performing the roles, that we pay them to perform.
Deceit is now normal govt operation and politicians are famous for their dishonesty.
Bad actors, all round and they cost us more than civilization is worth.
Today our governments consume more wealth from the productive, than not having a civil society would cost production.
My time is now better spent protecting myself from these actors and the collapse of law and order that they are orchestrating.
The basic error of those who seek to rule over us, is their conceit that they are necessary to us.

HankHenry
January 15, 2013 9:31 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2013 at 4:27 pm
And “horticulturalists” is somewhat generous. While some had regular gardens, many of these early Asian immigrants merely encouraged the wild growth of their favorite foods. It was only in the southeast that anything resembling what McNeill would call an agricultural economy existed.
First: I apologize for picking up on a topic that is off the main article, but…
“Horticulturalists” may not be the precise word to use, but the Native American contribution to agriculture shouldn’t be demeaned. The new world’s corn, via animal feed, is what feeds us, and as Lyman Carrier puts it in his work, “Agriculture in Virginia, 1607-1699” “As plant breeders, the American Indians rank with the most skillful of the world. Take for instance, maize or Indian corn. There is nothing closely comparable to it known to botanists. It has been domesticated so long that its wild prototype is unknown [no longer true]… The Indians had all the varieties that are now known, such as dent, flint, sweet, early, late, pop, and other special sorts which are no longer grown. They had developed varieties that matured all the way from the tropics to the St. Lawrence River in Canada.”
I recommend this short, very readable, work to the dilettantes among us. It was written in 1957 for the 350th anniversary of the settlement of Jamestown and is freely available from Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28730/28730-h/28730-h.htm
Lyman Carrier also credits Native Americans with introducing Europeans to “set” or “hill” planting rather than sowing. Also from the work, “The same hills were used year after year and became in time quite sizable mounds, remains of which have persisted, in some localities, until modern times. In the southwestern parts of Michigan, the early settlers found large tracts of ridged land, evidently relics of Indian agriculture. It is now thought that these areas were corn fields in which the seeding was made in continuous rows instead of hills. A French artist in Florida in 1564 pictured the Indians seeding their crops in rows.”
I always enjoy Willis’s articles. The always seem to stimulate the longest discussion threads.

January 15, 2013 9:42 am

@Willis,

to keep the market free, you have to have regulations and regulators. You need to regulate the market to keep it free of coercion, from guns or anything else.

Regulations which Clinton ditched, Bush added to by reducing the regulators and FBI white collar crime agents (they went to the WarOnTerrah), and then that perp, Timothy Geithner, put into rocket mode. We have a fiat currency, whether you like it not. We don’t have a gold standard currency (thank god). We have had a completely sovereign non-convertible currency since 1971, and no one understands how it works (because Watergate happened ten months later and the press fell down on the job of explaining the meaning of it). Congress appropriates what the currency should be spent on. The government then ISSUES it, and regulators are supposed to be in place to make sure that fast characters don’t abscond with it. Which we discovered they did in Sept. 2008, in spades.

January 15, 2013 10:01 am

an intrigued student says:
January 14, 2013 at 6:19 pm

Look what wind turbines do, information you are NOT getting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-tru…ns-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html
and then this (be careful you don’t put your mouse over the ads on the right):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2071633/UK-weather-Wind-turbine-EXPLODES-hurricane-force-gusts-batter-Northern-Britain.html#comments

Johnlet
January 15, 2013 10:26 am

There is a compromise. Local energy sources for local areas (wind, water) can sustain poor areas without using up fossil fuels. The tradeoff utilitarians and eugenicists like President Obama use is “we have to save the world and make it better for us, and that means they have to suffer so we can succeed; who ‘they’ are are the disabled, the poor, the indigent; we must enact policies to make them suffer, in essence to get rid of them.”
Yes, we have enough food for all, we waste 50%. We have enough water. We have enough energy. But utilitarians like Obama and Peter Singer want “certain people” to be removed from the equation. Abortion, birth control, restricting water, energy restrictions. Comforting to the ricj and well off. Talk about rights, personal use. Don’t ever make responsibility the key. Yes, people have to reproduce more judiciously, use energy, food the same way. pollute less. Locally grown food, locally produced energy, that’s the key.
But when you are a eugenicist, as many of you are, population reduction is the panacea. Ever wonder why autism is still rising? Ever wonder why incurable STD’s are rising? Think eugenics policies are behind it? The former maybe, the latter obviously.
So reduce the world population by positive (responsible actions, good health care/jobs) and negative (war, abortion, euthenasia of people you don’t like) means. Leave the world to the eugenicists, who will quickly see all that’s left are people infested with STD’s and other disorders at magnitudes unheard of even now. Or we could push local energy, local food, responsibility, and manage without all the polution, drugs, suffering, and murder utilitarians demand.

John Ratcliffe
January 15, 2013 12:11 pm

For several years, my wife and I lived in rural Spain in a house that when built over a period of probably several decades cost only a couple of bags of lime and some nails, and time. It was built of stones that were collected off the land, which improved the land. They were held together by mud made from the local soil which has a high clay and gypsum content. Once dry, a coating of lime wash kept the weather out and the walls intact. Branches from olive or almond trees provided lintels over doorways and small windows. Timber for supporting the roof coming from eucalyptus trees growing alongside the river at the bottom of the valley. These trees were for the benefit of the local people and could be taken as needed, all the local people would help with felling, splitting and moving the timber. Once in place the timbers were overlaid with split bamboo, then a layer of mud, and homemade pantiles.
This house started as a single room sometime, we think, around 1880, and was added to as need dictated. Built on the side of a hill, with an undercroft to house pigs and a couple of mules, as well as a warehouse section to store hay for the mules, and the olives and almonds until they could be collected for sale. When we bought the place, it had a total floor area of about 180 square metres, the undercroft accounting for about a third of that in four rooms. The living part of the house was six rooms, and we added two new rooms, a modern bathroom and a modern kitchen. For all that the locals considered the house to be ‘poor’, most of them having built modern brick built houses, in summer our house, with its 600cm thick walls was cool, whereas the neighbors found the need for air conditioning. We found that house to be quite easy to live in, but it taught us a good lesson as to the real meaning of poverty and where prosperity really lies. Most of us in a position of prosperity, if a job needs doing have a choice of ‘do it yourself’ or ‘pay to have it done’. The worlds real poor don’t have that choice. Where it really impacts on them is when that job can’t be put off and takes them away from winning food or fuel, because that time lost can not be regained.
Willis, you teach a powerful lesson in your post. The best we can do is try and reinforce it, and try to get those who think they know how best to try to control our resources by falsely making essentials too expensive, to acknowledge what they are really doing.
Thanks Willis.
Johnr

davidgmills
January 15, 2013 1:12 pm

To Willis and the Moderator:
Apparently I failed to re-cite the video on thorium when I was responding upthread to Willis’ complaint that he thinks videos for the most part are a waste of time. So for those who might want the cite again, here it is:

Willis please give it a few minutes of your time. Thorium has the promise to be a truly revolutionary energy source with the ability to solve most of the poverty in the world that is caused from a lack of cheap energy. Ken Sorenson, the NASA engineer featured in this video, can really teach well. Sometimes watching a great teacher just has to be seen.

January 15, 2013 1:20 pm

Willis Eschenbach says:
January 14, 2013 at 5:28 pm
an intrigued student says:
January 14, 2013 at 4:48 pm
(Student) 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.
(Willis)A man who knows that he has to learn is more than halfway there.
====================
Me: Someone once told me that it’s what you learn after you think you know it all that matters.

January 15, 2013 3:34 pm

At 8:43 AM on 15 January, regarding my contempt for J.R.R. Tolkien hatred of historicity (not to mention technology) as a writer of speculative – albeit fantasy – fiction, john robertson seagulls:

Tucci78, why blame a story teller?No one is forced to read Tolkien’s works.

Nobody is forced to read Keynes’ The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936), either, and yet look at how much damage that invidious bilge has done.
Crappy self-indulgent fantasy that’s influential is far more invidious than crappy sword-‘n-sorcery bumfodder that goes off to die in second-hand bookstores, and the authors who cobbled it up are responsible for both such kinds of crap.

Gail Combs
January 15, 2013 4:23 pm

_Jim says:
January 14, 2013 at 6:29 am
Sorry mods – a re-post if I may (formatting muff in just-previous post!) TIA _Jim
Gail Combs says January 14, 2013 at 5:44 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So let me be a bit more blunt.
If you piss the hell out of too many people for too long they are libel to do a lot more than just beat the crap out of one of your reps. The French Aristocracy got a first hand introduction to madame Guillotine by pissing off the peasants . And Porfirio Díaz got a revolution.
Also Monsanto had other seed fail besides the cotton. (actually the farmers in India were royally pissed because the cotton did not live up to the sales pitch.

Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa
South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds.The plants look lush and healthy from the outside. Monsanto has offered compensation…

Actually the farmers in India were royally pissed because the cotton did not live up to the sales pitch from Monsanto.
The government of Maharashtra, a state in western India, has acknowledged for the first time that Bt cotton is a failure that will likely reduce yields by 40%, from 3.5 to 2.2 million quintal. The region’s cotton farmers will face about Rs6,000 crore, over 1 billion USD. Accumulated losses are to be even more staggering: Rs 20,000 crore, or about 3.6 billion USD, due to rising cultivation costs.
But then you always find fault with what I write but never ever post YOUR links showing a rebuttal do you?
BTW how is the pay as a troll?

January 15, 2013 5:47 pm

@Davidgmills: Regarding the video:
Fusion is not a practical application now because there is no need for it. Fissionables are readily available in virtually any amount needed. Fossil fuels are cheap and also widely available. Despite growing world demand, the price of natural gas has been shrinking in many energy markets, particularly North America.
So fusion remains purely in technology development. And it’s going to stay there as long as the fuel sources for other forms of generation remain so readily available at such low cost. But it would be a great error to jump from current circumstances to future conditions. The future is NEVER as we imagine it to be.
I don’t want to fund things when there is no need.

January 15, 2013 6:18 pm

Good stuff Willis – thanks.

Steve Vandorne
January 17, 2013 2:09 am

@davidgmills very good video for the first 5 minutes then it slows down to a snails pace. Thank you

Brian H
January 17, 2013 6:30 pm

Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2013 at 5:47 pm
@Davidgmills: Regarding the video:
Fusion is not a practical application now because there is no need for it. Fissionables are readily available in virtually any amount needed. Fossil fuels are cheap and also widely available. Despite growing world demand, the price of natural gas has been shrinking in many energy markets, particularly North America.
So fusion remains purely in technology development. And it’s going to stay there as long as the fuel sources for other forms of generation remain so readily available at such low cost. But it would be a great error to jump from current circumstances to future conditions. The future is NEVER as we imagine it to be.
I don’t want to fund things when there is no need.

No need? With power priced at around or over $¼/kWh in parts of the US and Europe, and more in various developing countries?
How about small 5MW (hot) fusion generators, waste free, at capital and production costs just over 1% of that? Dispatchable, 24/7 365? Ballpark $55 million to bring to market (mfr licenses to all comers world-wide) within 5 yrs? It would produce a wealth-explosion that would put the Industrial Revolution to shame.
Putting out the best research results (nearness to break-even) in the world. Privately funded, open reporting, the whole works. LPPhysics.com — tucked away in NJ, USA. Check it out.

Cathy
January 17, 2013 10:37 pm

Well done Willis, keep up the good work!

January 18, 2013 10:52 am

when I was 19 i was in the villages of Viet Nam…My web gear was worth more than most of them had…colored my thinking about what I was grateful for in this country forever..that is why I am appalled by the cavalier way Obama and other elitists want to make changes that directly hurt the poor

January 18, 2013 12:06 pm

H says:
January 17, 2013 at 6:30 pm
No need? With power priced at around or over $¼/kWh in parts of the US and Europe, and more in various developing countries?
+++++++++++++++
I get your point about the high prices due to EPA and Green initiatives. However, we have 0.04/kWh now with nuclear fission. Let’s see how China does with it. If it works, there will be less risk and some people can invest in it.