Power, Politics, Energy & Editorials

As we head into Memorial Day, I’m choosing to share a few selections from a flurry of fascinating media this week. The topics: power, politics, energy and editorials.



First, in a recent article, science writer Ivan Amato covered science comedian Brian Malow. Some nerd jokes: “a superconductor goes into and some helium gas drifts into a bar. The bartender says: ‘we don’t serve noble gases here’. The helium doesn't react. And the superconductor leaves the bar, putting up no resistance.” Bahdumpbum. Marlow is also quoted on his love life saying, “I find myself drawn to her, with a force that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between us” and “Women have passed through my life like exotic particles through a cloud chamber, leaving only vapor trails for me to study clues to their nature.”



Next, in what I thought was a terrible joke, but proved true—(see YouTube as I can’t convey in words that which will pass your spam filter)—former chess champ Gary Kasparov became a ‘pawn star’. While giving a speech last week in Moscow, let’s just say the substance of his speech was trumped by a memorable interruption. As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message—and the message was a brilliant move from his opponents (Putin & Co) who trivialized any possibly newsworthy remarks in Kasparov’s content and made certain the headlines were instead remarkable and absurd. Quite clever.



Thirdly, the WSJ attacks on Vinod Khosla have sparked a noteworthy debate. They mocked his advocacy of ethanol and biofuels and new technologies to produce them. Khosla took the defensive arguing that cellulosic or other advanced biofuels are the way to go, that UN officials are misinformed and that drought, not biofuel, is to blame for high food prices and resulting food riots. It’s sure to get heated as the worthwhile debate unfolds.



And finally also in the WSJ was Bjorn Lomberg’s op-ed. Consider what I wrote over seven months ago: “Histrionics and the awarding of (now two) shiny trophies have shown how media and emotion can galvanize a nation and a globe—yet my cynicism and my reason contend we’re rallying ‘round miscalculated priorities. For straight talk and the Gore-y details, seek out Bjorn Lomborg and his Copenhagen Consensus. But alas reason is so seductive and I’m a hopeless romantic to think we might stop and think. One activist group is calling for 70% reduction in carbon emissions. Am I so cold and callous to stack rank the probabilities, costs and expected outcomes and prefer a 70% reduction in cancer, heart disease, malaria, Alzheimer’s, traffic deaths, suicides, HIV/AIDS?”



Now before we get to Lomborg’s WSJ op-ed, consider this: If you had $1 would you prefer over the next year getting a 25x return or 90 cents on your invested dollar. The answer is clear, but faced with different situations we fall victim to pernicious mental accounting. We silo our situations. Further consider: you might go shopping in a store when a flat screen TV is on sale and the price is lower. Most people buy when things get cheaper. But in the stock market, a different situation silo, most people sell when things get cheaper! Why? You panic. You look at others. When you don't know what to do, you assume they do. As Abigail Adams recounted (roughly) to John Adams, “When men know not what to do, they ought not to do what they know-not.”



So, here’s the point: why should we silo our use of reasoned judgment when it comes to public policy? The government is your ultimate limited partner, spending its cut of your money on your behalf. Shouldn’t reason prevail?

Lomborg’s op-ed, “How to Think About the World’s Problems” notes: “The pain caused by the global food crisis has led many people to belatedly realize that we have prioritized growing crops to feed cars instead of people. That is only a small part of the real problem. This crisis demonstrates what happens when we focus doggedly on one specific – and inefficient – solution to one particular global challenge. A reduction in carbon emissions has become an end in itself. The fortune spent on this exercise could achieve an astounding amount of good in areas that we hear a lot less about.”

He goes on suggesting better more rational prioritization: “…$60 million spent on providing Vitamin A capsules and therapeutic Zinc supplements for under-2-year-olds would reach 80% of the infants in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, with annual economic benefits (from lower mortality and improved health) of more than $1 billion. …doing $17 worth of good for each dollar spent. Spending $1 billion on tuberculosis would avert an astonishing one million deaths, with annual benefits adding up to $30 billion. This gives $30 back on the dollar.

Lomborg shows that heart disease accounts for over 25% of the death toll in poor countries, while the developed world treats heart attacks with cheap drugs. His prescription: spend $200 million getting cheap drugs to poor countries to prevent 300,000 deaths. $1 yields $25 worth of good.

Lomborg lambasts “Operation Enduring Freedom, which Copenhagen Consensus research found in the two years after 2001 returned 9 cents for each dollar spent. Or with the 90 cents Copenhagen Consensus research shows is returned for every $1 spent on carbon mitigation policies.…Acknowledging that some investments shouldn't be our top priority isn't the same as saying that the challenges don't exist. It simply means working out how to do the most good with our limited resources.”

Amen.