China: general impressions

Economy

Whatever you've heard about the Chinese economy is probably true. Walking around the cities brings home the explosive growth--every block has a crane on it, and even in the "small" cities (it is hard to find a city in China with fewer than one million people) skyscrapers are shooting up like a heroin addict. In this picture, next door to mainland China's tallest building, an even bigger beast is arriving. The Shanghai city palnners' optimism for growth and the agressiveness with which they pursue it is on display in the Shanghai urban planning building. Exhibits there show Shanghai's five year plan to become an international air and shipping hub, and continue to expand their suburbs to become tourist, commercial, industrial, and technological centers. The museum also has a stunning slideshow of pictures taken in the same location in 2004 and ten years ago; many places in the city are completely unrecognizable after even 10 years.

A middle class is emerging due to this success, making their presence known at tourist sites where the majority of tourists are now Chinese domestic tourists as opposed to foreign tourists.

Shanghai and the other zones that opened up to economic freedom earliest are the leaders in China economic development. Buoyed by financial success, Chinese customs, fashion, and attitudes are transforming most rapidly in these zones and diffusing outward into smaller cities.

When I traveled to China three years ago, I was amused by a number of commonplace occurrences on Chinese streets. First, I used to see men crouching around for hours at a time with nothing to do except gather around any commotion, be it a police officer, an argument, a tourist, or a board game (see right). Second, many men, sometimes the same men, would roll their shirts up to expose their bellies in the hot weather. Next, I was used to being stared at as an oddity and hearing people say "lao wai" (foreigner) to each other as I passed. I saw motorcycles and bicycles loaded with many times as much cargo as I imagined they could bear, presumably because it was more economical than a car or truck. Only three years later, I saw much less of all of that, especially in more urban areas.

Luckily for the sinophiles who've learned to love these quirks, there are still recognizable moments on the everyday Chinese street: naked babies' bottoms, funny Chinglish signs, and busses stopping in the middle of the road to pick up any extra cargo they can carry, be it passengers, rice, or raw meat. This fuel efficient and hyper-capitalist ingenuity is one reason I think China is the most capitalist economy in the world--at least from a tourist's perspective. Or maybe it was decreed from on high, maybe Hu Jintao passed the No Passenger Left Behind Act without my knowing it. So what is the political situation in China?

Politics

It is almost taboo to talk politics in China, but I sometimes dared to broach a few topics with people who spoke English. I love bringing up the uncomfortable issues of the environment, democracy, and Taiwan to see how people react. Across the country, typical responses to any political questions are: "the government has our best interests in mind, they are doing the right thing." Or, "it is not my place to make that decision, so I don't think about it." Perhaps the government can keep people happy by delivering economic improvements and more material goods to storefronts to divert their attention from political matters. If I ever got more specific comments to my questions, the opinions haven't changed much at all since I asked the same questions three years ago. On the environment, the consensus is that the economy comes first, and the environment can be cleaned up later. On democracy, people generally agree that "China isn't ready for democracy yet. All the peasants won't know how to vote." And on Taiwan, it seems as if the younger generation is slightly less militant than the older generation, but everyone insists on the "One Country" label, and nobody seems to be against war to regain Taiwan.

Spurred by my reading of a fantastic biography of Mao, I also asked people's perceptions of Mao. By the way, I highly recommend the book. Very well researched and excellent writing make it a good lesson in history for those who weren't alive during Mao's time, and its behind-the-Iron Curtain look at Mao and Stalin's relationship gives a fascinating account of how geopolitics was handled by the world's worst tyrants. The book's only flaw is that it is too biased against Mao, but I can certainly see that 10 years spent researching Mao would leave one with enough spite for Mao to fill a book.

Fashion

Aside from several bizarre trends, fashion in China is progressing rapidly to rather Western, or even Japanese styles, such as mod. The older generations tend to wear rather drab, formal attire: men usually wear a buttoned short sleeve oxford shirt with slacks and black or brown shoes, but never a suit, even in the morning rush hour in Pudong, Shanghai's equivalent to Wall Street. Younger people are flashier, brighter, and more daring. Again, the trendiness is more pronounced in Shanghai.

I found the most bizarre trends to be:

1. Pantie hose are still very common; even more common are socks made of pantie hose material. These may be worn with shorts, a skirt, and open toed shoes. I don't even remember when they went out of style in the US, but they are sill definitely around in China. Even men may wear socks made of this nylon.

2. Shirts full of English words, even if the words are misspelled or don't make sense (see picture).

What I used to be listening to

'07 Summer picks:
Lady Genius
Sparklehorse

'07 Spring picks:
Volunteer Pioneer
My Morning Jacket
Seu Jorge
Wolf Parade

'06 Winter Picks:
The New Pornographers
Neutral Milk Hotel
The Mars Volta
The Magnetic Fields
Devotchka

Climate Change Primer

The Problem

At its essence, the climate change argument is simple and irrefutable: as humans burn fuels, we emit the products of the combustion reaction into the atmosphere. We learn in high school chemistry that a combustion reaction emits CO₂:

C_iH_jO_k + (−k/2 + i + j/4)O_2(g) → iCO_2(g) + j/2 H₂O_(g)


As we burn increasing amounts of fuel, we are making changes to our environment on an unprecedented level. Measurements of the level of atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) since 1000 AD are well known, an example is shown in the figure to the left. Since the industrial revolution, the levels of GHG in our atmosphere have been exponentially increasing along with our fuel consumption.

While it is clear that we are impacting our climate on an enormous scale, the consequences are not all known or universally accepted; the global warming debate is much more complicated than the climate change debate. Global mean temperature records in figure 2 show a striking correlation–increasing temperatures over the same period of increasing GHG concentrations, though including a dip in temperatures in the 1970’s due to global cooling from particulate emissions. The temperature increase of about 1°C over the last 100 years may not sound like much, but only about 8°C separates the hottest recorded years in history with the depths of the coldest ice ages.

Global temperatures fluctuate periodically, and the next figure shows that the correlation between GHG concentrations and temperatures holds remarkably well for the last 400,000 years. The figure also shows that the earth is now hotter than it has been for the last 100,000 years and near the hottest temperatures recorded on earth for the last 400,000 years. Current greenhouse gas concentrations are higher than ever recorded, with methane, a particularly important greenhouse gas,at more than twice its record high.

The climate models cannot explain the recorded temperatures without including the effects of human activity, as shown in the next figure.

Atmospheric concentrations of GHG are integrals of the amount we emit, which is projected to grow exponentially for the near future. Global temperatures take some time to adjust to atmospheric GHG levels, so even if all GHG emissions stopped today, the planet would continue to feel the effect of past emissions for the lifetime of the GHGs in the atmosphere, hundreds to thousands of years.
The vital questions are: 1) as we continue to emit GHGs, what are the effects to our climate? 2) How can we adapt to or mitigate the consequences of projected increasing GHG emissions?

Consequences

There are the known knowns, the known unknowns,and the unknown unknowns. Some consequences of GHG concentrations are known: gases in the atmosphere absorb energy radiated from the earth, trapping some heat in the earth. Warmer ocean surfaces result in more severe tropical storms. A warmer climate leads to expanding deserts but longer growing seasons. Melting glaciers raise global water levels. As glaciers melt, methane clathrates trapped in glacial ice are released into the atmosphere, further increasing GHG concentrations.
Some consequences of GHG concentrations are known to have an effect on the environment, but it is not known if the feedback loop is positive (reinforcing the trend of warming) or negative (pushing back, and cooling the climate). Examples include clouds: warming increases evaporation and thus cloudiness; it is not known whether clouds will increase temperatures by blocking in heat (water vapor is also a GHG) or decrease temperatures by increasing albedo.
The unintended and unknown consequences of climate change could potentially become the worst. Until several years ago, the major heat flows around the world were not understood, and the importance of the slowing of the vital Thermohaline Circulation was not understood. We now know that this ocean current keeps Northern Europe 20 °C warmer than other locations at the same latitude, and as a warming earth shuts down the THC, Northern Europe may quickly resemble Newfoundland. Before literally watching a glacial ice shelf melt in weeks in 2002, we didn't understand how quickly the ice could melt.
A prudent policy would take into consideration major threats due to climate change. What are the consequences of a Katrina every decade or every year? If global sea levels rise quickly, major population centers will be displaced and buildings will be lost.

Economical Solutions

Conservation can be effective and easy. For example, we could reduce the "vampire load" (so called because it sucks you dry at night) which comes from plugged in electrical devices on standby such as TVs and phone chargers and accounts for about 10% of the US electricity consumption. The US policy on auto emissions, which account for 25% of GHG emissions, is reprehensible, as even China is due to pass tougher standards by 2008. As shown in the next figure, increasing automobile power and weight have offset gains in engine efficiency to lower fuel efficiency of new cars sold in the US since 1980.

Market-based solutions such as cap-and-trade systems or taxes on negative externalities have solved similar problems. To deal with acid rain, a cap-and-trade system was implemented for SO_x and NO_x emissions at less than one quarter the projected cost.
Increased funding for research may lead to the much talked about "technological fix.'' Rather than lag behind, if the US takes the lead on global initiatives on GHG emissions, we can create incentives for R&D to solve major problems in the field, and US firms can become leaders in the industry. If we continue to elect leaders who not only drop the ball but kick it farther away, we will fall further behind in important future industries, just as US car makers fell behind Japanese firms as fuel efficiency became more of a factor in the last several years.

Livestock's Long Shadow

A recent report by the UN and a story in the NY Times raise some issues about food. As a triathlete, food is very important to me (eating is commonly known as "the fourth sport"). As an environmentalist, I now know to take it seriously because of the UN Report "Livestock's Long Shadow." The takeaway message from this report is that you can reduce your carbon footprint more by going vegetarian than by switching to a Prius.

The argument goes as follows: getting your calories from meat is much more energy intensive than getting the same number of calories from plants. Because animals need to breathe, move a little, chat, or whatever else they do to pass the time while they get fattened and prepare to meat their maker, they are inefficient converters of plants into protein. After you consider all the methane released in cow farts, the energy it takes to fatten a cow, move it to the slaughterhouse, cut out the bones and fat and skin, package the meat, and get it to the grocery store, you've released 10 times as many greenhouse gasses as if you'd just eaten the corn yourself and skipped the middle-pig.

The NY Times article doesn't touch energy issues, it addresses health. In notes the twin key trends over the last 30 years: 1) people have become increasingly health- and diet-conscious, leading to a proliferation of health foods and nutritional products and 2) people have become less healthy, more prone to diabetes, fatter, more oft-stricken by heart attacks. The recommendations made are essentially to eat less, eat unprocessed food (produce), and eat less meat.

If you aren't yet concerned about eating meet, check out the webiste www.goveg.com, which, while a little heavy-handed, may give you second-thoughts next time you buy a sausage.

Finally, I'd like to argue the 80% case: even meat lovers can stand to eat less meat. The average American diet includes far more protein than is necessary or healthy. So if going "whole hog" is too much to ask (it is for me), try to become an 80% vegetarian. Or any percent vegetarian. Every so often, try to order something without meat when you would have otherwise gotten meat.

How We Are Hungry

After a few blog posts, it is time to explain the name and theme of this blog. How We Are Hungry is a tribute to my favorite book by Dave Eggers. Though I don't think Eggers meant for the title to mean what I use it to stand for, perhaps he won't be offended at this tribute. This blog will be about our hunger, and the things we hunger for. It will be devoted to, in roughly equal parts, the things I am hungry for (triathlons, music, efficiency, food, cycling), and the things many others are hungry for (electricity, luxury, entropy).

As past readers may have discovered, this blog will be primarily concerned with energy: alternative energy, technology, and energy conservation and efficiency. It will address the climate change "debate". Such blogs can hopefully increase the awareness of the problems resulting from future climate change as well as some easy things we can all do to help in mitigation. I will highlight the degree of consensus among scientists that global warming: is happening, is caused by humans, and will harm us in the future. Such publicity is important as the public perceives there to be disagreement on this issue, and criterion for political action include

1. awareness
2. consensus: if the situation is complicated, voters need to at least believe that the experts agree
3. efficacy: a feeling that by acting, we can improve things

So, I hope to keep writing about these issues, and I hope you'll keep reading up on them. After all, it is hard to open a newspaper these days without seeing stories about energy. We clearly reached a tipping point in the last year, energy is no longer a fringe issue. Let's keep up the momentum.

Vampires that suck us dry at night

The "vampire load" on the grid consists of those little electronic devices we leave plugged in that glow and get slightly warm to the touch. DVD players, computers on standby, phone chargers, really anything with a transformer consumes energy even when turned off. Sometimes they use 75% as much power as when they are on! In Australia, these account for 10% of residential power use, according to a government survey. I'd guess it is a bigger share of commercial use, as printers, Xerox machines, lights, and computers are routinely left on every night.

To some energy wonks, this is a well known problem. There was some attention devoted to it during the blackouts in NY, including a NY Times article and an appleal by Mayor Bloomberg to conserve. There is a contest for copy machines that use the least amount of power when on standby. And one fantastic suggestion by another blogger is that Microsoft set all its machines to default to the highest energy saving mode, thereby saving the an estimated 45 million tons of CO₂ emissions per year. But for most of us, this problem is not high on our priority list.

Since energy efficiency and conservation should be a high priority, what are some steps we can all take? Here are a few cloves of garlic to keep the vampires away:

• Set your computers to power saving modes that turn off the display and harddrives after some idle period
• Turn off lights and devices when not in use. Weren't we all taught this as kids?
• When possible, unplug things when not in use. Phone chargers, IPod docks, and laptop power adapters don't suffer when they are unplugged

Bikers: friend or foe?

A friend recently sparked a debate on cycling as a form of transportation. The superficial notion that biking is always better for the environment is not necessarily correct, according to a recent study done by a business school prof. The situation turns out to be more nuanced when you consider that by cycling, people will become healthier, live longer, and therefore use more energy and emit more greenhouse gases. He concludes that the longer lived but more efficient people will end up polluting about as much as the car drivers, give or take.

There was much subsequent debate on whether he did the study correctly, etc. Even if we assume he was correct, the choice becomes: bike and live longer or drive and die young. I think the answer is obvious.

Another interesting conclusion is that the worst people, in terms of pollution, are those who exercise but don't cycle. They will drive, thereby polluting, and live longer, thus polluting more.

While I'm at it, I'd like to share a real-world biker vs. driver confrontation. I was on one of my favorite rides, involving climbing, descending, rolling hills, forests, lakes, fellow cyclists and the usually very polite drivers. On a technical descent with no shoulder, a driver started tailgating me, honking several times. We were going about 40 in a zone marked with "caution 25mph" signs, and I was busy trying not to die, so I didn't pay too much attention to the impatient driver behind me. Usual protocol is to wait for a safer place to pull to the side and let the driver past. This lady didn't give me time to do that and practically brushed me as she ripped past my in a steep curve with cars coming up the other side. As she did so, she gave a blast of the horn that nearly scared me off the side of the cliff. My cycling friends will not be surprised to hear that she was driving a SUV--experienced cyclists are well aware of the correlation between car size and jerk-to-cyclist. At the end of the descent, I caught up to her at a stop light, pulled next to her, and motioned for her to roll down the window. Most drivers in this case ignore me, so I have to decide between doing something violent to their car, yelling, and fuming silently. Luckily, she obliged me and rolled down her window.

"Do you realize you almost killed me, and didn't save any time? What were you doing on a Saturday that you'd risk manslaughter to try to save a minute or two?"
"You didn't pull over to the shoulder."
"There wasn't a shoulder. It's just like going uphill behind a truck--you just have to go slower until I can pull over."
"But you didn't pull over to the side."
"Haven't you ever heard the phrase 'share the road'? That's because roads are built for bikes and cars."
"Well, not bikes."

The light turned and she drove off, undoubtedly thinking she was right all along.

CA Voters Say, "Tax Grandma, not Exxon"

Overlooked due to the Democrats’ victories on the national level, the votes on CA state propositions provided two victories for Big Business: No for renewable energy and No on a cigarette tax. Oil companies spent around $100 million fighting against Proposition 87 to avoid paying a tax for extracting oil in California. The proposed 1.5% to 6% tax would have brought California in line with other states and raised between $200 and $500 million annually to be spent on alternative energy research.

Big Tobacco splashed out $55 million on the fight against Prop. 86, which would have taxed cigarettes to fund hospitals, tobacco-use-prevention programs, and cancer research. It appears the days are over when major tobacco companies were hauled to Washington DC and made to pay $200 billion.

While voters declined taxes of $4 billion over the next 10-20 years on oil companies that earned $286 billion last year and are set for another record year, they passed Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E, that will cost taxpayers an estimated $74 billion.

These results are a boon to the Economics professors, who have been provided with a textbook example of revealed preferences to use in classes this year. Despite all the talk of climate change, including Britain’s headline-grabbing Stern Report on climate change and Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, even relatively progressive Californians aren’t prepared to put their money where their mouths are: guzzling gasoline at the pump.