Chocolate Slaves

Much like the African diamond trade that has received a great deal of attention in recent years, there is yet another natural resource trade in parts of Africa that is chiefly consumed in the West, but is having devastating effects on the lives of normal Africans: chocolate cultivation in parts of West Africa.

By some estimates, 50% of the world's cocoa beans come from Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire. This cocoa is shipped abroad to a central location, mixed together with cocoa beans from around the world and then sold and turned into chocolate. This is common knowledge and should not come as a surprise to anyone. However, what is not commonly known, but is very well documented by the cocoa industry is that given the very low world prices for cocoa, many plantations in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire find it necessary to use child slave labor to plant and harvest their crops. Which is often the case with forced child labor, the children are either sold to the plantation owners by poor families or simply kidnapped. These children work very long hours and receive little or no education or training outside of cocoa cultivation. Given the fact that cocoa beans are aggregated and then sent out for processing, there is no way to know whether the conventional chocolate bar you're eating came at least in part from beans harvested by workers in Latin America or child slavery in West Africa.

There have been some notable efforts on the part of the US Government to fight this problem, but progress has been painfully slow and, of course, the cocoa industry has been dragging its feet. US Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and US Rep Eliot Engel (D-NY) sponsored the Harkin-Engel Protocol of 2001, which calls for voluntary industry-side standards with respect to child labor by July 2005, was signed by both the Chocolate Manufacturers Association (CMA) and the World Cocoa Foundation (WCF), but over two years after the deadline, the standards still have yet to be implemented. Furthermore, Tulane University's Payson Center for International Development was tapped by US Secretary of Labor Elaine Choa to spearhead a project to oversee efforts to eliminate the worst forms of child labor in the West African cocoa industry.

Fortunately, despite widespread knowledge of this issue among your ordinary chocolate consumers, some progress is being made. However, there is still a lot more that needs to be done. I think that the most important and practical thing that we all can do would be to raise awareness of the issue. Most people just don't know. I personally only found out recently when I was having lunch with a group of high school students over the summer as part of my internship and one of the students brought it up. The more people that know about this, the more it becomes a public relations issue for the chocolate industry and the more likely they are to take steps to fix the problem.

Another practical step that we all can take is to only buy Fair Trade chocolate. It's the only way that you can be reasonably sure that the chocolate was harvested on farms and plantations that do not utilize slave labor. It's a little more expensive and often not as good, but it gets the job done and it gives you that wonderful feeling of moral superiority over all those consuming traditionally manufactured chocolates.

For more information:
Tulane University Public Health
Harkin-Engel Protocol
World Cocoa Foundation
Chocolate Manufacturers Association

The Axis of Evil Right in Our Own Backyard

Several heads of state will be in town for the UN General Assembly meeting this week and next. As is the custom every year, my university invites world leaders to come speak on campus while they're passing through New York. This year, among others, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president of Iran, has confirmed that he will speak and remain for a Q&A session. And guess who just scored a ticket?!

That's right, I'll be there soaking in all of the magic. This guy's a f-ing lunatic. It's going to be awesome!

I wonder whether he'll report on the event in his blog.

War: What is it Good For?

As I lay in bed last night in my stuffy Harlem apartment with the screenless bedroom window set ajar, I began to hear the unmistakable buzzing of a mosquito in my ear. Once the mosquito met a violent and undoubtedly premature death, I returned to bed and began to consider the role of the Mosquito writ large in the grand scheme of things. You know: circle of life, food chain type stuff. While I’m sure that they serve some positive purpose on the planet, I couldn’t think of one. All of I could think of was the spread of malaria, disease and general annoyance around the world. Then I began to think that perhaps the spread of disease was its positive contribution to the planet after all. Given that man has no natural predator, maybe the general spread of disease was designed to thin our numbers and keep nature in balance. Maybe disease does play a significant role in that regard, but it has to be more than that. Lots of people die from mosquito-born diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, but I can’t imagine that enough people die from such diseases to make a significant dent in our booming population.

That’s were man comes in.

There are over 6 billion humans on earth, and I read just yesterday that demographers project a human population of 12 billion by 2050. I think that 6 billion is probably already too many. I can’t imagine the stress that a population twice that size will place on the Earth. As we have seen time and time again in nature, a species in an environment with no natural predator tends to reproduce without impediment. But perhaps we do in fact have a natural predator that no one really considers.

Ourselves.

From the beginning, human history has been riddled with violence. So much so, that the study of history is often tracked by the occurrences of war. War is the primary focus and everything else simply goes to explain what happened after the last war and what lead up to the next one. It is not uncommon for hundreds of thousands of people to be killed over the course of a single war. I can’t think of anything else that even comes close to claiming as many lives over a comparably short period of time. Small fish eat plankton, big fish eat smaller fish, bears eat big fish, and then humans make coats and rugs out of bears. We’re at the top of the food chain. Aside from the occasional shark attack, dog mauling or unfortunate encounter with a cannibal, humans don’t get eaten by anything else, but that doesn’t mean that we ourselves aren’t preyed upon. We’re the product of our own ambition, greed and pride. We wage war for the accumulation of wealth and power, and one could argue that as a result, we provide a valuable service to nature. By taking on the responsibility of reducing our numbers, we have managed to maintain a rough balance with other populations on earth.

Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, war is actually good for something.

China is the most populated nation on Earth with over 1.3 billion people. In addition to that, the young adult Chinese population is disproportionately male, as an unfortunate result of a generation of its One Child policy. Given the abundance of young Chinese men and the dearth of young Chinese women for them to marry, some predict that a grand war instigated by China is inevitable. They point to examples and history and argue that the only way to either acquire enough marriage-aged women or significantly reduce the number of sexually frustrated Chinese men would be for the Chinese to wage a war of expansion. If they win, they’ll kill the men and take the women of the territory that they have occupied. If they lose, however, a significant number of young Chinese men will have been killed in the process. Either way: problem solved. I don’t know about the likelihood of any of that, but this does provide an example of how through the use of war, mankind provides a check on its own growth, despite the fact that population control wasn’t the goal.

This trend may be changing, however. As mankind becomes more advanced and integrated across borders, it appears that the need of war as a check on population growth diminishes and other tools are employed. The best example of this is the European Union, a major component of the Security Zone touted by international security analysts. Together with the US and Japan, the EU represents a zone in which war is not only unlikely, but almost unthinkable. The inextricably integrated economies and politics of these countries make war among them virtually impossible. This is especially remarkable when one considers that fact that both Europe and Japan would have very little history to speak of if the discussion of war were taken off the table. Along with the generation of unprecedented peace and prosperity that has swept across Western Europe, the EU has also witnessed declines in population. I believe that all Western European nations, with the possible exception of Ireland and Spain, have seen dwindling birth rates, with Germany and Italy leading the pack. As European families have become more prosperous and men and women alike have careers on which to focus, the emphasis on bearing children has diminished. Couples that would have had 2 or 3 children a generation ago may now decide to only have one child or none at all. The inverse correlation between prosperity and birth rate has global implications. Women in economically depressed parts of Africa and Latin America tend to bear more children then comparably aged women in Western Europe or Japan, both of which are struggling with the short run economic effects of a dwindling population. As the birth rates in Europe and Japan continue to fall, I suspect to see increased migration to these areas from economically depressed regions of the world. Hopefully, this increased global mobility and integration and the resulting increased investment in human capital in the developing world will allow prosperity to spread throughout the world.

Once we’ve truly achieved global prosperity, instead of creating new people and figuring out a way to kill them off later, maybe we can just start creating fewer people in the first place.

Where Are We Headed?

“The question is whether France should stay in Algeria. If the answer is yes, then we must accept the necessary consequences”

I just finished watching the film The Battle of Algiers, which tells the story of one of the most influential years in the Algerian battle of independence from the French in the late 1950s, early 1960s. It was a very well done film, which, unfortunately, still in many ways parallels the state of the world today.

The above quote from the film comes from Colonel Mathieu, who was charged with leading the French military effort in squashing the Algerian resistance movement in the capital city of Algiers. A reporter asks the colonel whether it is true that French soldiers under his command use torture and whether torture was an acceptable means of accomplishing his mission. In his response the colonel implies that the French people themselves are complicit in the course of action that he deems necessary in Algiers. Given the overwhelming sentiment among the French populous that the French should remain in Algeria, French society had given its tacit approval to use every means necessary to maintain the French occupying presence, even if that extended to torture.

Could the same be said of us Americans?

I personally am appalled at the use of torture by the Bush Administration in its “War on Terror”, and I’ve become even more so incensed after reading the Washington Post series on the Cheney Vice Presidency, in which they lay out how this doctrine of torture became a part of the Administration. Now, however, I’m beginning to wonder whether the use of torture in Guantanamo, Baghdad and elsewhere is merely the fault of the US citizenry. It’s easy to place the blame on those at the top of the pyramid, but perhaps those of us making up the much larger base at the bottom have also played role.

John Locke taught us of the Social Contract, in which each of us relinquishes a bit of our independence and self-determination to the State for the purposes of promoting the common good. Following September 11th, we all renegotiated our contract and handed over a little bit more of our self-determination in an effort to “secure our borders” and keep America free from future terrorist attacks. While some may argue that we are less safe now than we were prior to September 11th, the fact remains that there have been no additional attacks on US soil in the last six years, but my question is, was it worth it? Are we willing to accept the possibility of less effective intelligence – and, by extension, increased vulnerability – in exchange for the maintenance of our shared values? While I’m sure that the Administration has gained valuable information by employing torture – information that may have saved American lives – I’m not certain that it was worth the price we pay in terms of the massive blow it has delivered to American ideals and values.

We torture people.

Robert Mugabe tortures people. Kim Jong Il tortures people. Saddam Hussein tortured people. We’re Americans. We don’t do that. We’re the good guys. Aren't we supposed to be better than that? We’ve lost the moral high ground on this issue and, in essence, every other issue as well. How can we act as the champions of freedom and human rights around the world when we unabashedly sanction inhumane treatment of foreigners?

We torture people.

I’m interested in seeing the US response when one of our diplomats abroad is captured and subjected to torture. What could we possibly say? “It’s ok for Americans to engage in torture, but you terrorists groups and other non-state actors, you’re not allowed to follow suit. We only use torture for noble purposes, whereas you all torture with nefarious intent.”

The question for us is whether the use of torture is truly in the long term interests of the US. Does the preservation of our security today warrant the use of torture and its deleterious effects on the American system of values for years to come? If the answer is yes, then we too must accept the necessary consequences. If not, then perhaps it is time for us to withdraw the tacit support we’ve extended to the Administration over recent years.

But how one goes about doing that, I haven’t quite figured out.

What the Hell is Wrong with Americans?!

In today’s Guardian, there was a story about a 20-year-old man in Florida that was sentenced to an additional 60 days in jail for masturbating in his jail cell. There was a court case, lawyers, jury and everything. The jury found that because it’s funded by the government, a jail cell is a “limited-access public space”, and since it’s illegal to masturbate in public, it’s, by extension, illegal to masturbate in one’s jail cell.

First of all, who cares? The guy was in jail. Where else is he going to masturbate? It’s not like he go home and masturbate like everyone else. He’s kinda stuck there for a while. I don’t care if guys in jail masturbate all day long. What else do they have to do?

Secondly, why are we wasting our money on prosecuting guys that masturbate in jail? If he had been out on a park bench, I could understand the consternation, but this guy was alone in a jail cell. If society is so concerned with the fragile sensibilities of jail guards, a) maybe we should find jail guards that aren’t quite so sensitive, or b) maybe they should put doors on the jail cells instead of enclosing them in glass. Regardless of the course of action they choose, I don’t think they should be wasting tax payer money prosecuting crimes that weren’t really crimes in the first place. Maybe I’m mistaken, but I could’ve sworn that there were still real crimes being committed that we haven’t quite stopped yet. This is just an idea, but maybe we should start using resources to fight real crime instead of worrying about a guy just trying to get to know himself a little better.

South Africa to the Rescue

The Guardian reported this morning that faced with worsening hyperinflation, Zimbabwe may be turning to big brother South Africa yet again for support. The central bank of South Africa may include Zimbabwe in the Rand monetary union, which already includes South Africa, Namibia, Lesotho and Swaziland. By pegging the Zimbabwe Dollar to the South African Rand and thus relinquishing Zimbabwe’s monetary authority to the central bank of South Africa, there are hopes of bringing some stability to the country’s ever-weakening currency. In return for this, President Mugabe would have to agree to certain “political concessions” at the behest of South African President Mbeki. There was no word of what these concessions would be.

On the one hand, this sounds like good news for the citizens of Zimbabwe. With currency controls in place, ordinary citizens could save money without fear of it becoming essentially worthless the moment after they cash their paychecks. On the other hand, maybe the spiraling inflation would have proven to be the catalyst needed to incite the people to overthrow the oppressive Mugabe regime. Many African scholars were predicting a significant political shake-up in Zimbabwe in the near term as a result of the worsening hyper-inflation. If South Africa bails Mugabe out, yet again, there may be no real change in the country for some time to come. Mugabe’s already in his early 80s, but from what I understand, he’s in excellent health. Despite his age, he isn’t expected to be going anywhere anytime soon.

However, I can see where Mbeki is coming from. Stability along South Africa’s borders may be his most strategically important goal in this regard. An abrupt breakdown of the Mugabe administration could lead to great civil unrest in the country that could cause violence and refugees to spill over the border into South Africa. South Africa’s got enough problems to deal with. They don’t need to import new ones from Zimbabwe. In this world of global institutionalism, Realism is far from dead. The integrity and security of the state is still of paramount importance. It’s easy to advocate revolution remotely from the secure position of the US, but it’s quite a different story when that revolution may be taking place right next door.

The Demise of Doha?

It was just reported about an hour ago that the Group of 4 meetings in Germany, which were tasked with trying to save the Doha Round of WTO negotiations, have just collapsed. While this is not surprising, it is nonetheless disappointing. After the suspension of talks a year ago, this was seen as a last-ditch effort to revive this round of WTO negotiations, which was touted as the round intended to bring the benefits of liberalized trade to the developing world. As has been the case all along, agricultural protectionism was the hurdle that the participating nations – US, EU, Brazil and India – were not able to overcome. Now one can only expect the blame game to ensue, in which each nation points its finger at the others’ perceived lack of willingness to cut agricultural subsidies.

So all of you who were holding on to the hope that Doha talks would finally get back on track, it’s not looking too good.

In a very well-timed piece in the Washington Post, it was reported yesterday that US farm subsidies, unsurprisingly, tend to only benefit large, white-owned farms, while small farms (many of which are black-owned) receive none of the largess. The idea behind farm subsides is to help farmers who need assistance in coping with detrimental shifts in the agricultural economy, such as changes in weather and world food prices, but in reality they are going to large commercial farms that can probably deal with such factors on their own and those who are most vulnerable receive no support.

Although I don’t know this first-hand, I suspect that small farmers in Mississippi don’t have well-paid lobbyists in Washington, but I’m sure that the large commercial farmers do.

Violence in America

“Since her boys were teenagers, she [a mother who had just lost her son to gun violence] had been haunted by the fear that guns might take them. There is a connection, she believes, between the violence that blights America and the country's actions elsewhere. ‘When people see what we're doing in the rest of the world, they think, why not in my neighborhood? The government sets an example of violence and then it gets played out on the streets.’ "

The above quote is from the Guardian Newspaper’s recent article on gun violence in America. The article tells the story of nine young people who found themselves on the wrong end of a hand gun in different cities in America over a 24-hour period. The sentiments of the woman in the above quote, Martine Parraga, greatly mirror my own (see previous entry).America can’t possibly hope to quell violence at home when we export our violent tendencies abroad. While there has been a strong current of violence throughout the history of mankind, the United States has managed to institutionalize that violent sentiment over the last 60 or 70 years, since the end of World War II and the emergence of the US as the sole global superpower. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned us against the threat of the “military-industrial complex” (see previous entry), which has not only championed the loss of US life through military operations around the globe, but has successfully spread our bellicose tendencies to other governments and regimes. How many US and British soldiers have been killed by al Qaeda using weapons that we sold them in the first place? How are we expected to teach our youth to respect life when countless innocent Iraqi citizens have died at the hands of US and British soldiers? Perhaps Ms. Parrega is right: the violence in our neighborhoods is simply a microcosm for US actions in the global community.

If our government and society began showing some respect for human life abroad, maybe we as Americans could learn to respect each other at home.

Nuclear Fusion

I just attended a lecture on the potential of fusion to meet our global energy needs in the somewhat-distant future. According to applied physicists, at temperatures that exceed 100 million degrees, it may be possible to fuse together sub-atomic particles to produce vast amounts on energy. I don’t quite understand the science behind all of it, but theoretically, fusion technology promises nearly unlimited carbon-free energy. Furthermore, scientists are optimistic that they can produce “green” nuclear energy that produces no radioactive waste and is so safe that there is no need for emergency evacuation plans for areas surrounding the nuclear facilities. As an added bonus, with the type of nuclear fusion they are studying, there is no danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The only problem is that they haven’t quite figured out how to do it yet.

The EU, US, China, Korea, Japan, Russia, and maybe others, have pledged $11 billion to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, an experimental plant which will be located in France to make the theory of nuclear fusion a reality. If I remember correctly, they hope to prove that nuclear fusion is viable within the next 10 years and then make it commercially available by 2050.

2050 is still a ways off, but if this thing works the way scientists hope it will and big polluters like the US, China, and the EU take concrete steps to curb global warming in the meantime, maybe mankind isn’t doomed after all.

I Guess Art Really Does Imitate Life

I got the chance to attend Russell Simmons's book release party last week. My roommate who's tied into that scene brought me along. It was at this lounge called Stereo in the West Village. It was a very cool place. I had never been there before. The party itself wasn't all that spectacular (it was a Tuesday night after all), but it was definitely interesting, especially for a poor grad student who generally doesn't find himself in such circles. Russell Simmons was there meeting and greeting people and chatting about his new book, "Do You". I met him and shook his hand. I didn't say much. I just congratulated him on his new book. He's different in person than I would have imagined. He's extremely low-key, almost demure. Some people (famous or not) have a such a large presence regardless of their actual physical stature. When they walk into a room, you know it. Russell Simmons was not one of these people. He was just making his way through the crowd pleasantly greeting his guests. He was probably the most casually dressed person in the room. He's at a point in his career where he doesn't need to impress people anymore. If he wants to throw a party and show up in whatever he happened to be wearing that day, he's Russel Simmons. He can do that.

What was most interesting, however, was the crowd that showed up. My roommate is a publicist, so she gets invited to such things, and there was no shortage of other industry folk present: publicists, entertainment writers, fashion designers, etc. There were also several minor celebrities, but since I haven't owned a television in about three years, I didn't recognize any of them. But I was able to glean that there were people from TV shows like the Apprentice, America's Next Top Model, and MTV, among others. The place was full of beautiful people draped in impossibly trendy attire. Although I thought I was looking pretty hip that night, it was clear that no one else was impressed: "Oh you can't introduce me to someone famous? Yeah, you're not worth my time". But that didn't at all concern me. I was able to drink for free and spend a little time on the dance floor, and that's all I really needed.

The best part of the evening was when you exited the lounge, you immediately found yourself on a red carpet, replete with waiting paparazzi. Of course, I was no one special, but my roommate's friend, however, was of interest. So after not saying more than two words to me the whole evening, when she caught sight of the cameras, she shoved her purse in my hand so that she could run over and attend to her adoring fans. After striking no fewer then four poses, she grabbed her purse and thanked me. Although I was beginning to feel uneasy due to her sudden acknowledgment of my existence, fortunately she immediately returned to ignoring me completely as we walked to fetch a cab.

New York is a great city. There are so many almost surreal experiences that happen here on a daily basis. The parties and circles and attitudes that you watch everyday on television actually happen in real life, and it's interesting to sometimes be a fly on the wall and observe these things unfold.

England & Ireland

I recently returned from spending Spring Break in London and Dublin and their surrounding areas. I had a great time, thanks in large part to my great friends that live there that put me up for several nights. Here are a few pics from my excursions.

Darfur: War Crimes Indictment

The International Criminal Court (ICC) has finally brought charges against what it sees as the primary perpetrators in the crisis in Darfur. It is still very much unclear as to whether this will make any difference on the ground in Darfur, but at this point, I'm happy to see at least some sign of progress in that conflict.

Here's a link to the article in the Economist.

Don't Believe the Hype

During the buildup for 2008 Presidential election, I am somewhat perplexed by the enduring opinion that John McCain (R-AZ) is a moderate republican candidate. Admittedly, there was a time in which I was also under this impression, but in recent years, McCain has continuously aligned himself ever more closely with the right. As new examples of this fact emerge, I will try to post them here. While there is nothing intrinsically wrong with being a conservative politician, it would be rather unfortunate for someone to base their vote on misinformation. There are many past examples that I need to research and post, however I will start off the series with an associated press article published in yesterday's International Herald Tribune. I think the title of the article speaks for itself:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain says law that legalized abortion should be overturned

Why We Fight

I just saw an interesting documentary called Why We Fight.

One quote from the film: "We know we did not have an exit strategy in the invasion of Iraq because we never intended to leave."

Not Bad

I just finished watching the President’s State of the Union Address. I’m certainly not a Bush fan, but I have to admit that it was pretty good. I don’t think I’ve actually watched the State of the Union in the last few years, but I’ve seen several of Bush’s other speeches, and I think this was the best showing I’ve seen from him

My personal Top 10 highlights from the speech (in order of occurrence):

1. I loved how Congress members stood to applaud Bush’s proposal to cut earmarks in half by the end of the current Congressional session as if they weren’t the ones placing the earmarks on legislation in the first place. Gotta love politicians.

2. Proposal to reduce gasoline use in the United States by 20% in the next 10 years, which, he argues, will result in a cut of our total imports by ¾ of the amount that we import from the Middle East.

3. Bush has been pushing this guest worker program for the last year. I don’t really know much about immigration, but sounds like it could potentially be a good program. It very well might not be, but I think it’s an interesting enough idea to be debated in Congress.

4. His argument to stay the course in Iraq was really quite good. Not to say that he was right, but it was argued well. I’m still torn as to whether it makes more sense for US troops to stay in Iraq or to cut our losses (see entry "An Unlikely Alternative"). His admonition that if the US were to pull out now, it would result in greater turmoil in the region as other actors that are currently deterred by the presence of US forces would enter the region is pretty much the basis of my uncertainty.

5. Civilian military core to supply highly specialized civilians to support military operations when necessary sounds like a good idea to me, assuming it’s completely voluntary, which I assume it would be.

6. Yet another mention of Darfur, but as far as I can see, nothing significant has been done by the administration on this issue in the last 6-12 months, especially since Zoellick left the State Department for Goldman Sachs last summer.

7. I’d be interested to see whether his request for $15 billion to fight malaria in Africa gains any traction. It’s a much needed and long overdue initiative, but it’s also the kind of program that often gets announced in high-profile situations and then is never mentioned again. And that’s not a critique that’s unique to President Bush. It’s a statement that I think applies to politicians in general.

8. Dikembe Mutombo and a shot out to Georgetown: I love it! But the best part was the juxtaposition of him and the little Asian woman seated next to him in the balcony. He was literally twice her size!

9. Wesley Autrey: Milk it for all it’s worth! It was like the guy just won the Heisman or something.

10. What was with the lady molesting the President as he was leaving the House chambers? Did anybody catch that? She had her hand chillin’ on his shoulder or caressing his back for I know a good 5 minutes… on national television. That is definitely not ok!

10: Part Deux. Watching Bush work the crowd as he was leaving the chambers was very impressive. He’s good. Maybe almost as good as Clinton.

The Rebirth of the Electric Car??

Last year's documentary by Chris Paine entitled Who Killed the Electric Car? told the story of the ill-fated EV1, the fully electric car introduced by GM in California in the mid-90s. Although I definitely recommend checking out the film, you don't need to actually watch it know that the EV1 is no longer around. The film explores various causes for the automobile's demise, but, unsurprisingly, big auto and politics were the chief culprits.

However, in a move that I believe caught many people by surprise, GM unveiled at the recent Detroit Auto Show the Chevy Volt , an electric-gasoline hybrid that could be available as early as 2010. Of course, the Prius has been around since 2000, so what makes this hybrid any different? Well, unlike the Prius or other hybrids currently on the market, the Chevy Volt could potentially run forever without using a single drop of gasoline. After charging the battery at home for 6 hours, the Volt can go 40 miles on battery power alone. GM asserts that the majority of Americans live within 20 miles of work, so if that's the case, a normal weekday commute could be done completely using battery-powered electricity. When in fact a person needs to drive more than 40 miles without re-charging the battery, a three-cylinder engine kicks in to burn fuel to recharge the battery, potentially boosting fuel economy to 150 miles per gallon! Furthermore, the engine is equipped to burn E85, which is 85/15 ethanol/gasoline mix. The use of E85, they claim, would mean that the car could go over 525 miles per gallon of petroleum. While there are still some concerns surrounding the efficiency of ethanol production in the US, I imagine that if the ethanol technology in the US isn't able to meet demand at an acceptable price, we could potentially import ethanol from more efficient (and friendlier) nations, such as Brazil, until we could rely solely on domestic production.

Given the decades of neglect and self-interest in terms of environmental sustainability, I hope that 2007 will see a growing trend towards greener business, the likes of which we first began seeing on a significant scale in 2006.

Oceanic Carbon Sequestration

Current Temperature in New York City: 59 degrees
Expected High Tomorrow: 66 degrees

While I am definitely enjoying the very mild winter here in New York this year, I can't shake this sinking feeling that 5 or 10 years from now science and society will look back at this winter as a major point in the progression of global warming. Columbia University economist and director of the Earth Institute Jeffrey Sachs argues that the global ecosystem acts as a "step function". In much the same way that a bathtub can continue to accept water without any ill effects until suddenly the water reaches the top and begins to overflow onto the floor below, the earth's ecosystem can accept continuous environmental stress until one day it reaches its limit and begins to rapidly deteriorate. I worry that this winter of near record-breaking warm temperatures here in the northeast is signaling that the bathtub has begun to overflow.

Fortunately, however, there are some very intelligent people out there working on some very new ways of turning back the clock on global warming. One interesting path of research is carbon sequestration -- pulling carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and burying it deep underground. While scientists are still working on ways to actually make that a reality, one economist/inventor, Philip Kithil, thinks he has a way to sequester carbon in our oceans to the ocean floor. As reported in the Guardian , there is a "barrel-shaped type of plankton called salps, which feed on algae and excrete dense pellets of carbon that sink to the ocean floor." By using a system of plastic tubes installed throughout the ocean, Kithil argues that colder, nutrient-rich water can be pulled from the deep ocean and brought closer to the surface to promote a suitable environment for algae. With the abundance of algae, the salp plankton will begin to flourish and through their biological processes, naturally sequestering carbon from the surface down to the ocean floor. Furthermore, Kithil believes that once the systems of tubes are in place, their output could be accelerated in order to further cool the surface water ahead of incoming hurricanes, which strengthen as they move along warm water.

The downside, of course, is that all of this is going to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but I figure if the US alone can spend over $300 billion on losing a war in Iraq, I think that the global community can scrape together enough money to make innovations like this a reality.

Let's face it: if we mess up this planet, we don't really have anywhere else to go.

The Highlights

Here are a few of the points that I thought were interesting from this morning’s White House Press Conference. The New York Times has the complete transcript online.


The Reluctant Environmentalist

Bush: The American people expect us to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase our use of alternative energy sources. So we must step up our research and investment in hydrogen fuel cells, hybrid plug-in and battery-powered cars…

a. tyrell: If you take a look at the film “Who Killed the Electric Car” you’ll see that not only is the electric car possible, but we already have the technology for it. And I’m not talking about those funny-looking one-seater cars you see on prototype car tests on TV. These are completely regular looking electric cars that regular people owned and used during the early 90s until the auto industry decided that they wanted to take them off the market.


A Bit of an Understatement

Question: Mr. President, less than two months ago, at the end of one of the bloodiest months in the war, you said: Absolutely, we're winning. Yesterday, you said: We're not winning; we're not losing. Why did you drop your confident assertion about winning?

Bush: …My comments yesterday reflected the fact that we're not succeeding nearly as fast as I wanted, when I said it at the time, and that the conditions are tough in Iraq, particularly in Baghdad.

…Victory in Iraq is achievable. It hadn't happened nearly as quickly as I hoped it would have. I know it's -- the fact that there is still, you know, unspeakable sectarian violence in Iraq, I know that's troubling to the American people.


A Remorseful President

Question: Mr. President, Lyndon Johnson famously didn't sleep during the Vietnam War; questioning his own decisions. You have always seemed very confident of your decisions, but I can't help but wonder if this has been a time of painful realization for you, as you yourself have acknowledged that some of the policies you hoped would succeed have not. And I wonder if you can talk to us about that. Has it been a painful time?

Bush: Most painful aspect of my presidency has been knowing that good men and women have died in combat. I -- I read about it every night. I -- my heart breaks for a mother or father or husband and wife or son and daughter. It just does. And so, when you ask about pain, that's pain… But the most painful aspect of the presidency is the fact that I know my decisions have caused young men and women to lose their lives.


Alternative Energy

Bush: nuclear power is going to be an essential source, in my judgment, of future electricity for the United States and places like China and India. Nuclear power is renewable, and nuclear power does not emit one greenhouse gas. And it makes a lot of sense for us to share technologies that will enable people to feel confident that the new nuclear power plants that are being built are safe, as well as technologies that'll eventually come to the fore that will enable us to reduce the wastes, the toxicity of the waste and the amount of the waste. Continue to invest in clean-coal technologies. Abundance of coal here in America. And we need to be able to tell the American people we're going to be able to use that coal to generate electricity in environmentally friendly ways. My only point to you is: We got a comprehensive plan to achieve the objective that most Americans support, which is less dependency upon oil.

a. tyrell: If he’s as concerned with alternative sources of energy and decreasing US dependency on foreign oil as he says he is, what has he been doing in this regard for the last 6 years? I can’t think of a single significant measure proposed by the Bush Administration that was primarily in support of alternative sources of energy. There has been some support for hydrogen fuels and ethanol derived from corn, but given the predicted impracticality and prohibitive expense of hydrogen fuel and the glaring inefficiency of US ethanol production initiatives, I would suspect that support for these technologies has less to do with the environment as it does with covertly protecting agriculture and private industry.


Social Values

Question: …Mary's having a baby. And you have said that you think Mary Cheney will be a loving soul to a child. Are there any changes in the law that you would support that would give same-sex couples greater access to things such as legal rights, hospital visits, insurance, that would make a difference, even though you said it's your preference -- you believe that it's preferable to have one man-one woman...

Bush: No, I've always said that we ought to review law to make sure that people are treated fairly…

a tyrell: What about support for the Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage? I wouldn’t view that as a measure that would ensure that all people are treated fairly.


Where’d that surplus go again?

Bush: My message to the Iranian people is: You can do better than to have somebody try to rewrite history [referring to Iranian President Ahmadinejad]. You can do better than somebody who hasn't strengthened your economy…

a tyrell: So I’m still unclear on how President Bush has strengthened our economy. Was it through tax cuts to the rich that led to huge corporate profits, but virtually no growth in wages and very little job growth until fairly recently? Or was it by spending $300 Billion in Iraq over the last 3 years while we continue to fund our deficits by borrowing from China and other nations?

So if the Iranians deserve better, does that hold true for us too?

J'aime New York

I live in Harlem... and I love it. There are so many really cool things to do in this city. For example, I just got back from a weekly live jazz set a few blocks from my place. Every Sunday night on 132nd street (between 7th and 8th) there's live jazz music on the bottom floor of a very unassuming brownstone. In addition to the great music, there are also cheap drinks and soul food. While I didn't get a chance to sample the food, it did look and smell very good.

This is the first time I've been and I don't know if this was a typical Sunday night, but a few interesting events transpired during the 2 hours or so that I was there. After finishing his set leading the band on the organ, the "Preacher", as he was called, brought to the front an older woman who was there celebrating her birthday with her grandson and his girlfriend. After coercing the crowd to stand and give the 82-year old woman a round of applause, he pulled out a crisp new $100 bill and forced it upon her despite her reservations. I was standing just next to where the woman was seated and as the night progressed, many people came up to her to wish her well. Over time, I began to wonder whether in fact it actually was her birthday. I think that the Preacher had simply misunderstood her and it would have been too awkward for her to say anything to the contrary (let alone give the money back).

Taking over the reigns at the organ, the next band leader invited a young Japanese woman to perform who "scatted" along with the band. She was pretty good and really got into it. I assume she had planned to perform that night, but it look like she was just another member of the audience. Upon completion of the song, the band leader offered her a warm "Arigato Gozaimas" with slight bow of the head as she returned to her seat.

Only in New York.

So all in all, it was really good music, no cover, a cool crowd, cheap drinks (by NY standards), and -- what looked to be -- good soul food. They do this every Sunday. I definitely plan on stopping by again sometime soon.

Rummy on Trial

Maybe everyone already knows about this, but I just read this morning on Al Jazeera's English news site that the ACLU has initiated a trial against Donald Rumsfeld implicating him in the claims of torture in Guantanamo resulting from President Bush's War Against Terror. I just recently started reading Al Jazeera online and I like it so far, but this article doesn't clearly state that it's just a civil trial and not a criminal one, which I think is a very important distinction. I think the Associated Press does a better job of covering the story, but I would have never searched for the AP article in the first place had I not first read the prominently displayed link to their story on Al Jazeera's website.

Anyway, in deciding whether to let the trial proceed, the judge acknowledges that torture is clearly illegal, but he is worried about what precedent this trial would set if we, in effect, extend the rights of the Constitution to all people everywhere and begin allowing the courts to second-guess any decision the military makes at home and abroad. That's an interesting point. On the one hand, the US military should be held accountable not only if they violate international law, but also if they act in ways that are contrary to American moral standards. But on the other hand, the Constitution is an American document for Americans. Afgani, Iraqi, and other citizens clearly do not fall under the protection of the US Constitution. Referring to Judge Thomas Holden, who is hearing the case, the AP writes,

"Foreigners outside the United States are not normally afforded the same protections as U.S. citizens, Hogan said, and he was wary about extending the Constitution across the globe. Doing so, he said, might subject government officials to all sorts of political suits. Osama bin Laden could sue, Hogan said, claiming two American presidents threatened to have him murdered." (Matt Apuzzo, Houstan Chronicle, 12/8/2006)