RealCurrents

I was reading Jessica Mah’s post on how a lot of her high-school and college-age friends are really scared about global warming. Here in the U.S., it’s often reported that folks in other countries are more concerned than the average American, but little attention has been given to how the issue is impacting younger Americans.

It occurred to me that they need a little perspective on this. I grew up in the 1970s, and for those of us Americans who went through this period when the U.S. was in a severe technophobic angst, and there were constant pronouncements about all the terrible things that were going to happen, I suppose we’re just not so quick to be convinced the world is coming to an end every time scientists start preaching doom and gloom.

This was a very long list of crises that 1960s-70s experts insisted were soon to befall us, most of which I’ve probably (thankfully) forgotten, but which included such calamities as pollution, endangered species, population, overcrowded skies, the San Andreas and yes, even a looming ice age. I guess being terrified of nuclear armageddon just wasn’t enough anymore. The funny thing was, very few of these scientists were talking about an energy crisis.

Of course, even the “energy crisis” didn’t last long, once investors started pouring hundreds of billions into oil, which was $35 when I got out of high school but less than $10 when I got out of college. Jessica titled her post “Scared of Global Warming? Bring in the entrepreneurs!” and so yes, I think she’s right that entrepreneurs and the free market are a lot of the answer to global warming.

In general, though, I think we ought to stop and notice something. It sure seems to me that scientists can get into a negative funk about stuff, and end up focussing too much on the problems rather than the solutions. In fact, I can’t help wondering if it’s sort of the same dynamic as with investment newsletters - negativity and fear apparently sell a lot more newsletters, and a crisis may, sadly, be the only thing that will finally garner a research project any funding.

Now, this is certainly not all the scientists’ fault, nor is the business world off the hook. Just look at the American car industry, one of the most pitiful examples of research budgeting in modern history. Perhaps GM, Ford and Chrysler may be excused for being caught unprepared on fuel economy in the early 70s, since they were already struggling with new emissions restrictions. On the other hand, here we are again thirty years later and, sadly, it seems that only the recent combination of high oil prices, a dropping dollar, and concerns over carbon emissions was finally enough to get them serious again about improving fuel economy.

Amidst all the prognostications, it’s still not clear how global warming is going to play out. Besides the many questions of specific effects in specific places, there’s at least three basic questions involved. First is the question of how fast temperatures will go up. Second, how much will they rise long-term (or is it a runaway increase with no end in sight)? Third, if temperatures can be stabilized, will (can?) they then head back down?

We hear virtually nothing of potentially beneficial effects, but clearly there’s going to be some winners among the many losers from effects of global warming. Interestingly, so far the Russians seem to be the only ones thinking ahead about any positive outcomes from it. As Jessica suggests, entrepreneurs ought to be also. Again, though, we must keep a proper perspective - a long-term perspective.

While there’s a lot we don’t know, we can say that at least for practical purposes, whatever we can do will take place over decades. Realistically, it’s far too late to do anything about changes that may take place within the next decade or so. In other words, whatever research and changes - technological or political - that are to be made must be done consistently over a decades-long time frame.

This is, for example, why I strongly disagree with the basic Kyoto (Treaty) framework. Already China is producing as much carbon emissions as the U.S., and will likely continue to increase. Kyoto might be effective in reducing the emissions of Western industrialized nations, but given these reductions and the continued growth of China, India and other large industrializing countries, within a few years this extremely costly plan will prove ineffective in reducing the bulk of emissions.

We’ve heard from the scientists on global warming, but have yet to hear from the engineers, who are going to be the folks who have to make reductions in carbon emissions actually happen. We need to think about cost/benefit ratios. We also need to think about sustaining research investments over decades, which as the history of NASA indicates, is awfully difficult to do when you start out with crash-program type overbudgeting.

I think it’s a good bet that a lot of these new technologies are going to come from both big American businesses (such as Boeing with its new 787) and American entrepreneurs. This realization may not play well overseas, but any approach such as Kyoto that hobbles the American economy is going to be counterproductive.

Like it or not, the U.S. is still a (if not the) major innovation engine in the world. Companies in Silicon Valley (1, 2, 3) and elsewhere in the U.S. are working on hundreds of different technologies, everything from emission controls to cheap solar to electric cars to wind power and so on. Here in Texas, it’s become common to see the giant parts of wind turbines rolling down the highway on their way west, where hundreds are being put up.

We must remember that innovation, not political decrees, is the only way to solve the problems from global warming, and while we’re at it, let’s not forget to also think about taking advantage of the benefits.

While folks are busy fretting about all the terrible things that might happen in Washington this year with a new Democrat-led Congress, Americans might need to keep a lot closer eye on their state and local politics as well. Is it just me, or does it seem that politicians are busier than usual proposing all kinds of odd-ball laws? I saw a report today that someone in New York was proposing a law banning listening to iPods while crossing the street! If legislators have this much time on their hands, they ought not meet so often.

Here in Texas, where the biennial legislative session is a notoriously short 140 days, this shouldn’t be a problem, yet I’m more concerned than usual this year. I must admit I don’t keep very close tabs on Texas state politics in Austin; the general news coverage is far from adequate and usually focusses on just a few bills. Back before the internet really caught on, there used to be an organization, the Texas Grassroots Coalition, run by Austin attorney/CPA Adrian van Zelfden, that did a great job of putting out information, especially during legislative sessions and before primaries. Perhaps nowadays with the many blogs there is something equivalent, but I have yet to discover it.

Despite the information gap, the maneuverings of the past few weeks have been enough to get the attention of even casual observers, whereas, I guess, even the astute were caught off guard by Governor Rick Perry’s draconian power grab last Friday, when he issued Executive Order RP65 mandating the HPV vaccination of all 11-12 year-old girls in the state.

There are so many things wrong with both the scientific/medical and political aspects of Perry’s action that I will leave this to others, or at least to another post. David Watts, Jr. has started a helpful blog, Overturn RP65, to track developments regarding this issue.

Besides that mess and its threats to our civil liberties, not to mention our constitutional form of government, there’s the general budget situation in Austin, and the huge surplus, which Perry, among others, hopes to spend, but ought to by and large be handed back to the citizens of Texas through tax cuts. This will be a huge fight, I’m sure, because all these billions of taxpayer dollars floating around are just asking for trouble.

In light of the very favorable budget situation, it seems awfully curious to me that Republicans are so busy trying to raise extra cash. Perry’s idea of selling the lottery, unsettling at best even for those of us who oppose state-sponsored gambling, is indefensible with so much surplus already floating around. As ususal there’s various efforts, that I haven’t managed to keep track of, to legalize additional gambling and “use the money for education”, a phrase which some political hack might as well convert to newspeak since we hear it so constantly.

Besides these, there’s the Republicans’ push to privatize new state highway construction. This is one of those ideas that sounds “conservative”, but really is just a different can of worms. Texas has had one of the best highway systems for a long time, especially considering the size of this state, and more public toll roads may well be worthwhile. Private toll roads, on the other hand, would turn the economics of highway construction and repair - and property taxation - on its head. Foreign-owned private toll roads, which have limited exits and which don’t convert to free roads once paid off, are a very bad idea.

In general, it seems state Republicans are increasingly looking for assets to sell, or otherwise mesmerized by big projects to fund, which is making a mockery of the term “conservative”. Since just about every candidate running in Texas these days boasts about how they are a conservative, a little fiscal discipline would sure be refreshing.

With their unbridled willingness to spend money and start new projects, the rush to start war in Iraq, and potentially elsewhere, even while threatening the rest of the world, I can’t help but wonder if many Republican office-holders who call themselves such even understand the meaning of the term “conservative”.

Considering how upset a lot of folks are over RP65, and the disappointments with the free-spending Republican Congress of recent years, I don’t know how much more of this Texas conservatives can take. If our legislators in Austin don’t think real hard before spending Texans’ money, they may well ensure that the 2008 primary gets very interesting.

I recently quoted, in AeroGo of all places, from Eugene Peterson’s Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places. Peterson’s willingness to take (as scientists, engineers and environmentalists do) a serious interest in creation is one reason this is an important book. It’s unfortunately rare to find a book that seriously grapples with basic elements of our world such as time, place, animals, etc., from a Trinitarian theological perspective (though James Jordan’s Through New Eyes and Gary North’s Is the World Running Down? are worthy examples).

In doing so, Peterson considers a lot of issues fundamental to the Christian life. His 350pp book is especially strong in addressing the need for a proper balance between theology/scripture and practical living, and I bet a lot of folks will be surprised to read his treatment of some things.

We’ve been reading it in my Sunday school class, and I’ve really liked it, yet still have a long way to go to finish it. Consequently, I can’t definitely recommend it in total yet (I’ve been disappointed quite a few times by books that started out strong diagnosing a problem, and then fell off a cliff trying to prescribe a solution). Nevertheless, the book deals with a lot of the same issues I’ve looked at for years in parts of my research. In essence, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places is taking direct aim at many of the key subjects the Church has either studiously avoided or never seriously considered, but really needs to be grappling with in an age increasingly fascinated with both technology and spirituality.

Let me just give a couple of quick examples of this. The first is escapist premillennial/pre-trib/rapture eschatology (whatever you want to call it). Rather than get into an endless debate about the books of Daniel and Revelation, Peterson simply shows (pp. 65-71), from Genesis 1, how the trite “waiting for Jesus to come back” is really a failure to respond in gratefulness to God’s gift of time to us.

Second, regarding creation, one of the most common questions I hear folks ask about spiritual things is “What happens to animals when they die?” It’s disturbing then, considering that God started the Bible talking about His creation, how little the Church has seemed interested in so much of it (and so, at times, of science). Peterson doesn’t address, specifically, this question, but does consider (pp. 77-82) some of the basic differences between people and animals, disctinctions which, if understood, would cast the human evolution debate in a whole different light.

To sum up, regardless of potential faults, Christ Plays in Ten Thousand Places may well prove to be one of the books that sets the “paradigm” for Christian thinking in the 21st century. And, yes, we certainly need a paradigm shift - a la Thomas Kuhn - to clear out a lot of the accumulated debris that’s impeded the Church’s thinking, and positive impact on our world, for well over a century.

I’ve been writing on my AeroGo site about the fundamental problems with NASA and U.S. space R&D policy (calling it a strategy would seem a stretch). Last week at the 2006 International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles, SpaceShipOne designer Burt Rutan ruffled some feathers with several criticisms of NASA and its Crew Exploration Vehicle, as well as FAA space tourism safety policy.

I’ve now posted a fairly lengthy discussion of Rutan’s comments regarding NASA and the CEV, and how they reflect many of the basic problems with U.S. space policy, as well as basic disagreements within the space community about how to make real progress.

There’s a constant tension in NASA space R&D between operational programs and development of advanced technologies, and until we clear up the confusion and systematically address (and invest) in both these areas, NASA will inevitably continue to just reinvent the past, as Rutan charges.

On the other hand, while the agency apparently continues to be guilty of overspending on big manned programs while giving space technology, science, and aeronautics scant resources, I disagree with Rutan’s view that the CEV capsule concept is inherently flawed. Nevertheless, schedule pressures do seem to once again be working their (not so good) magic at NASA.

I recently wrote on my site AeroGo (which is for students and others interested in going into the engineering and aerospace fields) about the real reasons behind NASA’s seeming inability to make much progress in manned space flight. Though there are some good things about new NASA Administrator Michael Griffin’s Moon/Mars plans, already we are seeing additional hits to science budgets and a backing away from developing new spacecraft technologies.

I noted how entities such as the European Space Agency and India are getting a better return on their space technology investment by more thoughtful and efficient pacing of research and development, and how other countries have shown more interest in using the International Space Station for microgravity research than NASA has.

In summary, NASA’s key strategy flaw is an inability to build on past successes. NASA needs an incremental space technology development strategy that combines new vehicles and technologies in ways that produce new, affordable options for exploration and science. It is NASA’s inclination to start with a clean sheet of paper every time - an approach the rest of the world simply can’t afford - which has caused us to end up in a situation today where we are again looking at having to spend a decade just to get back to the Moon.

As I discuss in my AeroGo post, a much more aggressive space technology development program needs to be maintained over the long run so that designers of operational programs have the confidence needed to use new space technologies. Only with more stability in spacecraft development and the maturing of new technologies can we really hope to get costs down.

Unfortunately, the difficulty of getting stable funding from Congress may be an insurmountable obstacle to NASA’s implementing such a strategy. On the other hand, Congress seems to grasp the role of NASA as an investment in the country’s technology future, so perhaps something could be worked out if NASA shifted away from a few very large development projects to a broader array of efforts that could make better use of some of its oft-neglected research centers, e.g. Glenn in Ohio, Goddard in Maryland, Langley in Virginia, Stennis in Mississippi, and Ames and Dryden in California.

Even if NASA isn’t able to change, the number of relatively well-funded commercial space companies continues to grow. We may already be past the point where the commercial arena is seeing the most significant research investment, if indeed these firms are able to get a more efficient return on the R&D dollars in their commercial efforts, and tie these to such an incremental, well-paced development strategy.

In addition to the post on NASA’s strategy, I also recently wrote about Aviation Week’s article on the supposed Blackstar space plane and XOV orbiters, and on the resulting controversy about it. I’ve included a number of links on these articles for those seeking additional information.

I recently read that the U.S. is spending more now on tort litigation than it is on research and development. Unfortunately, there’s not much of an export market in torts, so I hope we will find a way to get our priorities right before China and India (and near everyone else) eats our lunch.

On my site AeroGo today I used one example, the recent discovery that weightlessness affects the immune system in a way somewhat similar to HIV, as a springboard for discussing why it’s often hard to justify exploration and research beforehand, even though we have hundreds of years of human experience that clearly show a big long-term payoff.

The problem is that we usually get it wrong when we try to predict what we’ll find and the timetable for reaping benefits. We find something unexpected and seemingly disappointing, that in the long run ends up being way bigger than what we were looking for. Columbus was looking for spices and gold. There actually was gold, just not in the West Indies. Columbus apparently had failed, because the Spanish didn’t realize at first that they’d discovered two whole continents.

The U.S. needs to aim higher and stop quibbling so much about R&D. While funding needs to increase in the private sector (in case you haven’t noticed the federal government is already in hock up to its eyeballs), even more important than an increase is the need to get a lot better at the poorly-understood techniques of targeting and scaling of R&D investment.

We need to spend less per project early on, spread funds around more broadly, and most of all invest much more consistently and for the long term, something difficult to do in the U.S., at least in government agencies and publicly-traded companies.

I’ve written some of my initial thoughts on NASA’s just-announced Moon-to-Mars plan involving a larger capsule and a shuttle-derived heavy booster on my site AeroGo.