Cheap

It would appear that electric cars will be extremely cheap to power:

... the i-MiEV — which goes on sale in the UK later this year — is based on the i, Mitsubishi's existing city car. With room for four adults, it has a top speed of 87mph and produces the equivalent of 57 horsepower. Its lithium-ion battery has a range of 100 miles and can be charged from flat to 80% in 20 minutes using Mitsubishi's bespoke high-powered charger; otherwise, a normal mains electricity socket will charge the battery from flat to full in six hours. Mitsubishi estimates that the car can travel 10,000 miles on £45 of electricity at current UK domestic prices.

About AUD$90 for 16,000 km? It seems a Honda scooter will get you about 50km per litre, so 16,000 km at $1 per litre would cost around $320. And you get wet with it. On the other hand, scooters are cheap to buy, although some do look a little toy-like. (Actually, now that I look at the latest models, there now seems to be quite an effort to make 50cc scooters look "sporty". Have a look at the European models in particular. It must be a pretty funny job, coming up with designs that try to make a 60kph machine look fast.)

Anyhow, electric still looks promising.

Noticed in today's real estate listings...

A medieval castle once ruled by Charlemagne, the “King of the Franks,” is for sale in Italy, dungeon included.

Located (exactly) on the border of Tuscany and Umbria, the castle dates to 802...

Features include restored stone battlements with gun ports, four turrets, a moat and the dungeon, an add-on amenity reportedly built in 1500. Five buildings are clustered around the circular courtyard and the property includes about 32 acres of olive groves and woodlands.

There are photos too.

Well at last. I've been looking for a house with those features for the longest time.

How "Hollywood"

The Los Angeles Times has an inauguration day editorial that calls on President Obama to actively support gay marriage. Talk about a Hollywood set of priorities.

The first comment from a gay reader is also noteworthy for its less than black-friendly attitude on a day when one might have expected a more congratulatory tone:

As a gay man, I have been active in the fight for gay rights for the last 30 years. One thing I have learned is that African-Americans have never been interested in any other civil rights struggle but their own. They certainly have not been friends of the gay or Jewish communities, and their relations with the Hispanic communities have been strained at best. They do not even show much interest in the struggles of other Africans in countries such as Sudan. These battles are mostly fought by wealthy whites such as George Clooney. Barack Obama's rejection of gay marriage is in keeping with his culture and no surprise.

Congratulations America

So, Barack Obama has not (yet) been revealed as America's new alien lizard overlord in disguise, or even the Antichrist. (Will the Antichrist be capable of placing his/her hand on a Bible, I wonder? Maybe he can, but with wisps of smoke emerging from under his palm.)

But enough silliness, and no further snide remarks (apart from saying that the largely unseen invocation prayer by Gene Robinson a couple of days ago really was outstandingly awful,) and instead let's all be happy that the most powerful nation on earth remains a robust democracy which manages transitions of power peacefully and with considerable grace.

More on expert opinion and climate change

Further to my complaint that prominent greenhouse skeptic bloggers don't place enough emphasis on the question of qualifications and experience of the scientists they like to quote in support, here's a story of a recent survey designed to get a better idea of what those closest to the field think:

Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Of course, skeptics will say "well, that's just climatologists defending their funding", but honestly, doesn't the greatest fame in science often come to those who do the groundbreaking work that shows the established beliefs of the majority in his or her field are wrong? Why wouldn't that work to encourage those in climatology to publish work that disproves AGW?

The other point is: why are oil geologists such a contrary bunch? What is it about looking for oil that makes them think they know better on climate change?

The tunnel problem

There's a good article in Slate about possible technical solutions to preventing tunnelling from Gaza to Egypt. Unfortunately, there are no obvious easy answers, and a lot of ideas have been considered seriously, including building a moat! (It's amazing how hard it is to secure even a very short border, isn't it?)

While you're at Slate, it's worth reading Christopher Hitchens' "no regrets" column.

(And while I am at it, can someone tell me if I am placing that apostrophe correctly when a person's name ends in "s". I can't recall lately, and both choices look wrong to me.)

UPDATE: there's a follow up post at Slate in which Saletan expresses his annoyance at the way a Foreign Policy blog ridiculed the idea that technology can solve the Gazan problem.

Saletan's response is well argued (he never claimed it was the sole solution), but also, it argues along the lines I was suggesting recently. Namely, that the issue of the potential for legitimate "above ground" trade via Egypt is an important one, despite (I would add) it seeming to attract very little in the way of commentary from a media which is happy to keep running commentary that blames Israel for creating a "prison" state. (Only it's a prison with a potentially open door to goods from a neighbouring arab State.)

Improbable stories from the near future

[Yes, I have realised, I still don't know how to spell "Barack" correctly. So sue me. Anyway, what's wrong with being "Bruce" or "Barry" instead?]

Answer: None

If there is some award for the silliest "Jews are as bad as Nazis" comparison in the press, this one from an opinion piece by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in The Independent would have to be in the running:

How many Palestinian Anne Franks did the Israelis murder, maim or turn mad? Unless the Israeli state can see that equivalence there is no future for Palestine...

Let's remind ourselves from Wikipedia:

After the war, it was estimated that of the 107,000 Jews deported from the Netherlands between 1942 and 1944, only 5,000 survived.

The comparison with Gaza (for the current conflict) is about 1,300,000 with 1,298,700 survivors. Yes, I can see the similarity.

After all, as Yasmin likes to point out, Israel's blockades have created a Gazan prison, although she forgets to note that there is a border with Egypt. So I suppose it's a bit like that tragic situation in Holland in World War II when that long established Jewish country on the border wouldn't let Anne Frank or her family flee from the Nazis, or even let proper trade be established with the Jews.

Spookily similar, I say.

Fighting Arabs

Why the Arabs splinter over Gaza - International Herald Tribune

Not a bad summary here of the rivalries within the Arab world that has stopped them from having anything like a uniform response to the Gaza situation.

The famous landing

As I have missed all TV news since Friday, I hadn't seen 'til tonight this video of the actual river landing in New York. It's very impressive:

Bourdain on Saudi Arabia

I happened to see an episode of Anthony Bourdain's culinary/travel show No Reservations this week, in which he travelled to Saudi Arabia.

It was pretty interesting, as we virtually never see that country through the eyes of a Western tourist. Bourdain seems to be surprised to find that people there can laugh and have a sense of irony, even without alcohol, and in a way I can understand his reaction. It's hard to think of a country with a bigger reputation for inhibiting fun, but of course life no where is completely without some pleasures.

But still, I did get the feeling that the country and culture ended up being treated too softly. for example, his female host is said to be the first woman film maker allowed to move around with her camera crew and not have a male relative with her. That would explain such oddities as Bourdain and her being able to eat together alone in the Saudi equivalent of Kentucky Fried Chicken in the "family" area, I suppose.

Anyhow, it's not a bad show. You can see how they cook baby camel and eat the huge carcus with their fingers. (OK, so I am being too sensitive, but I didn't find the way the skeleton is gradually revealed as the gathering eats the flesh especially appealing.)

You can see all of the episode on Youtube.

Staying awake sometime helps

Mind Hacks: I struggle, fight dark forces in the clear moon light

So, a study in Schizophrenia Research has found a relationship between insomnia and paranoia in both the general public and people with psychosis. That's hardly surprising.

But here's something I hadn't heard before:

Sleep has an interesting relationship to mental illness. While sleeplessness and disturbed circadian rhythms have been linked to mood disorders for many years, sleep deprivation is known to have an antidepressant effect and is sometimes used to treat the most severe cases of depression.

Sleep deprivation in short bursts only, I assume they mean.

That'll teach them

Venezuela breaks off ties with Israel | International | Jerusalem Post

Go to the link to see the great photo of Chavez in a decorative tea cosy. At least, that's what I think it is.

Furthermore:

Venezuela's Foreign Ministry said Caracas also plans to denounce Israel's military actions at the International Criminal Court and the South American nation "will not rest until it sees them punished."

Expect lack of rest, then.

A suggestion

A love vaccine might be just the thing - International Herald Tribune

From the report:

In the new issue of Nature, the neuroscientist Larry Young offers a grand unified theory of love. After analyzing the brain chemistry of mammalian pair bonding - and, not incidentally, explaining humans' peculiar erotic fascination with breasts - Young predicts that it won't be long before an unscrupulous suitor could sneak a pharmaceutical love potion into your drink.

The report speculates that an "anti-love" potion could then follow.

Maybe it's been done before, perhaps in some 1950's or 60's Doris Day movie that I can't recall, but doesn't this sound like a good premise for a comedy movie?

How to blow $10 billion in one hit

Peter Martin: We've only just begun to try to stimulate the economy

Hmm. Peter Martin today explains why the Rudd government's Christmas bonuses were never likely to have lasting effect on holding off a recession, and didn't even really work to keep retail strong. (Adjusted for inflation, Christmas retail figures were not as good as they first sound, and in fact were barely above the preceding level.)

Funny, I thought he was pretty supportive of the idea when it was announced, although I must admit he did note that its effect would "fade" early this year. (This didn't seem to be an actual point of criticism though.)

Now he says:

Professor John Taylor of Stanford University devised the so-called Taylor Rule used by central banks to set interest rates. He told the American Economic Association's annual meeting in San Francisco this month that neither of the Bush government's two emergency tax rebates in 2002 and 2008 had made any difference to consumer spending. The problem was that they were temporary. We adjust our spending based on what we think we are going to be earning, not on the dollars that happen to fall into our pocket on any given week.

Given that the first of these failed rebates was in 2002, weren't Peter and other economics commentators aware that they did not make significant change to consumer spending? (I didn't know either, but economics is not something I profess to know much about.)

On 16 October last year I wrote:

I am still waiting to see more criticism of the short fuse of this spending too.

It seems economics commentary is a game anyone can play at these days.

A dissident on China's woes

A tidal wave of discontent threatens China | Wei Jingsheng - Times Online

The whole article is worth reading, but there was one point which surprised me:

China has a $2 trillion foreign currency reserve but it also suffers from a huge disparity between the rich and poor: while 0.4 per cent of the people hold 70 per cent of the wealth of the country, a fifth of the population - more than 300 million Chinese - have daily incomes of less than one dollar.

Now that's wealth disparity.

UPDATE: according to Wikipedia, the equivalent figures for the USA are:

...at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth.

So, does this mean that wealth concentration is roughly 20 times worse in China than the US? Gosh. Good thing they are communist, or who know hows bad it could have been!

Another observation

Has anyone else noticed how relaxing it is not to have Kevin Rudd's face or voice on TV for a protracted period. (I suppose Laborites used to feel the same when Howard was on holiday too, but he wasn't the media tart that Rudd is.) It's a bit like the relief when you stop and remove an irritating pebble that's got into your shoe.

High density good or bad?

In comments a couple of posts back, I noted how the writer of the Slate article about environmentalism claimed that the "greenest" way of living was in a high density city like New York; not by being in a city with lots of suburbs.

But today, in the Sydney Morning Herald, someone from an organisation "Save our Suburbs" argues with figures that high density development in Sydney would make more CO2, not less. Here's some of his arguments:

The Australian Conservation Foundation's consumption atlas shows people living in high-density areas have greater greenhouse gas emissions than those living in low-density areas. A study by EnergyAustralia and the NSW Department of Planning shows the energy used by a resident in high-rise is nearly twice that for a resident in a detached house. Think of all the lifts, clothes dryers, air-conditioners and lights in garages and foyers. ...

Research in Melbourne shows people squeezed into newly converted dense areas did not use public transport to any greater extent and there was little or no change in their percentage of car use.

There is not enough difference in the emissions of public versus private transport to counter the increased emissions of high-density living. For each kilometre CityRail carries a passenger, it emits 105 grams of greenhouse gases, while the average car emits 155, and modern fuel-efficient cars such as the Toyota Prius emit just 70.

I am a little suspicious of the slant being put on some figures here. In the second paragraph, for example, he talks of little change in "percentage" of car use, but is that taking into account the much shorter distances that may be being driven when you live close to the city, even if you still use your car to get to work?

Similarly, given that air-conditioning is so popular now, I would expect that one saving in energy use would be that small apartments don't take much energy to heat or cool, and are insulated by the other apartments around them.

On the other hand, suburban gardens and plants must be given some credit for absorbing CO2, I guess.

Maybe (just guessing here) to get full credit as a low CO2 emitting city, you have to reach a threshold level of density where a very large proportion of residents almost never have to rely on a car, such as in New York or Tokyo.

I'm sure someone's looked at this, but I don't have time to find the answer now.

Not the wisest investment

Many home turbines fall short of claims, warns study | Technology | The Guardian

Here's an amusing bit of Green perversity:

Home wind turbines are generating a fraction of the energy promised by manufacturers, and in some cases use more electricity than they make, a report warns today. The results of what is thought to be the most comprehensive study undertaken of the industry show the worst performers provided just 41 watt-hours a day - less than the energy needed for a conventional lightbulb for an hour, or even to power the turbine's own electronics.

On average the turbines surveyed provided enough electricity to light an energy-efficient house, but this still only represented 5%-10% of the manufacturers' claims, said consultants Encraft. ...
It found the best performing turbines would generate "clean" electricity equivalent to that needed to manufacture them in less than two years, while the worst performing ones would take 40 years.

Nothing to dislike, except the price

Toyota pulls wraps off all-new Prius

Toyota says the new car, revealed Monday at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit, will achieve an estimated 3.7L/100km in the city and 4.0L/100km highway, for a combined rating of 3.8L/100km. The first-generation Prius was rated 4.6 L/100km combined fuel consumption, the second generation was 4.1....

Toyota says the 2010 model, which goes on sale this spring, has the lowest drag coefficient of any mass production car - 0.25. A normal sports car often has a drag of 0.32 or higher.

According to the Courier Mail, it will cost $40,000 here.

I wonder what is environmentally best for a moderate driver living in a family home: spend around $20,000 on a 3 year old Camry, and use the other $20,000 to put solar hot water and a small-ish solar cell system on the house, or buy a Prius?