One Last Time: GMOs

It seems I’ve written about GMO misinformation and false beliefs about once a year including One More Time: GMOs in August 2016 and more recently, GMO Myths Persist early last year. I’ve also used GMOs as one example of how manufacturers and advertisers use labeling such as no-GMOs as a proxy for purity of their product to play on the gullibility of the grocery-buying public – even in cases where there was never a GMO alternative on the market such as tomatoes, oranges/orange juice, green beans and peanut butter. (I like some of these products, but the label is merely a scare tactic, and I feel like I am supporting a bunch of liars when I buy their products.)

I’m sure that’s why one of my loyal readers sent me a short email with a link to this story to get me fired up again.

The message is simple and straightforward, “With the quality of arable land declining and seawater encroaching on fertile cropland, researchers are trying to find a way to make crops grow in seawater.” One possible solution is to develop salt-tolerant crops through gene editing to deal with the fact that a rise in sea levels is beginning to contaminate rivers and the aquifers used to irrigate fields, “particularly those low-lying areas close to vast river deltas.” It is estimated that excess salt is causing annual crop loss around the world at the astounding level of $27 billion.

Scientists have been working for decades using traditional breeding methods to develop a viable variety of rice to grow in saltier water, but the more likely solution will involve some genetic modification. Some researchers are going so far as to try to modify crops with “the goal of soon growing them in floating farms placed in sea-flooded plains or anchored directly in the ocean” – hydroponics on an immense scale using salt water.

Growing rice or corn on the ocean seems like science fiction, but as farmland is disappearing, unless someone does something soon, people will starve.

A major roadblock to any such action is the continuing resistance to anything GMO. This website lists countries that allow GMO farming and those that ban it, but may allow the products to be imported. “Although many EU countries do not grow GMOs, Europe is one of the world’s biggest consumers of them.” It’s obvious that resistance is primarily political, from activists and those consumers that eagerly buy into their message. It is “generally driven not by science, as the independent science organizations in every major country have come out with public statements that GM products are safe.” 

It comes down to critical thinking. The disappearance of arable farmland is blamed on climate change, and people will scream about the US backing out of the Paris Accords as science denial. On the other hand, many of those same people will parrot the anti-GMO propaganda without any concern for real science. 

In the end which is the deadlier decision, the one that shows a disregard for the welfare of your fellow human beings: a.) refusing to wear a mask in public or b.) blindly supporting the anti-GMO activists whose endorsement of a false purity may lead to mass starvation? 

Flashback - A Real Climate Solution

[In November 2013 I posted this calm look at how nuclear power could be the key to reducing carbon emissions. Last month the powers-that-be met in Madrid to agonize over climate change and again nuclear didn't make the agenda. In fact some countries are cutting back on their nuclear programs to satisfy ill-informed public opinion. I was optimistic 6 years ago, but am less so today.]

The very idea of nuclear power gives people chills of terror. For many the words nuclear and radiation elicit an automatic reaction of panic, but be aware that it’s a feeling they may have to get over very soon.

Reasons behind the fear are many and varied. This NY Times article explains how a problem as far away as Japan can seem scarier to Americans than much less remote and more dangerous threats like smoking, radon, auto accidents or natural disasters. Radiation is difficult to understand, complex and potentially deadly. It’s not only associated with bombs and war but it’s also invisible – so you can’t see it coming. Radiation is uncontrollable – how do you turn it off? – and unfamiliar, unlike burning wood or coal or turning a generator with wind or water. Finally, nuclear energy and radiation have had terrible PR. People are influenced by movies and science fiction stories to the point that in a recent survey on perceived risks for 30 activities and technologies, “students and women's group rated nuclear power No. 1. The experts ranked it No. 20.”

Since the UN came out just days ago with a report that the atmospheric CO₂ level has reached a record, even higher than expected, this automatic negative reaction will soon meet head on with a great deal of pro-nuclear effort as they look for alternatives to coal generation of electricity.

Popular alternatives, wind and solar, have serious drawbacks. They have a large geographic footprint, an ecological concern, while people who generally favor the idea, oppose it being set up next door. Renewable sources vary, only available when there is sunlight or sufficient wind. Variability creates more problems than normally expected. Not only do they require another reliable source to fill the gaps, but that source must also be very flexible. This Economist article tells how the wholesale price of electricity in Germany actually went negative one bright and windy day in June, because of the unusually high supply, which also threatened to overload the grid due to the inability to quickly and efficiently flex their coal, gas and nuclear plants. In places where utilities are required to buy the solar- and wind-generated electricity first, the variability is built into the system, utilities are losing value and profits, so the money for future investments in the delivery systems, the wires to your house, is drying up.

Given those circumstances and despite real drawbacks, like cost, spent fuel disposal and one recent atypical disaster, nuclear is beginning to look more and more attractive as a non-polluting alternative. James Hansen, a former NASA official, and one of the early voices warning of climate change, has recently endorsed it and asked key environmentalists to use their influence in favor of more nuclear plants. Others argue that, despite scary news reports, nuclear power has a very good safety record and has caused less than a dozen deaths from radiation over its entire history. They estimate that 1.8 million pollution-related deaths have been prevented by the current use of nuclear power. They minimize the threat of terrorism and argue that 21^st century technology is far superior to that used in any operating plant in the US. (Many of the latest navy ships are nuclear powered.)

Any decisions like this will have a political component. The push in favor is building, but advocates with the opposite agenda will be working hard to influence public opinion. Times like this call for strong critical thinking. Oppose nuclear power, if you are so inclined, based on facts from reliable sources and not on emotion, gut reaction or pseudo-scientific warnings. It’s critical that we get it right.

Climate Change: Overlooking the Details

You can’t really call it a lie, but when people who should know better spread misinformation, it feels like the same thing. The latest example came a few days ago on the national news when a reporter said the Paris Climate Accords “set global standards” for emissions. This is clearly incorrect. The agreement consists of a compilation of NDCs, Nationally Determined Contributions. They are not a global standard but targets set by each individual country, i.e., nationally determined, with no enforcement mechanism for those who fall short and no authority to reject a proposal as inadequate. (Follow this link to access all of the individual NDCs. See this link for a Washington Post article praising the “few countries” that are meeting the standards they set for themselves.)

This is a common misunderstanding of the agreement that leads to unnecessary handwringing over the fact that the United States is no longer a signatory. Despite that withdrawal, according to the EPA the green house gas emissions by the US are decreasing and are lower today than they were in 1996.

Meanwhile, while everyone is worrying about carbon dioxide, criticizing all the SUVs on the roads, a far more powerful greenhouse gas is flying under the radar of public interest. The BBC warns, “It's the most powerful greenhouse gas known to humanity, and emissions have risen rapidly in recent years.” Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is a gas used by the electrical industry in the switching equipment in power stations, wind turbines and sub-stations to prevent short circuits, fires and other accidents. “In terms of warming potential, SF6 is 23,500 [times] more powerful than CO₂."

It is intended by design to remain contained within the insulator, but problems arise when leaks occur and evidence shows that they are occurring regularly as the global use of the gas “is expected to grow by 75% by 2030.” BBC puts the amount of leaking in the UK alone at the equivalent of an “extra 1.3 million cars on the road.” And the reason for the growth is a need for more of the switching equipment driven by the increase in sustainable power, such as wind and solar.

Here in the US, the EPA is aware of the problem, and Pacific Power & Gas is one of the utilities with plans to solve it. Fixing a single SF6 leak has an average cost of $25,000, so they are looking for alternatives and expect to have the problem solved in their business region by 2030.

Make no mistake; with so many more sources, carbon dioxide is still a far larger problem than SF6. But where is the balance? Why do we hear about the benefits of wind and solar while the drawbacks are ignored? Why do we hear the “dangers” of nuclear power while its remarkably  safe history is glossed over? Why are we urged to panic over unsigned Climate Accords when the truth is far more nuanced? 

Robots and Climate Change

There is something about adapting to a bad situation that makes a lot of sense.

This occurred to me when I ran across this article about robots coming to steal everyone’s job. It tells how a couple of economists are worried about the ability to adapt to the relentless march of automation. Their point is: “Too much time discussing whether robots can take your job; not enough time discussing what happens next.

A popular solution has been to “try to stall or reverse the trend of automation,” a kind of resistance movement to make it more difficult. Such measures include extra taxes on robot-produced goods or taxes on the robots themselves, which I wrote about in March of last year. Some propose new government regulations to make automation more difficult. The economists expect this approach to fail because consumers will naturally gravitate toward “cheaper goods or services” made possible by automation. (You don’t see anyone wanting to pay more for phone service to allow telephone operators to keep their jobs.)

Another proposed strategy is to “reduce the cost of human labor, by driving down wages or cutting benefits” making hiring workers preferable to buying robots. No one could seriously endorse this.

The other class of solutions they call “coping strategies.” These include teaching workers whose jobs are threatened new skills, skills less likely to be taken away by automation. Or the government could provide a guarantee to displaced workers, like a universal basic income (UBI). Both are iffy for various reasons: what skills fall into that category, how trainable are workers in mid-career, and how can any country, especially a poor one, support a UBI plan?

There is a need for more creativity around coping strategies, but at this point most of the energy goes toward ways to slow progress, a futile strategy when automation looks inevitable.

Is there a parallel here with climate change? At present all the efforts seem to be directed toward convincing everyone that climate change is real, inevitable and driven largely by human activity. There are a lot of good arguments to back this up. The intention is to promote individual and governmental action to reduce the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere – a stalling, not a coping, strategy.

People put their hopes on things like the Paris Agreement to make this happen and many despair at the thought of America bowing out. But how familiar are most Americans with the agreement? It is voluntary. Each country gets to pick its own goals known as its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).

China, for example, commits “To achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 and making best efforts to peak early.” Peaking in 2030 means continuing to increase between now and then. India is no better: “India’s INDC do not bind it to any sector specific mitigation obligation or action.” They commit to decrease “emissions intensity” by 33% to 35% in an  economy where the demand for electricity expected to increase by more than 3 times – in other words, they plan meet much more energy need slightly more efficiently. In another instance, Norway commits to “a target of an at least 40% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990 levels.” They get to pick the target and the comparison and when serious development will start, but there is no penalty for missing. (See all countries here.)

Many NDC commitments, when read in detail seem timid at best. Paris doesn’t look like the real solution, just a strategy to postpone the inevitable.

Where are the people talking about dikes and levees around the major coastal cities or better drainage systems for Houston? Why is the government still subsidizing flood insurance for new construction too close to oceans, rivers and streams? So many creative possibilities, adjustments and adaptations for coping are being ignored or overlooked.

In both cases, it makes sense to think critically about how to allocate our resources, putting up roadblocks or planning ahead.

The Upside of Climate Change

Is the climate changing?  Of course the climate is changing.  It has been changing for the last six billion years.

Is it getting warmer?  The temperature trend seems to be in that direction, so there is no reason to doubt that it is also getting warmer.

The problem is that all the news reports seem to stress that a changing climate is a bad thing, that warmer is a bad thing, and that it’s entirely our fault.  Humans had the nerve to act in a way that’s destroying the earth and should feel guilty about it.  We are destroying the planet for our children and grandchildren.  Every additional temperature reading becomes breaking news.  And the President not signing a piece of paper in Paris somehow has an immediate negative effect. 

The argument continues that the changed climate will result in extremes – more cold days, more hot days, more storms and bigger storms.  Unfortunately, the data do not bear this out.   A graph in Wikipedia of the number of hurricanes affecting the US by decade clearly shows variability, not an upward trend.  Annual reported tornadoes compiled by NOAA from 1954 to 2014 shows the same.

Yet every time part of the US, especially the East Coast, experiences some weather extreme, an analyst, reporter or expert is sure to cite climate change.  This is a lazy argument.  Too hot weather proves climate change; too cold weather proves climate change; too windy weather shows the same, all the time implying that it’s a terrible thing, not just for those who built houses too close to the beach, but for everyone.  Critical thinkers should demand better evidence.

We are led to the conclusion that the climate we have is the best of all possible climates and that it’s down hill from here no matter what.  Isn’t there anything positive to be said about climate change?  As it turns out, there are at least a couple of potential benefits.

“Cold weather kills 20 times as many people as hot weather, according to an international study analyzing over 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. The findings also reveal that deaths due to moderately hot or cold weather substantially exceed those resulting from extreme heat waves or cold spells.” (Source:  Lancet)

 Chris D. Thomas is a professor of conservation at University of York and “one of the world’s most influential ecologists” according to the biography at the end of his book Inheritors of the Earth.  On page 6 of that book he says, “More species like it hot than cold, and so the overall consequence of a warmer climate is to raise biological diversity in many parts of the world.”

So the possibility of fewer people dying because of the weather is a good thing.  Biological diversity is also considered a good thing.  Maybe the experts and the media should take some time out from their constant catastrophizing and handwringing to take a look at the bright side.  The climate has been changing for millions of years; humans have been adapting for tens of thousands of years.   Maybe it's not going to be as bad as the purveyors of doom-and-gloom predict.

Advertising, Politics and the Behavioral Model

I have written many times before that politicians and advertisers will try almost any argument to persuade us to buy their product or support their point of view.  They are counting on us not to use our critical thinking or rely on the many valid sources of information at our fingertips.  Instead Americans are inclined to just reflexively accept or reject the premise and move on.   This is especially true of scary or sensational news.

Here is a prime example.  Last Friday, while expressing his shock and concern that President Trump plans to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, former Secretary of State John Kerry warned, “kids will have worse asthma in the summer” because of this decision.  With all the strong reasons he could have offered, why did he pick this one?  Citing the health of our children is an attempt to pull at our heartstrings, rather than to present a logical, persuasive argument.  It keeps us in an emotion-charged, reactive mode – the opposite of critical thinking.

But what do the authorities say?  According to WebMD, “the cause of asthma is unknown. Health experts believe that inherited, environmental, and immune system factors combine” to produce the symptoms.  They go on:  “Studies show that exposure to allergens such as dust mites, cockroaches, and animal dander may influence asthma's development. Some experts believe there are more cases of asthma because of pollution and less exposure to certain types of harmful bacteria and other germs.”  Pollution may irritate the airways and the modern, ultra-clean environment we strive for to protect our children may lower their natural defenses.  At this point, however, these are only possibilities.

Don’t trust WebMD?  Mayo Clinic says, “the underlying causes of childhood asthma aren't fully understood.” Triggers for Asthma attacks “vary from child to child.”  Their list of possible triggers includes:  viral infections; exposure to air pollutants such as tobacco smoke; allergies to dust mites, pet dander, pollen or mold; physical activity; weather changes or cold air.  “Sometimes, asthma symptoms occur with no apparent triggers.”

Until recently carbon dioxide (CO₂) wasn’t even considered a pollutant.  Furthermore, every time a child exhales his or her airways are exposed to CO₂.  Since CO₂ is the focus of the climate agreement, it’s hard to tell what bearing any increase or decrease would have on the situation.  Perhaps an increase would cause an increase in flowers in the summertime increasing the pollen.  But pollen is only one of the many possible triggers of asthma; and not all types of plants release pollen in the summer.  The real cause is still unknown.

This is not a criticism or personal attack against John Kerry, just a warning to us all.  Politicians, advertisers and other “influencers” will use any tactic at their disposal to sell a product, idea or a point of view.  They sell political ideas, food, drugs, insurance, dietary supplements, charitable causes, physical and psychological fitness programs, cars, bicycles, performance bracelets – and the list goes on and on.  Each time we turn on the TV or look at our phone or tablet, we are exposed to hundreds of these messages.  John Kerry may be sincere in his belief that the decision to not sign an agreement will lead to an asthma epidemic, but it is still an attempt to gain political backing for his position with a very dubious claim intended to spark worrying rather than questioning.

It takes no more than 3 minutes to research statements like this one, to find a reputable source and think about what is being said instead of reacting emotionally.  How many people actually do it?  How many parents this summer will blame the president (instead of, perhaps, their own insistence on perfect sanitation) for their child’s asthma just because John Kerry planted a seed of suspicion?  And how many other similar beliefs lead us to commit to questionable products, services or ideas, because we fail to think critically and investigate?

With all the reference material we have at our disposal it’s a shame that so many people are so easily manipulated.  We have it in our ability to force all those influencers to be more honest, more careful and more accountable.  Until we do, they will continue this type of behavior.