Thoughts: Is China a Threat? Or is the Trump Administration a Threat?

Photo by chuttersnap on Unsplash

Trade talks with China have been consuming the economic discussion along with other trade deals lately.  The economy is booming says, President Trump.  What about trade talks with China and other countries?  Each day, the report seems to be the same old response: "We are almost there...to reaching a record deal" -- or something along those lines.  Except nothing happens.  On the Chinese front, the stagnation is present.  What is happening is that the United States has got a large number of soybeans which they are pushing down China's throat to avoid a catastrophic loss.  Barges and barges full of hundreds of thousands of tons of soybeans.  What about trade overall?



According to an article in "Harpers" magazine titled "What China Threat?", no realistic economist agrees with the Trump Administration:

Just as careful diplomacy is required in military matters, it is also integral to America’s economic relations with China. Virtually no well-­known mainstream economist agrees with Trump, or his top trade adviser Peter Navarro and trade representative Robert Lighthizer, that America’s trade deficits are the result of unfair practices by other countries. Martin Feldstein, the former chairman of Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers, has pointed out that America’s global trade deficit is due to the fact that its consumption outweighs its domestic production. Imposing tariffs on low-­cost Chinese goods will not rectify this structural feature, but will serve only to make many essential goods less affordable to ordinary Americans.

The author suggests other writing which would strengthen both China and America at the same time from an economic standpoint:

 Both Feldstein and Magnus agree that in order to maintain supremacy in high-­tech industries like aerospace and robotics, the US government, rather than pursuing tariffs, should invest in areas such as higher education and research and development. In short, America needs to develop its own long-­term economic strategy to match that of China. In both policy and rhetoric, it is clear to see that China’s leadership has a vision for its economy and people. Plans like Made in China 2025 and the infrastructure projects undertaken in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), such as the construction of high-speed railways, demonstrate China’s efforts to become a global competitor in new, advanced industries. At the same time, China’s leaders have emphasized that the country can no longer pursue GDP growth at the expense of social costs such as inequality and environmental pollution. This Xi made clear when he declared in 2017 that the principal contradiction facing Chinese society is now “between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-­growing needs for a better life.” As Magnus sums it up, this means a shift in focus to “improving the environment and pollution, lowering income and regional inequality, and strengthening the social safety net.” Although, as Magnus writes, China’s economy faces several important challenges, China’s leaders have, at the very least, taken steps to address them. It is time for the United States to do the same.

Free trade has benefits to the United States which I have written about previously.  As stated in the article above, the time spent on trade talks would be better spent on investing in education and technologies.  The Trump administration does not believe that education is a high priority.  Quite the opposite.  As far as technology is concerned, the administration is behind large due to its lack of understanding of the importance of investing in research and development.


Of course, the news has highlighted that the Trump administration is against the environmental regulations that the Obama administration instilled to set the United States on pace with the Paris Agreement.  China, as stated above, is even starting to change its habit by investing in renewable energy.  Where are we as a country?  Congress has held, since January, around 8 major subcommittee meetings with the words 'climate change' in the title and in the discussion.  Which is promising to say the least.  Until the government changes the priorities to match where the rest of the world is going, the direction will continue to be toward an 'isolationist' country which is a THREAT to our democracy.



Related Blog Posts:


Soybean Farmers Are Storing Too Much Soybean, Although Chemical Industry Is Greenlighting Trade Deals?


How many cows are needed to generate 50,000 tons of beef exports?


Trade War Hurts Farmers -- From The Farmer's Mouth Directly


"Trade Not Aid" -- The Answer For Trade War!


Parameters: Tariffs Affect Trade In Both Directions -- In And Out Of The USA


Parameters: Steel And Aluminum Tariffs Are Not Isolated - They Are Tied To Trading Of Other Vital Goods

Senator Joe Manchin Asks Department of Energy About Energy Investments And Climate Change

Photo: Mediaite

Over the past year and a half, I have written briefly about various attempts by the Trump Administration to defund the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E).  Recently, I published a blog post with a letter of support from many organizations -- universities and private organizations -- showing their support for the research conducted by the agency.  Now, Senator Joe Manchin has decided to take action and write a letter of inquiry to the Government Accountability Office to ensure that the investments in ARPA-E are keeping up with current threats including climate change in the future.



Here is the letter from Senator Manchin below asking for a Government Accountability Office review of the DOE's energy technology, development, and deployment:

The Honorable Gene L. Dodaro
Comptroller General of the United States
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G. Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20548


Dear Mr. Dodaro:

I am writing to request that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) initiate a review of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) energy technology research, development, and deployment (RD&D) programs with a specific focus on whether the Department is setting and achieving goals for technology readiness, commercialization, de-risking, and deployment.  The DOE has a storied history of successful RD&D efforts, spanning from the birth of civilian nuclear power to the hydraulic fracturing boom to the achievements of SunShot and LED lighting research.  And, in each instance, DOE efforts led to lowered costs for those new technologies and, ultimately, commercialization.  In the context of addressing climate change, growing the U.S. economy, and strengthening U.S. competitiveness and security, the need for DOE's energy research, development and deployment has never been greater. 

In this context, I request that the GAO review the DOE's efforts to set, execute, and evaluate goals for energy technology research, development, and commercialization to scale.  Ensuring that DOE's RD&D efforts have made and continue to make an impact in U.S. energy markets and toward our shared national goals is critical.  The review should include each applied energy office, including the Offices of Cybersecurity, Energy Security, and Emergency Response; Electricity; Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; Fossil Energy; and Nuclear Energy' as well as each office's subcomponents.  the review should also consider how -- and how well -- DOE addresses the so-called "valley of death" and other obstacles to financing and commercializing technologies at each stage of its RD&D activities and across its portfolio, including programs such as the Office of Technology Transfer and technical assistance programs like those administered by the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs. 

I ask that the GAO pursue answers to the following questions: 

1) Do all of DOEs RD&D programs and relevant investment or financing programs (e.g., LPO or ARPA-E) have robust goals?  What processes do the program offices set to reach those goals? 

2) In the past 10 years, what technology development and deployment goals have DOE program offices met, exceeded, or missed? 

3) How does the pace of funding awards, closing loans or loan guarantees, and providing technical assistance align with meeting those goals?  And has that pace been consistent over time? 

4) Has the obligation of funds slowed, and if so, why? 

5) How does DOE evaluate its EF&D contribution to the commercialization of new technologies? 

6) How have the goals set by DOE enabled it to make an impact on larger national objectives such as competitiveness, innovation leadership, economic growth, reducing the U.S. contribution to climate change, and others?


I believe securing the ability of DOE to set science-based, clear, and attainable goals for technology development and commercialization is a vital matter to U.S. national security, lowering GHG emissions, and economic competitiveness.
Sincerely,

Joe Manchin III
United States Senator

These letters are an inside look into the Senator's mind and expectations.   The concerns and questions noted inside the letter give the reader (you and I) a sense of what the Senator is thinking.  I wish that we were also provided the answer from the Government Accountability Office too.  Unfortunately, we do not get to see that part of the process.


Nonetheless, the above letter represents a real concern that the funding that ARPA-E is receiving is not being properly spent or that climate change is not a major goal in funding investments looking into the future.  Senators like Joe Manchin should be congratulated for their voices of inquiry into the inner workings of the Department of Energy.



Especially, since the Energy Secretary Rick Perry has been quite vocal about the money spent toward combating climate change along with the transition toward renewable energy.  Oversight in the form of inquiry sends a signal to the government that elected officials are concerned and paying attention.  Which is what the people of the United States of America would expect and nothing less.



Related Blog Posts:


ARPA-E Should Not Ever Be Shutdown Period.


Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!

Don’t Let Fear Prevent You From Finding a Solution to a Problem

                               Photo by Aarón Blanco Tejedor on Unsplash



Have you ever been paralyzed by fear? How about experiencing anxiety (or fear) when tasked with a job at work to complete within a deadline? The latter question is probably the most relatable since it is the first question expressed in the context of work. Still, the point is has fear ever prevented you from finding a solution to a problem? I will share with you a situation that just happened which fits into the question at hand.

Instruments Break at the worst time possible

As I have mentioned before, I work at a university as an instrument manager in the Department of Chemistry. Which entails fixing instruments that are commonly found in forensic laboratories, pharmaceutical companies, and yes — on popular T.V. shows like “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.”



The other day (last Thursday) I was called out to a laboratory class at the end of the day. An instrument was experiencing an issue. Usually, there is an easy solution to the problem I encountered. By this I mean, out of 100 times being called out for the specific problem, 95 times out of 100, the problem is usually solved by replacing a part which takes about 5 minutes to replace.



Next, is that the power to the instrument needs to be recycled. Which means to power the instrument down and restart the device. You would be surprised at the number of times that “recycling power” on the instrument is a solution to a problem. Unfortunately, the current problem demanded more of my attention. At the time, I thought, “Oh my goodness, this is going to be a problem that takes time to fix.”



At first, I thought, maybe if I shut down the instrument and restart the device in the morning, magically, the instrument will operate as usual, which is what I did leaving Thursday night. I returned on Friday morning and found that the instrument was still having the same problem. Damn — what now?



I should back up slightly and say that the laboratory class meets on every Tuesday and Thursday. There are less than 4 weeks left in the academic semester. And I need to find a solution fast to prevent students from not being able to finish their semester laboratory experiments. That means the professor teaching the laboratory will be ‘riding my rear end to fix the instrument every day’. Did I mention that one of the professors’ is my wife? The clock is ticking.



Anyways, Friday was a busy day. I assumed that I would have a chance to call the instrument company and ask for ‘technical support’ over the phone at some point during the day. Not a chance. Meanwhile, my stress is building up — knowing that next Tuesday (today) is coming around quickly with no solution in sight. At the same time, I was glad because I was super fearful that the problem would be too difficult for me to fix. Therefore, I enjoyed a great weekend and did not (at least try not to) think of the problem yet to be faced with a deadline — Tuesday.



Monday rolls around and I have to help another student with an experiment on a different instrument — which requires my constant monitoring. My colleague offers to look at the instrument while I am running an analysis. To no avail, she cannot find the solution either. Now I am stressing — since the next day is today — Tuesday and the class needs a working instrument.



I finally call the company at 3 pm on Monday. Why so late? Because of fear of failure. I talked to technical support which informed me that I would have to dig deeper into the instrument and clean internal parts. Otherwise, the next option was to spend $8000 to get the problem looked at. By now, the stress has reached a new height. Anxiety is building. What am I going to do?



Tuesday (today) comes around, and I decide to repeat the following statement to myself before going to work: “I am going to go in there and take apart the instrument. If I fail, at least I can say that I tried.”



I asked my wife: “Why didn’t you tell me the instrument was broken?”


She responded: “I knew that you were aware of the state of the instrument. And that you already put an unnecessarily large amount of stress on yourself. The last that you need is for me to stress you out further.”



What a wonderful wife I had. I informed her that she may not get to use the instrument since I was going to take it apart in the morning. She was alright with that possible outcome.

A Solution is Found — Easily

I went into work today and gathered up the tools to take the instrument apart. First, I turned the device off. Since the area in which I was going to be working was heated to around 250 Celcius. After letting the instrument cool down, I went to dig in. As I turned the first wrench, I found that a nut was loose. WOW. At first, I could not believe the information which my hand was sending me. I tried to loosen the nut again and found no resistance. Then, I tightened the nut and smiled at my colleague — hoping that the solution was that simple. Indeed it was. Simply by tightening a nut on a screw, the problem was fixed.



After stressing out over the last few days about the instrument being broken, I realized that taking action could have relieved my stress much sooner. But no. I was scared that I might not be able to fix the instrument. Therefore, I decided that putting off the inevitable was more manageable than tackling the problem to find a solution. How crazy is that?



Anxiety is real. Fear is real. The thought of solving a problem and failing is real too. Although, if no action is taken, then no solution is going to be found ever. Furthermore, part of life is failing. Failing sometimes promotes humbleness and shows us how to solve problems in a faster manner. If I fail, then calling the instrument company can sometimes shorten the ‘down-time’ of the instrument by discussing the problem with a technical engineer. By ‘down-time’ — I mean the time that an instrument lays broken and unable to be used by a student or faculty member.



By deciding to take action, the problem was solved much more quickly than I had imagined. The students were able to use the instrument during their normal laboratory meeting. My wife — one of the professors — was happy. Life is good, right? Yes and no. I learned a lesson that I continuously have to keep learning. Don’t let fear or anxiety prevent me from solving a problem.



When a problem is encountered in our lives, each of us should take action. Sitting around worrying only causes negative feelings/moods and is destructive toward our physiological health. Working toward a solution produces much less anxiety compared to sitting around and worrying about not taking action. Take action — don’t sit around worrying.



Related Blog Posts:


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts

Does The Public Have The Right To Know Where SNAP Money Is Spent?

Photo by Lidye on Unsplash

We live in the dawn of the era of 'big data' today which stands to change the way we see the world of tomorrow.  Through analyzing large data sets (i.e., big data), deeper connections and correlations are inevitable while large amounts of money stand to be made by both governments and private corporations.  Large amounts of data exist.  The main problem is extracting that data from its source and correlating different formats together.  This takes time.  What type of data is acceptable to remove and what kind of information is not acceptable to have?



Currently, the longest running court case is being heard on the Supreme Court.  The case involves a private newspaper company, Argus Leader, out of South Dakota and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) over the spending on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).  The SNAP program has been under fire during the Trump Administration -- whose efforts to try to defund or severely limit by placing restrictions on the recipients.  The SNAP effort is described as follows from the Wikipedia page:

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),[1] formerly and commonly known as the Food Stamp Program, provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income people living in the United States. It is a federal aid program, administered by the United States Department of Agriculture, under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), though benefits are distributed by each U.S. state's Division of Social Services or Children and Family Services.

SNAP benefits supplied roughly 40 million Americans in 2018.[2] Approximately 9.2% of American households obtained SNAP benefits at some point during 2017, with approximately 16.7% of all children living in households with SNAP benefits.[2] Beneficiaries and costs increased sharply with the Great Recession, peaked in 2013 and have declined through 2017 as the economy recovered.[2] It is the largest nutrition program of the 15 administered by FNS and is a key component of the social safety net for low-income Americans.[3]

The amount of SNAP benefits received by a household depends on the household's size, income, and expenses. For most of its history, the program used paper-denominated "stamps" or coupons – worth $1 (brown), $5 (blue), and $10 (green) – bound into booklets of various denominations, to be torn out individually and used in single-use exchange. Because of their 1:1 value ratio with actual currency, the coupons were printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Their rectangular shape resembled a U.S. dollar bill (although about one-half the size), including intaglio printing on high-quality paper with watermarks. In the late 1990s, the Food Stamp Program was revamped, with some states phasing out actual stamps in favor of a specialized debit card system known as Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT), provided by private contractors. EBT has been implemented in all states since June 2004. Each month, SNAP benefits are directly deposited into the household's EBT card account. Households may use EBT to pay for food at supermarkets, convenience stores, and other food retailers, including certain farmers' markets.[4]

With 40 million Americans relying on SNAP relief for food, why is the Trump administration trying to limit the food availability for Americans'?   The cost of the program is $70 billion for 40 million Americans.  Whereas the United States spent $3.5 trillion on healthcare in the same year.  That is 50 times the amount spent on the SNAP initiative.  Why would we want to limit access to food assistance?  Especially, when the program has been extended for venues such as Farmer's Markets -- which promote healthy foods?



The point in contention is that the residents of South Dakota believe they have a right to know where the money is spent.  Is the money spent preferentially on certain types of stores (i.e., Walmart)?  A recent e-mail from 'Politico Agriculture' gives a summary of the status and an update to the current proceedings:

SCOTUS TO HEAR SNAP RETAIL DATA CASE TODAY: After nearly eight years of litigation, the Argus Leader newspaper's quest to obtain SNAP retail sales data lands in the Supreme Court today for oral arguments.

What's at stake: The court will ultimately decide what constitutes confidential business information as it relates to public access to government records. Retailers have argued that store-level SNAP sales data essentially amounts to a trade secret and releasing it would harm retailers.

The Argus Leader, a newspaper in Sioux Falls, S.D., has argued the public has a right to know how and where taxpayer dollars are being spent in the $65 billion program.

The PR angle: Public perception of major retailers is at stake, because releasing a breakdown of sales data would undoubtedly open a new debate about how retailers rely on SNAP as a major share of their sales. Walmart, for example, has long been criticized for taking in a large share of SNAP dollars, while many of its employees utilize the program. Amazon is increasingly facing similar scrutiny.

How we got here: The long-running fight began in 2011 when the Argus Leader filed a lawsuit after USDA denied its Freedom of Information Act request, which had sought retail sales data for five years of store-level SNAP purchases. For awhile, the department fought the request in court.

But in 2017 USDA decided not to appeal a judge's ruling that the government had failed to show that releasing the data would cause real competitive harm to retailers. At that point, the Food Marketing Institute, which represents major retailers, stepped in and eventually succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to take the case.

Brush up on all the twists and turns in the case with the Argus Leader's timeline.

A newspaper's crusade: The Argus Leader, now owned by Gannett, is South Dakota's largest newspaper, but it's still noteworthy that the small paper kept up its fight to access the USDA data for so many years. The reporters who initially filed the FOIA request have said they wanted to use the data to search for trends and write about which companies were profiting from the programs. As Megan Luther, one of the reporters who filed the request, put it to the Associated Press, "Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going."

The retailer argument: FMI contends FOIAs are meant to shed light on government activities, not the sales trends of private businesses. "Retailers zealously protect the confidentiality of sales data because of the innumerable ways that competitors can use such information to more effectively compete against them," the group says on its website. "Congress expressly exempted confidential commercial information from mandatory disclosure." The association launched a landing page with resources backing its position. Find that here.

Impact on FOIA: The case, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, could end up having much broader implications for what is considered confidential financial and business information in the context of FOIA requests.

What's next: SCOTUS is expected to release its decision this summer.

I am no lawyer, but this seems to qualify as 'excessive overreach.'  Why should the shopping habits of Americans' be made public to the people of South Dakota?  This represents private corporate data to which Americans do not need or have access to.  The implications of the decision are quite significant.  Any federal spending could be questioned -- in detail.  Which would probably run up against privacy law?  The choice before the Supreme Court is fascinating and will be followed by yours indeed.  Stay Tuned!



Related Blog Posts:


Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!


Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts

Ralph Nader: Youth Can Change Corporate View of Climate Crisis

Photo: Free & Equal

Change can come about in many different ways.  A community of residents can organize to promote change.  Change can migrate from the top down as in a corporate structure.  Also, change can come from the bottom up when employees organize and join (in a union) and strike to promote change.



Over the last few years, change has started to arise from the youth population of America.  Look no further than the terrible mass shooting tragedy which happened in Parkland, Florida a few years ago.  Now, a new change is emerging with youth motivating greater awareness about climate change among corporations.  The iconic activist Ralph Nader has written briefly on the topic below:

Children’s Moral Power Can Challenge Corporate Power on Climate Crisis

The famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead, once said to me that children have a distinct moral authority to change some of their parents’ habits or opinions. She gave use of seat belts and smoking cigarettes as examples.

Indeed, most of us know instances when sons and daughters have looked into the eyes of their fathers and mothers and urged them to wear their seatbelts or stop smoking. They say in their own plaintive way that they want mommy and daddy around for them. Many mothers and fathers have had such experiences.

Many parents and corporate executives are doing slow motion dances round global climate disruptions, despite the brutally visual and scientific evidence of our climate crisis. The rising tide of worldwide protests in recent months by young students cutting classes to shake up their elders should be a wakeup call and a sign of more activism on the horizon. Earth Day on April 22nd should give them another visible platform.

Last year the Global Youth Climate Strike manifested itself in Sweden, where it was started by a then fifteen year old teenager, Greta Thunberg. Every Friday she stood in silent protest outside the historic Swedish Parliament in Stockholm.

On March 15, an estimated 150,000 European students left school to protest. In Sweden, Germany, France, Britain, and other countries, these youngsters admonished adults, who have the power to urgently diminish greenhouse gases by cutting the use of coal, oil, and gas, and expanding the use of renewables and energy conservation.

In India, demonstrations were about the suffocating air pollution. In South Africa, protestors spoke about the worsening droughts.

At a rally in Washington, DC, eight year old Havana Chapman-Edwards told protestors at the U.S. Capitol: “Today we are telling the truth and we do not take no for an answer,” according to the New York Times.

Protestors already see the truth in the South Pacific’s rising sea levels and the Arctic Circle’s melting ice.

These youngsters can argue their case with facts and figures, with stories of record-setting fires, floods, tornados, and hurricanes and species extinctions. But they are viscerally feeling the impact of climate crisis and fearing for their lives before reaching middle age.

As University of Maryland Professor Dana Fisher told the Times, children are afraid of the tumultuous world they will inherit. Their elders are not protecting them.

Greta, the emerging spokesperson for this escalating youth agitation put it wisely: “There is a crisis in front of us that we will have to live with for all our lives, our children, our grandchildren, and all future generations.” The movement has much more room to grow, but we are depending on them developing a strong, organized voice, while retaining their individual spontaneity.

Not surprisingly, climate deniers took to social media to falsely declare that environmental groups were using the students. In fact, this outburst was quite commendably a result of students taking what they’ve learned seriously.

In England, students are insisting their government declare a state of emergency to highlight the severity of the threat. They want more material on global warming in their national school curriculum.

Some teachers and principals in the U.K. don’t like students missing classes and are trying to block or penalize those who do. But many school leaders are approving such brief intermissions to help save the planet. Sixteen year old Bonnie Morely decried the politicians for being “asleep at the wheel. We have to wake them up and I think thousands of kids on the streets will do just that.”

How about millions of them! Their numbers are growing, with some demonstrations reaching tens of thousands. In France, over 2 million students signed petitions. Some politicians are chiding them about the costs of their demands, as if energy pollution and toxic waste are not costly to people, as if the costs of violent weather patterns aren’t costing huge sums of money and lives already.

In Brussels, Belgium, 18 year old Liam pointed to “a growing momentum,” but he told a Times reporter maybe it should become more disruptive to attain more attention. “Maybe we should change the timing of the protests to rush hour.”

The youngsters understand the problem and want solutions now to counter the current omnicidal lethargy. Although some companies get it—such as the sterling Patagonia and Interface corporations in the U.S.—most large companies either are resisting, engaging in “greenwashing” lip service, or taking the smallest of steps for public relations purposes.

The people of our tormented Planet must pull together as if there was an impending invasion from Mars. Fortunately, the urgent pathways to be pursued are full of favorable economic efficiencies and good jobs. Think of solar energy installations, weatherizing homes and other buildings, modern public transportation, grants to speed up climate chaos mitigation, and economies moving to net or even negative carbon impact. The known remedial technology is far ahead of its mandated applications by sluggish legislators and their myopic corporate paymasters.

Children can and do communicate with each other often and freely around their community, country, and globe. The faster trivial text messages are replaced by texts calling for a relentless call to action, the better. Students taking to the streets and taking on legislators will advance the fight for a safer planet and a more just society.

Stay tuned! This is only the beginning of the world’s children raising adults to a maturity that faces the awful, onrushing realities.

What Ralph Nader is pointing out by outlining the numerous massive demonstrations along with petitions being brought on by youth surrounding the climate crisis is real.  Furthermore, the fact that the youth population is emerging as a significant constituent (or will be in years to come) is going to eventually impact policy at the government (and world) level.  Of course, the degree to which change is affected depends on the youth maintaining the truths seen already by scientists around the world.  The fact that indirect changes are evidence that climate change is not only real but going to have drastic effects on the world's well-being in decades to come.  Especially if no action is taken.



I am happy to see that so many young people are engaging with the current problems of the world. The presence at demonstrations gives me hope that the issues of today will not be exacerbated by further delayed actions by politicians into tomorrow.  If youth along with other age groups stand up now, the change will be immediate.  By immediate, planning will occur into the future on an unprecedented scale.  That does depend on more participation from each of us.  Don't wait for your child to shame you into promoting change.  Promote change that is worthy of a forward-looking society.  The move is real and is happening.  The time has come to embrace the change.



Related Blog Posts:


What Are Activist Ralph Nader's Opinions On Radio News Organizations Such As NPR Or PBS?

Over 600 Environmental Groups write letter to Congress to phase out fossil fuels


Ralph Nader: Post Election -- Next Step -- Open Up The Existing Secretive Congress


Ralph Nader: Warner Slack - Doctor for the People Forever


Ralph Nader: An Open Letter to Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon


Ralph Nader: MAGA is really MADA?


Ralph Nader: Has Corruption Become Institutionalized?


Ralph Nader Says 10 Million People Could Change Healthcare Policy - That Few?


Ralph Nader Suggests To Consumers Reading 'Consumer Reports' Before Impulse Buying


Thoughts: Ralph Nader On A Cashless Economy

Congresswoman Katie Porter Exposes JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon As Out Of Touch With Real Wages

Source: CNBC News

Last week, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing in which a few of the top CEOs of major banks participated through testimony.  During that hearing, a couple of significant breakthroughs were displayed.  One discovery was a declaration of divesting/guiding investments with a severe consideration from Climate Change (as I posted about last week).  That was great news.  Now for the disappointing news.  One specific CEO was asked about hiring wages had very little to say.



Normally, these large corporations lobby Congress to prepare them for such a hearing.  When Congresswoman Katie Porter (D-Irvine CA) had the chance to ask the CEOs questions, no Washington intern could have prepared any CEO for the reality check she was about to deliver.

Wow!  Based on his answers he is far removed from relating to the everyday worker that the job description Congresswoman Katy Porter describes in her questioning.  Which is sad, to say the least.  Although, the disappointment in his answer coincides with the significant disparity between the wealthy class and the poor class.  The middle is eroding as we speak.



Until legislation is put into place to close the disparity between the two classes, moments like these will become more significant in frequency.  The direction that the United States is headed is unsustainable.  Taking away healthcare (pre-existing conditions), supplemental nutrition programs, and stagnating wages will only serve to widen the current gap.  Right now is the time for new leadership to step in and make drastic changes.  Listening to Congresswoman Katy Porter provides a new sense of optimism for the future of the Congress.  Hopefully, the momentum keeps moving forward to a better world.



Related Articles:



Top Bank CEOs Commit To Divesting Investments To Account For Climate Change

Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!

Are Pizza and Pasta Really Gluten Free? Researchers Question Claims

Photo by Taylor Kiser on Unsplash

The Gluten-Free revolution has spread across the United States. And those people who have difficulty digesting gluten are benefiting greatly from the trend. Before the increase in gluten-free options in dishes, a patient who has celiac disease would experience anxiety in choosing a restaurant which could meet their needs. Some might have been skeptical of the patient’s fears and possibly frustrated at other times. Recent research has backed up those who have difficulty with gluten.

According to a recent research paper, a study was conducted across the United States which involved a total of 5,624 tests performed by 804 users. The results show that gluten was detected in 32% of Gluten-Free labeled food, which tends to back up patients’ anxieties about eating out to for a meal.

The experiment required crowdsourcing — the use of many different people across the United States to participate in the research by gathering data for the researchers. The testing equipment is a small analyzer called NIMA shown below:

Photo: Amazon

The data came from all across the United States to be collected and analyzed by the researchers conducting the study. Data showed that gluten was detected in higher concentrations in both pizza and pasta dishes compared to other dishes. From a geographical standpoint, gluten was detected in more significant number in recipes in the North East of the United States compared to the West. There has yet to be a follow-up study on the reason for those findings.


Although, in the paper, researchers offer up possible reasons for pizza and pasta dishes containing greater concentrations compared to other dishes. One reason is that flour is aerated and can become airborne and cross-contaminate with GF flour. This possible explanation is not entirely irrational given that in a separate research study published last year, spore and pathogens could become airborne during rainstorms. A well-ventilated kitchen is often supplied with a sizeable circulating air supply to keep the kitchen fresh and to replenish air every few minutes. The environment could easily cross contaminate flours along with tight workspaces.

Researchers found that the incidences of detecting gluten also increased throughout the day. The least amount of frequencies occurred in the morning time, with the highest rates of detection in the dinner time. Again, no explanation or study has been proposed or offered as to the reason the data shows these trends.

The study shows that the previously held fears (and anxieties) about Gluten-Free labeled food in restaurants is not only reliable but measurable at a significant percentage. As the researchers point out in the study, the West had the lowest occurrence of detection — which might be due to the increased awareness of new diets along with changing eating trends. Regardless, the results of the research show that the United States as a whole has a long way to go (in educating and practicing) toward achieving the right Gluten-Free dishes in restaurants. Hopefully, the paper raises awareness of needed changes to accommodate indeed customers who choose Gluten-Free dishes along with those who have no choice otherwise.



Related Blog Posts:


1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts


2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!

Top Bank CEOs Commit To Divesting Investments To Account For Climate Change

Source: CNBC News

Earlier this week, I wrote a short blog post about Mayor Eric Garcetti announcing that Los Angeles would divest investments away from fossil fuel corporations.  Of course, the commitment requires banks to allow and advise investments geared toward the renewable energy sector.  On Wednesday, the top CEOs from the high banks were called up to Congress to a Financial Services Hearing.  Michigan Senator Rashida Tlaib pressed the panel of CELs to promise (make a commitment) to direct future investments by taking into account Climate Change.



Here is a short video (5:50 minutes) from a Tweet (@C-SPAN)of the top bank CEOs speaking about investing based on climate change:

.@Reprashida to panel of Global Bank CEOs on #climatechange: "Your companies' words are not consistent with your actions." pic.twitter.com/DdOghfsRCJ

— CSPAN (@cspan) April 10, 2019

The testimony in the video represents yet another nail in the coffin for the decline of the fossil fuel industry over the next few decades.  Of course, the fossil fuel industry has significant investments in the renewable energy sector.  Therefore, these large corporations are transitioning too.  Although, the construction industry along with other areas need to get on board and commit to the transition.


Regardless, the testimony above is motivating to those concerned about the severe impacts of not taking action.  Each of the heads of the banks realizes that the transition toward renewable energy is real.  Furthermore, to ignore the onset of adverse impacts of climate change (and not taking action) could jeopardize their financial positions in the future world.



Related Blog Posts:


Mayor Garcetti Moves Los Angeles Away From Fossil Fuel Investment

Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!

Mayor Garcetti Moves Los Angeles Away From Fossil Fuel Investment

Credit:  Scott Rodgerson on Unsplash

Climate Change is very controversial, but, as of recently undeniable by a bipartisan Congress.  Which is wonderful.  Finally, members of Congress are emerging publicly and voicing the obvious -- that climate change is real and is exacerbated by human actions.  Well, the last part there might still be of debate.  Regardless, as I have written recently (over the past 3 months), the new Congress has held a record level of hearings with "Climate Change" in the title of the discussion.  Great.



But for real change, more and more local, state, and federal support needs to be shown for divesting in fossil fuel corporations.  Mayor Garcetti placed Los Angeles into the forefront in February this year by ditching plans to invest billions into fossil fuel corporations as shown in an article from the Los Angeles Times:

Los Angeles is abandoning a plan to spend billions of dollars rebuilding three natural gas power plants along the coast, Mayor Eric Garcetti said Monday, in a move to get the city closer to its goal of 100% renewable energy and improve air quality in highly polluted communities. 

The mayor’s decision marks an abrupt change of course for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, where top staffers have argued in recent months that the gas plants are critical to keeping the lights on in the city. Environmental groups have urged DWP to replace the aging facilities with cleaner alternatives, saying the gas-fired plants need to go because they contribute to climate change and local air pollution. 

Los Angeles has steadily moved away from coal for electricity, divesting from the Navajo plant in Arizona three years ago and announcing plans to stop buying power from Utah’s Intermountain plant by 2025. But with coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, now nearly removed from the city’s energy mix, it’s time to start planning for a future with zero planet-warming energy sources, Garcetti said Monday — and that means no natural gas. 

“It’s the right thing to do for our health. It’s the right thing to do for our Earth. It’s the right thing to do for our economy,” Garcetti said. “And now is the time to start the beginning of the end of natural gas.” 

“This is the Green New Deal,” he added, referring to the sweeping climate change policies championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) and endorsed by several contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Not in concept, not in the future, but now.” 

The mayor’s decision comes several months after state lawmakers passed a bill requiring California to get 100% of its electricity from climate-friendly sources by 2045, up from a previous target of 50% renewable by 2030.

The news represents another partner in the transition toward renewable energy.  Investing in renewable energy makes more sense during a transition toward renewable energy.  Cities across the United States have slowly been signing onto agreements to stick with the Paris Agreement.  The news above represents a more significant shift with the movement of money (investments) shifted away from fossil fuels.



California has many great minds with a wide variety of ideas on how to transition toward renewable energy.  With all of these great minds, there has to exist a range of solutions with different timescales to market.  Out of the variety, the transition should be made feasible.  More commitments will be necessary from other municipalities across the nation.  This will happen with time.




Related Blog Posts:



Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!

ARPA-E Should Not Ever Be Shutdown Period.

Source: Department of Energy

The Trump Administration has waged war to close the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Program (of division) over the last two and a half years.  Why?  In large part because President Obama created ARPA-E which immediately sets the organization into the crosshairs of the Congressional budget committee each year.  The behavior of the President is strange given that both Republicans and Democrats feel that funding for ARPA-E as an organization is critical to meet the energy needs of the future of the United States.



To understand the motivation further of the Trump Administration, let's take a look at the Wikipedia page description of the Agency:

Legislative history 

The concept of ARPA-E was initially conceived by a report by the National Academies entitled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. The report recognized a U.S. need to stimulate innovation and develop clean, affordable, and reliable energy.[1] ARPA-E was officially created by the America COMPETES Act , authored by Congressman Bart Gordon,[2] within the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in 2007, though without a budget. The initial budget of about $400 million was a part of the economic stimulus bill of February 2009.[3] Then in early January 2011, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 made additional changes to ARPA-E’s structure; this structure is codified in Title 42, Chapter 149, Subchapter XVII, § 16538 of the United States Code.

Among its main provisions, Section 16538 provides that ARPA-E shall achieve its goals through energy technology projects by doing the following:

(1)Identifying and promoting revolutionary advances in fundamental and applied sciences;

(2)Translating scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations; and

(3)Accelerating transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty. 

Mission 

Like DARPA does for military technology, ARPA-E is intended to fund high-risk, high-reward research that might not otherwise be pursued because there is a relatively high risk of failure.[4] Like DARPA, it is intended to fund projects involving government labs, private industry, and universities. ARPA-E has four objectives:

(1)To bring a freshness, excitement, and sense of mission to energy research that will attract the U.S.'s best and brightest minds;

(2)To focus on creative, transformation energy research that the industry cannot, or will not support due to its high risk, but that has high reward potential;

(3)To utilize an ARPA-like organization that is flat, nimble, and sparse, capable of sustaining for long periods of time those projects whose promise remains real, while phasing out programs that do not prove to be as promising as anticipated; and

(4)To create a new tool to bridge the gap between basic energy research and development/industrial innovation.[4] 

Launch 

President Barack Obama announced the launch of the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) on April 27, 2009 as part of an announcement about federal investment in research and development and science education. Soon after its launch, ARPA-E released its first Funding Opportunity Announcement for the new agency, offering $151 million in total with individual awards ranging from $500,000 to $9 million. Applicants submitted eight-page "concept papers" that outlined the technical concept; some were invited to submit full applications.[5]

Arun Majumdar, former deputy director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, was appointed the first director of ARPA-E in September 2009, over six months after the organization was first funded.[6] U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu presided over the inaugural "ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit" on March 1–3, 2010 in Washington, D.C..[7]

After reading the above excerpt, who would not want to provide funds for the research initiatives conducted by ARPA-E.  With that being said, the only real reason which I can find for shutting down the program (aside from Obama's vision) is that the funding is for renewable/clean energy for the future of the United States.  ARPA-E is a spin-off from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).



DARPA projects are specifically aimed at the military.  Years ago in graduate school, I had a research project which was funded by DARPA.  The research project was centered around the understanding of limits of quantum computation (quantum information processing) using Solid-State Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy (SSNMR).  Members of the public might think that there is no connection between the SSNMR spectroscopy and the military.



Although, the progress made on the project would indirectly improve the measurement known as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the hospital setting.  Funding for DARPA projects is usually aimed to fund projects which are high risk with large pay-offs along with high failure rates.  The range and scope of projects which are supported by DARPA are large.  Which is partly why a specific agency was created -- aimed explicitly at renewable energy research.



Additionally, the need to fund renewable energy projects which pose a large pay-off with a high risk of failure is essential.  As I emphasized earlier, the need to have a broad portfolio of diverse research projects is critical.  Casting as wide of a net as possible ensures a diverse range of technologies which result from the initial plans.  Therefore, keeping the funding source open and increasing the level of funding annually, ensures a healthy nation which keeps up with the pace of developing (and researching) new technologies.



In light of the obvious, universities and private organizations have banded together to show support for the continuation of ARPA-E funding into the future.  Here is the letter of support from many organizations (corporations and universities) for the extension in arpa-e financing (and program):

Dear Chairman Alexander, Ranking Member Feinstein, Chairwoman Kaptur and Ranking Member Simpson,

As diverse organizations interested in the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) program, we thank you for the significant funding for this vital program in Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019. ARPA-E plays a unique and critical role in maintaining America’s global leadership in energy technologies. As you begin drafting the Fiscal Year 2020 Energy and Water Appropriations bills, the undersigned organizations, companies and institutions urge you to enhance our competitiveness and energy security by supporting robust funding for ARPA-E in the Fiscal Year 2020 appropriations bill.  We support funding ARPA-E at least at $400 million in Fiscal Year 2020. This is roughly $35 million higher than in Fiscal Year 2019 and would allow for one additional program solicitation to pioneer advances in a high-impact energy technology area.

ARPA-E is a highly innovative and effective program which enjoys strong bipartisan congressional support. Since its inception, ARPA-E has successfully sponsored a dynamic range of research, including technologies with potentially profound benefits for the nation’s future energy security. Modeled after the highly successful Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), ARPA-E supports “high-risk, high-reward” research which has the potential to drastically alter how we make and use energy in the future. The program utilizes a unique organizational structure and highly successful selection process to identify innovative technologies, pushes them to meet aggressive milestones and helps them to cross the valley of death so the private sector can then commercialize them.

Despite being just ten years old, ARPA-E is already fostering technological breakthroughs in energy storage, transportation fuels, and industrial efficiency. To date, 136 of more than 340 completed projects supported by ARPA-E have attracted over $2.6 billion in private sector follow-on funding, and 71 projects have gone on to form new companies. The enthusiasm for ARPA-E’s vision and quality of work is evidenced by its ability to repeatedly draw more than 2,000 entrepreneurs, state and federal government officials, state and federal agencies and large numbers of investors to its annual Energy Innovation Summit.

The importance of U.S. leadership in energy technologies to our economic and energy security makes ARPA-E a tremendous competitive advantage for our nation. Stable and sustained funding growth is necessary to ensure this successful program continues to enhance America’s ability to pioneer the energy technologies of tomorrow. 

and the signers were from the following organizations:

American Chemical Society

American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF)

American Geophysical Union

American Society of Agronomy

Association of American Universities

Association of Public and Land-grant

Universities

BASF Corporation

Bettergy Corp.

BPC Action

Brayton Energy

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions

Clean Energy Business Network

Clean Energy Trust

Cleantech Alliance

ClearPath Action

Copper Development Association

Crop Science Society of America

Dioxide Materials

Duke University

E2 (Environmental Entrepreneurs)

Elemental Excelerator, Inc.

Energy Technology Savings, Inc.

Environmental Defense Fund

Fearless Fund

Flash Steelworks, Inc

Florida State University

General Electric

Georgia Institute of Technology

Gnosys, Inc.

Greentown Labs

Industrial Microbes, Inc.

Information Technology and Innovation

Foundation

Intel Corporation

Introspective Systems

Ionic Materials, Inc.

LEEDCo

Malta Inc

Marine BioEnergy, Inc.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Michigan State University

Michigan Technological University

National Audubon Society

National Venture Capital Association

National Wildlife Federation

Natron Energy, Inc.

Natural Resources Defense Council

Newton Energy Group LLC

Nuclear Energy Institute

Onboard Dynamics, Inc.

Otherlab

Pajarito Powder, LLC.

Penn State University

Powerhouse

Princeton University

Prospect Silicon Valley

RedWave Energy, Inc.

SAFCell

SixPoint Materials, Inc.

Soil Science Society of America

Solar Energy Industries Association

Spruce Capital Partners

SSTI

Starfire Energy

Stony Brook University

Swift Coat, Inc.

TechNet

Tenley Consulting

The Nature Conservancy

The State University of New York System

The Texas A&M University System

Third Way

United Technologies Corporation

University of California System

University of California, Berkeley

University of California, Los Angeles

University of California, Merced

University of California, San Diego

University of Colorado Boulder

University of Houston System

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

University of Illinois System

University of Maryland, College Park

University of North Carolina System

University of Oregon

University of Rochester

Urban Future Lab/ ACRE Incubator

US Chamber of Commerce

Vanderbilt University

The above signatures (organizations) represent a massive research consortium.  From industry to academia, there is full support for ARPA-E.  Especially, since investment in energy projects will undoubtedly return dollars to the market in one form or another (either directly or indirectly).  Congressional leaders realize the importance of funding a diverse portfolio of projects both aimed at improving the military side of the nation along with projects aimed at society in general.  More often than not, investment in either pays off in some manner.



Investing money into research might seem pointless at times.  Although, if we look back into history and see the numerous advances which have come out of research spending, funding projects into the future would not ever be questioned.  That is not to say we (as a nation) should throw money at any given research project being proposed.



To close the loop on this conversation, check out this short video about ARPA-E which introduces a few of the concepts which drive research at the organization:

A nation with a diverse and appropriate funding scheme which supports a wide range of projects stands to gain the most.  The United States spends most of GDP on research compared to other nations.  Although, the United States also benefits the most from their investments.  The correlation is obvious.  Spend more and get more.  But spend smart too.



Related Blog Posts:


Congress Intervenes And Asks For No More Oil Drilling Off Of Florida

President Trump Is Out Of Touch With The Transition Toward Renewable Energy

EPA Director Finally Realizes Reality Of Trying To Roll-Back Obama Era Clean Air Act Regulation

Environmental Groups Question Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cuts

President Trump's Immigration Rhetoric Damages International Science Student Enrollment

What Promises Did President Trump Make Science Research During His Campaign?

Can The President Prevent The Public From Learning About Scientific Research???

President Trump's Understanding of the Paris Agreement


World Goes Left, While Trump Leads Right - On Climate - Why?


Is This Behavior Presidential - President Trump?


Paris Climate Agreement Is A Start Toward The Renewable Energy Future


READ THIS BEFORE VOTING -- Presidential Science (WORLD) Issues!


Brings Jobs Back By Promoting Renewable Energy!