The Man Who Loved China
My gift this fine February morning, is sparing you the three-line subtitle that reads like pre-DDB body copy. Editors, it seems, have decided such copy makes the sale.
I have no idea whether that is actually true. In a category other than publishing, I’d utter my favorite “let’s-not- Continue reading
Peripatetic (adj.) : moving or traveling from place to place
In the depths of winter, I always find a splash of color goes a long way in reminding me of the vibrancy of life. And what, I ask you, is more vibrant than a flamboyance of flamingoes?
So while you might think cooler temperatures and longer nights offer a time to catch up, the reality is that my attention span–which has always been a weak spot– Continue reading
The Best American Science & Nature Writing 2003
Richard Dawkins, Guest Editor, Tim Folger, Series Editor
For some inexplicable reason, 2018 has been the summer of nerds. And by that I do not mean a sudden influx of pale males sporting pocket protectors and high waters.
No, this is the summer Mrs. AHC decided to take note of my tendency to set up data collection exercises and social psychology experiments. When she wasn’t issuing Continue reading
Astrophysics for People in a Hurry
Neil de Grasse Tyson
A long time ago, in a high school not so far away, I toyed with the idea of joining. So, despite my demonstrated lack of athletic and social ability, I tried some sports and clubs.
One of those clubs seemed perfect for a nerd like me. The Astrophysics Club met on Friday nights and got to Continue reading
The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2012
Dan Ariely, Guest Editor; Tim Folger, Series Editor
Human beings love patterns. We seek them even when they don’t exist. So I’m not in alien territory when I wonder whether the pattern I’m stuck in with these science annuals is reading them at 12- to 18-month intervals or picking volumes from years divisible by two.
More likely there’s no pattern at all although I do have a common reaction which is that I cheat myself by not Continue reading
The Trouble with Testosterone
And Other Essays on the Biology of the Human Predicament
Robert M. Sapolsky
Last I looked, Mighty Mouse had little to do with science.
Yet an editor agreed to use his image on a book cover–and a science, no, not just a science, a biology book cover at that–for a reason. And it wasn’t just to crack me up.
(It probably was intended to draw my attention to the book on the shelf. Alas for the bean-counters and the Continue reading
The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004 Steven Pinker, Guest Editor; Tim Folger, Series Editor
Birds. I can’t help it, they irk me even though I love birdsong. But as creatures, unh unh. Count me out. What with their unblinking eyes and ability to poop on me from above. I just know they’re waiting to take the planet back.
Which is why I’m shamefaced to point out that the most enjoyable piece of writing in this decade-or-so old Continue reading
The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2008
Jerome Groopman, M.D., Guest Editor; Tim Folger, Series Editor
Luckily, science doesn’t come with a ‘sell by’ date. That’s a good thing because I run so perennially behind that getting to the’ 08 volume in ’14 is actually admirable.
As was the job done in helping assemble this volume. I’ve been known to refer to myself as a failed engineer, which is true. But, seemingly in penance, I gravitated towards social science and went on, eventually, to 3 semesters of graduate school math. My point Continue reading
The Best American Science Writing 2004
Dava Sobel, Editor; Jesse Cohen, Series Editor
In high school I was a certified nerd: slide rule, binder, TI some-number-or-other in hand, 90+ on all four science Regents. Science remains a fascination and the rigor I learned is important as I read the social science and business literature where it often goes wanting. So it’s a little troubling that there’s so little of it in these virtual pages.
Part of the problem is that I am, by nature, a generalist. The history of science is populated with Continue reading
A former boss told me my sensitivity to cognitive dissonance was a drawback in a world defined by same. That may be but when the dissonance gets too loud I like to turn to data. It may not convince you; working with it tends to soothe me.
The lovely image to the right shows CO2 molecules arrayed in a 3D space. Working on my post about lawn reclamation and sustainability prompted me to dig a bit into the numbers behind CO2 emissions. I’m not a scientist or engineer (I work with engineers but washed out of the pre-engineering program I attended in high school) so everything that follows is an educated layman using available numbers and a modicum of common sense.
Our example is a recent business trip from New York to Reston, VA. To keep things easy let’s stipulate that because all but 20 miles was highway driving that we’ll consider it all highway driving.
|Miles Driven (R/T NY-Reston, VA
| MPG (EPA Hwy)
| Gals Used
| Gas Price/Gal (refuel in DE)
|| $ 3.65
|| $ 3.65
|Lbs of CO2/gal
| Total lbs CO2
Now, just for giggles, let’s assume that the Metro extension to Reston from DC was working. That would enable us to take Amtrak from NY to Union Station in DC and the metro the rest of the way. The following data come from our friends at CarbonFund.org, see the citations on their site for the underlying calculations.
|Amtrak Distance NY-DC RT (PM)
|Distance rail CO2/PM
|DC-Reston Distance RT
|Passenger Miles (PM)
|Commuter rail lbs CO2/PM
|Cost (Max metro fare, one way)
|Commuter Rail Cost R/T all passengers
|TOTAL RAIL COST
|TOTAL RAIL CARBON (lbs)
So here’s the conundrum–it’s cheaper to drive–in 2 cars–than to take the train. In fact, even with tolls, it’s $479 cheaper. And the cars spewed 158 more pounds of carbon into the air. I thought the difference might be greater, so there’s a risk someone would say is that all? I mean, that was the result of displaying Big Mac calories and people don’t change cognitive styles when products do. Nonetheless, leave aside global warming and you still have to admit that’s not a healthy lungful.
We all know what the fix is. You equalize the costs so that the less harmful method is not disadvantaged vis a vis the more polluting one. There are two words in plain English that say that more clearly: carbon tax. Divide the saved carbon by the difference in price and you get a tax of $3.04 a gallon so that the additional carbon has a price. That raisers the per gallon cost to $6.69. Not crazy by non-US standards but a shocker here at home.
Will we need to have such a tax or see such prices to get people out of cars? I think so. The economists would say behavioral changes require an incentive. For now, most folks balancing a budget or making business travel decisions will choose the overall cheaper alternative. Nobody likes higher taxes but it’s really the only way change will ever happen.
And if we fail to enact such a levy and the impact on the earth gets worse? Well, the economists have a term for that, too: the tragedy of the commons.