February 2008 – Page 6 – a sibilant intake of breath

Mycophagy

Michael Pollan’s book left me curious about mushrooms, and keen to try some seasonal varieties as they become available. At the moment, it is possible to order Oyster Mushrooms (Pleurotus ostreatus) and King Oyster Mushrooms (Pleurotus eryngii) from Emile Peloquin, an Ottawa-area dealer in local and organic foods. Both are quite tasty when fried at increasingly high temperature along with butter and diced garlic. One interesting fact about Oyster Mushrooms is that they are one of a relatively small number of carniverous fungi, with a mycelium capable of killing and digesting nematode worms. Another is that they are the only wild mushrooms I have ever been involved in the collection, cooking, and consumption of, during the second LIFEboat Flotilla.

I am looking forward to trying Chanterelles (Cantharellus) and Morels (Morchellaceae Morchella), both of which feature prominently in Pollan’s book. If I can find suitable guidance somewhere, I would also be interested in trying my hand (it is probably more accurate to say ‘my eyes’) at mushroom hunting.

[Update: 11 February 2008] I cooked up quite a sampling today: cremini, shitake, oyster, and agaricus mushrooms, all nicely fried up. Agaricus is not terribly interesting, but they look cute in the mixture.

[20 February 2008] One interesting explanation for my newfound love of mushrooms could be Vitamin D deficiency. Ottawa is hardly the sunniest place in winter and, even on the days that are both cold and bright, one’s skin is mostly covered. 1/2 cup of mushrooms can contain 2700 IU of vitamin D, which is important for the proper functioning of many bodily systems.

Canada’s anti-superbug initiative

Canada’s federal government is launching an initiative to combat antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is a very sensible thing to do, given how bacterial evolution is creating resistant strains at a higher rate than the one at which we are inventing new antibiotics. MRSA and its relatives could well signal a return to a world in which morbidity and mortality from bacterial illness start shifting back towards the levels prevalent before antibiotics were widely available.

We largely have ourselves to blame for the existence of these bugs. Every time a doctor prescribes unnecessary antibiotics in order to get a patient out of their office, we give them another chance to get stronger. The same goes for when a patient stops taking an antibiotic prescription when they feel better, rather than when it runs out, potentially leaving a few of the most resistant bugs behind to infect others. The same is true for all the ‘antibacterial’ soaps and cleaning products out there. Putting triclosan in soap is pretty poor prioritization. Outside the body, it makes the most sense to kill bugs with things they cannot evolve resistance to: like alcohol or bleach. Using the precious chemicals that kill them but not us to clean countertops is just bad thinking. Finally, there is the antibiotic-factory farming connection discussed extensively here before.

The federal plan involves a number of prudent steps, many of them specifically targeted to MRSA and Clostridium difficile. These include more active patient screening, better sanitization of hospital rooms, use of prophylactics like gloves and masks, and the isolation of patients with resistant strains. Given that there were 13,458 MRSA infections in Ontario hospitals in 2006, it seems that such an initiative is overdue. It would be exceedingly tragic if we comprehensively undermined one of the greatest discoveries in the history of medicine through carelessness and neglect.

The failure of liberal dreams for Afghanistan

Sayed Pervez Kambaksh’s death sentence is a compelling demonstration of how thoroughly the west has failed in Afghanistan. The death sentence was issued by an Afghan court in response to the allegation that Kambaksh had downloaded and distributed a report about the oppression of women. This is not the first time a death sentence has been issued for blasphemy in Afghanistan since the imposition of the Karzai government, but it is a pretty egregious case. Yesterday, the sentence was confirmed by the Afghan Senate.

Is the whole point of the war in Afghanistan the replacement of one brutal band of thuggish warlords with another? Admittedly, the present government is better than the Taliban was, but that is hardly a ringing endorsement. Canada is considering an ever-more long term commitment to the protection of this government while, at the same time, we cannot trust them not to torture detainees that are transferred to them.

What is to be done in response? Do we become hard-headed realists, asserting that aiming to empower women or promote human rights was never a realistic or appropriate aim of the war in Afghanistan? Supporting a government just because they seem relatively pliable and seem to say the right things about cracking down on groups that worry us is certainly a practice with a long history. That said, it isn’t a very successful one. After all, it is why the west armed the Mujahideen in the first place (not to mention the Pinochets and Musharrafs of the world). Do we become isolationists, then, despairing of our ability to effect any progressive or worthwhile change in the world? That doesn’t seem practically or morally tenable in a world as interconnected as ours has become.

Perhaps all we can do is become a bit more cynical and a lot more critical about the supposed justifications for interventions. Rather than aspiring to replace oppressive societies with somewhat better ones, perhaps we should admit that overthrowing governments – however awful – will normally lead to horribly broken societies. That is not to say that it is always the worst option available. A horribly broken society is better than one in which an active genocide is occurring. With such exceptions admitted, it does seem as though the dream of a transition to liberal democracy through military intervention has been essentially invalidated by the experience of western states in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001.

Bans, taxes, or nothing

A former chairman of Shell has argued that the European Union should ban cars that get fewer than 35 miles per gallon. The basic idea is that there is no reason for cars to be less efficient than that and the new ones that do more poorly are intolerable luxury items. Forcing all cars to meet the standard is presented as a way of making the rich “do their share” when it comes to climate change.

Similar arguments exist about lightbulbs. Should governments ban incandescent bulbs, impose extra taxes on them, or do nothing? The last option won’t help with climate change mitigation. The middle option risks dividing the world between an upper class nicely lit in flattering yellow hues and an underclass rendered corpselike by flickering green compact fluorescent bulbs. Banning the bulbs outright could prevent their use in the few situations in which they are genuinely highly valuable, as evidenced by the willingness of their owners to cut emissions in other areas in order to not have to give them up.

The ideal solution is sustainable, tradeable carbon allowances. Everyone on earth gets about 750kg a year, and are free to trade it between them. Yes, the poor will sell to the rich, but they will do so voluntarily because the money is worth more to them than their emissions are. This certainly isn’t perfect (people may sell under duress or still lack sufficient means for a decent life), but it’s better than the ‘grab what you can’ approach that dominates presently. Of course, this allowance approach is hopelessly unrealistic. The emissions of people in the rich world are so far above what’s sustainable, they would never sign on to a system that required them to cut back as far as is appropriate.

Another big question has to do with induced technological change. Automakers will howl to the moon if you demand that they make 35mpg cars across the board. Sputtering, they will swear that it is impossible and even trying will bankrupt them. Actually forced to do so, however, it is probable they would squeak over the line. The question is whether such a policy would have benefits that outweigh the associated costs – including the perceived loss of liberty on the part of car makers and car owners.

How then do policymakers reconcile the possible with the fair, the risks associated with climate change and the reality of other social and equitable issues? The idea of forcing manufacturers of luxury cars to turn out models that get 50mpg does have appeal, but it is probably a mistake to conflate the fighting of climate change with the desire to reduce the profligacy of the wealthy. Excessive emissions are the behaviour properly targeted by climate policies: not pompous displays of extravagance. Mandated standards do have a role to play in situations where elasticity of demand is weak and there are possibilities for structural change. Those, in combination with carbon pricing, do have the capacity to help us move to a low-carbon economy. The devil of that transition, as ever, is in the details.

Some figures on the economics of corn ethanol

Trustworthy numbers on some climate-related things are virtually impossible to find. Key examples are nuclear power and biofuels.

All the more reason, then, to be thankful that some numbers have been crunched over at R^2. Conclusions:

The corn for one gallon of ethanol costs about US$1.30.
Energy for processing costs another $0.33
Enzymes, yeast, and chemicals are $0.14
Labour and other expenses are $0.23
Capital depreciation costs are estimated at $0.40

He thus concludes that corn ethanol costs about $2.00 per gallon, not including return on investment. This is also after you subtract the revenue from selling the distiller’s dried grains with solubles (DDGS) grown with the corn but not used for ethanol production. Due to the lower energy density of ethanol, this is equivalent to gasoline for $3 a gallon.

While I certainly wouldn’t bet the farm on the accuracy of those figures, I think there is reason to put more stock in them than in estimates from journalists (who lack expertise) or governments (who often have conflicts of interest). Of course, the issue of whether corn ethanol is cheap or expensive doesn’t bear upon some other vital questions: Does it actually reduce fossil fuel usage? Does it produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions on a lifecycle basis? Does making it raise food prices and starve the poor?

SpaceShipTwo

Virgin Galactic – Richard Branson’s space company – has released the design of its next generation craft: SpaceShipTwo. The machine will carry passengers into the upper atmosphere after being carried to an altitude of about 15km by a larger mothership. After spending time at 110km of altitude, the vehicle will re-enter the atmosphere. While the technology is new and doubtless interesting, there is good reason to ask whether it serves any valuable purpose.

The three aims commonly described for the technology are delivering extremely urgent packages, launching small satellites, and entertaining rich people. While it can certainly be argued that manned spaceflight has not generally been a valuable undertaking, this sort of rollercoaster ride does seem like an especially trivial use of technology. For about $200,000, you get a few minutes in microgravity, the view out the windows, and bragging rights thereafter. Satellite launching could be a lot more useful, though the Virgin group has yet to demonstrate the capability of their vehicles to do so – a situation that applies equally to the idea of making 90 minute deliveries anywhere in the world.

The Economist provides an especially laughable justification for the whole undertaking, arguing:

When space becomes a democracy—or, at least, a plutocracy—the rich risk-takers who have seen the fragile Earth from above might form an influential cohort of environmental activists. Those cynics who look at SpaceShipTwo and think only of the greenhouse gases it is emitting may yet be in for a surprise.

Hopefully, they won’t become ‘environmental activists’ of the Richard Branson variety: investing in airplanes and gratuitous spacecraft while hoping someone will develop a machine that will somehow address the emissions generated.

Immersed in medical drama

Recent obsessive watching of House has taught me something: while whiteboards are the new standard, in relation to blackboards, the smoked plastic board is the cool option.

Also, pharmaceutical drugs are powerful, the human body is complex, and keyhole surgery changes everything. Also, people underestimate Rabies.

[Update: 4 February 2008] One medical inaccuracy I noted in this series concerns MRI machines. At several points, there are interactions between metal and the machine. In one case, bullet fragments that House shot into a corpse; in another, metal-laden prison tattoos. In both cases, there is no effect on the metal before the scan begins. This ignores how the magnet in an MRI machine is always on. The magnetic field is always there, aligning the magnetization of hydrogen atoms. The actual scan consists of radio waves used to alter the alignment of the magnetization. As such, the metal would have been drawn into the bore of the machine as soon as it got near it, not after the scans started.

Taskforce calls for $2 billion for CCS

In March 2007, the Canadian federal government and the Government of Alberta formed a task force to investigate carbon capture and storage (CCS) as a climate mitigation technology. Now, the report of that task force has been released: Canada’s Fossil Energy Future: The Way Forward on Carbon Capture and Storage. The report for $2 billion to be spent by federal and provincial governments in order to get five CCS facilities online by 2015. These five facilities would collectively sequester 5 Mt of CO2 per year. This is equivalent to about 0.6% of Canadian emissions.

Supporters of the plan argue that initial governmental support is essential for learning how to scale up the technology, making much larger (and presumably unsubsidized) reductions possible in the future. The report projects that as many as 600 megatonnes (Mt) of CO2 could be sequestered by 2050: a figure equivalent to about 85% of current Canadian emissions. Sequestration at this kind of scale is a key element of the climate plan recently announced by the Government of Alberta.

The announcement raises both practical and ethical questions. The first centre around the overall expense of the plan, the second around who is paying it. The report acknowledges that building CCS into facilities increases the cost substantially:

The financial gap associated with most commercial-scale CCS projects (ones with one megatonne or more of CO2 emission reductions per year) is on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Businesses will only do this when either (a) the cost of emitting carbon justifies mitigation efforts of this expense or (b) they can convince someone else to foot the bill. The idea that federal and provincial governments should spend $2 billion to help the oil sector continue behaving as usual can be seen as objectionable. It certainly contradicts the Polluter Pays Principle. If carbon capture and storage is to rescue certain industries from the climate change externalities they are creating, it will have to be possible for them to pay for it themselves and remain profitable; otherwise, either public finances or the global environment will need to suffer to sustain their profits.

The fight for the nominations

The utter implosion of Rudy Guliani is probably the biggest surprise so far in the American presidential race. WIth ‘Super Tuesday‘ five days away, a person has to wonder whether clear winners will emerge on the Democratic side, Republican side, or both. If not, the fights in the last few states might get rather ugly.

A Romney-Obama fight would obviously be rather different from a McCain-Clinton fight. It is way too soon to project who would win either. This election certainly continues to be most interesting.

People hoping for a good climate plan from the next administration are especially torn. Both Clinton and Obama have fairly credible plans. McCain is a lot better than Romney, but worse than either Democrat. As such, there is a tension between damage limitation (hoping the Republican with the best climate plan is nominated) and a competing hope that the least electable Republican is nominated, increasing the probability of a Democratic victory.

Common descent and biochemistry

Despite the dizzying array of life on Earth – if you doubt that, watch the BBC’s excellent Planet Earth series – there is a remarkable degree of biochemical consistency between all living things. This is one of the strongest arguments in favour of common descent: the idea that all living things are descended from the first replicators so evocatively described in the opening chapter of Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. The very strongest evidence of that thesis comes not from the universality of the really essential mechanisms of life, but from the universality of arbitrary conventions common to all living things.

Some of the more astonishing elements of life are universal: the storage of constitutive information in strands of DNA or RNA, the use of three nucleotide codons to refer to amino acids, and the dominant role of proteins in cellular architecture. These are common to animals and plants, fungi and bacteria and archaea. It is difficult to imagine how living things would look if they were based on alternatives to this basic system. Then, there are elements of common biology which need to be in place, but are somewhat arbitrary. For example, there is the metabolization of glucose for energy and the use of adenosite triphosphate (ATP) as an energy carrier. Something needs to play these roles, but there are presumably other molecules that could serve the purpose. Also, unlike the consistencies in the first category, life would not be staggeringly different if different molecules served these purposes. Finally, there are what might be considered arbitrary conventions – things that were established at the origin of life, are common to all life, but which could just as well be another way or a patchwork of different ways. This includes the use of only 20 amino acids to make proteins, and the fact that the L-isomers of these acids are used. This also includes how cells establish a lower concentration of sodium inside themselves than exists in the surrounding matter, with a higher concentration of potassium inside. It could just as well have been the other way.

In a sense, it is the third category that provides the best evidence of common descent. It is like language: pretty much any language will need a way to refer to objects and to actions performed upon them. As such, the inclusion of these aspects in different languages isn’t really evidence of relation. When you find a language that has a number of arbitrary conventions in common with another (say, an alphabet), you have more reason to think they both evolved from something older.

While statistics suggests that it is highly likely, it would nonetheless be rather thrilling to find life that emerged entirely independently, somewhere out among other planets or distant stars.