It is time to abandon fossil fuels

The transportation sector of our economy has recently become the number one contributor of greenhouse gasses, surpassing electricity production just this year. Oil production is up due to improved recovery methods, essentially fracking. This causes a lowering of the price of gasoline stimulating the purchase of bigger cars and hence more fuel consumption.

Meanwhile, greenhouse gas production from the electricity sector is down because of increases in electricity production from renewables such as wind and solar. Coal-fired plants are on the decline with much of that production being replaced with cleaner-burning natural gas.

The obvious need now is to wean our transportation systems off the use of fossil fuel products such as gasoline and diesel and convert them to electric power. Electric vehicles are inherently more efficient even when charged from the grid. Gasoline and diesel are pure fossil fuel whereas electricity from the grid has contributions from fossil fuel free wind, solar, nuclear, and hydro. Much electricity is produced from natural gas but it is cleaner burning than gasoline and diesel.

Most types of transportation are accessible to electrification. Some rail lines, particularly passenger trains in the east are already electric powered and there are no great impediments to extending this to all rail traffic both freight and passengers. Long-haul trucking will soon see the first generation of electric 18-wheelers. Tesla Motors is currently testing a semi with a 500-mile range. In the wings are delivery vans and pickup trucks.

Several totally electric passenger vehicles are on the market now. Tesla model 3 and Chevrolet Bolt are small sedans showing up across America. They both have a range of about 250 miles and the build-out of rapid charger networks will transform passenger car traffic.

Short range delivery vehicles are ripe for conversion to electric power. They have defined routes and predictable energy needs plus a central location for charging when not in use. Charging delivery vehicles at night is especially beneficial because there is excess generating capacity so rates are lower.

One of if not the best application of electric fleet vehicles are buses. Clean running buses in urban locales can greatly improve air quality over fossil fuel powered buses, even those employing clean burning natural gas. With electric buses there are no local pollution emissions and greatly reduced greenhouse emissions from remote generating plants.

Everyone with a child or grandchild, a niece or neighbor, who rides a school bus daily is exposed to noxious emissions from those buses. The bus that idles while waiting to pick up a load of children at school, the bus that idles while picking up and dropping off children in the community, the bus that runs up and down our highways and byways are all significant sources of pollutants such as fine particulates, carbon monoxide, and the components which form smog and ozone.

And finally, if climate change and the health of children aren’t enough, consider the fact that electric vehicles are cheaper. Electricity as a fuel is one third to one quarter the cost of gasoline and diesel. Maintenance costs are considerably lower for electric vehicles – fewer moving parts, no oil changes, radiator fluids, longer brake life due to regenerative braking, etc.

It’s time to start talking to superintendents, school boards, the PTA – anybody that will listen. Electric school buses are good for both our children and our pocket books.

Voting for Change

The mid-term elections are just about over with mixed results. The Democratic message was one of access to affordable healthcare and human rights. The Republicans argued for the need to protect our southern border from migrants. What wasn’t often discussed was the increasingly loud drumbeat for addressing climate change.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the most dire yet. Previous reports have generally given a range of possible effects, be they global warming, ocean acidity, or sea level rise. The essence of this latest report is that the predicted outcomes appear to fall at the extreme end of the range. Basically, it is getting hot even faster, sea levels are rising even faster, etc. The pace of climate change is accelerating and the obvious response should be a more rapid reduction in the release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Efforts have been made by some. Seven candidates for governor ran and won promising to support renewable energy solutions. Governors-elect in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Nevada, Maine, New Mexico, and Oregon campaigned to expand their Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) . The percent capacity for renewable energy has been expanded and target dates for attainment have been shortened.

Governor-elect Jared Polis, Colorado will seek a target of 100% renewable energy by 2040, up from the current RPS of 30 % by 2020. Also with a target of 100% is Connecticut Governor-elect Ned Lamont. The Connecticut target date is 2050. The leader in concern for climate change, California, already has an RPS of 100% BY 2045. The recent wildfires in California have been linked to climate change and only serve to strengthen the resolve of Californians.

Unsurprisingly, all seven are Democrats. This reflects the desires of the party’s membership, where concern for global warming is much higher than among Republicans. A recent Pew Research Center poll showed that 70% of Democrats trust the science of global warming. Compare that with Republican trust at only 15%.

The climate lost in a couple of direct challenges. In ever-so-blue Washington State, a ballot issue to impose a carbon tax failed. Colorado failed to drastically limit drilling for oil and gas on state property. Arizona voters rejected a 50% by 2030 RPS, while Nevada approved the exact same RPS.

Here in Arkansas, we don’t have any RPS. We do have a favorable net metering regulation. Some homes and small businesses have grid-tied renewable energy systems. Using solar panels as an example, such grid-tied systems can send energy to the grid when the sun shines making the meter run backwards. When the sun doesn’t shine the owner draws power from the grid.

Right now the “exchange rate” is neutral. Owners of such systems get paid the same price as they pay when consuming. The cost-effectiveness of renewable systems depends on the rate structure which is determined by the Public Service Commission. Big producers such as Entergy and SWEPCO are lobbying the PSC hard and fast to limit the competition by seeking a rate structure far less favorable to small producers of renewable energy.

Voting – Compassion vs Fear

Most of the campaigns where the race is truly competitive, say within a five-point spread, are making their closing arguments. They are focusing on a message that has been honed over a year or so of campaigning.

In campaigns which involve national issues and even some local ones which have become nationalized a couple of central themes have evolved. Democrats are delivering a more positive message of the importance of compassion, health care, and civil and human rights whereas Republicans operate more on fear, fear of violence, fear of immigrants, and essentially fear of “others.”

Stepping away from the labels of Democrat and Republican and using the proxy of liberal and conservative, there is good evidence from psychological and even neurophysiological data for these different approaches to campaigning. It is not only what you think but actually how you think – how your brain responds to subject matter and what part of the brain is activated.

First the more obvious sources of difference between liberals and conservatives. Upbringing, education and personal experiences all influence our political attitudes. Two of these are easily observed. College students from conservative communities as freshmen in college tend to vote much like their parents. Graduate students from those same communities tend to vote much less conservatively. A liberal education actually does make one more liberal. Buzzwords like egghead, ivory tower and over educated are used almost exclusively by conservative commentators when describing liberals, never visa versa.

Women tend to be more liberal than men most likely due to personal experiences. Women are more likely to support collective actions which protect a broader swath of society such as children, minorities, ethnic groups, and the LGBTQ community. Conservatives are more of the “rugged individualists” where experience has shown them that personal actions are more important – being the soldier, the protector of the family, the breadwinner.

Of course all of the above are very broad generalizations and exceptions abound but the data are robust and come from very large data sets in well-controlled studies.

These themes are seen clearly in campaign verbiage. No better example is the issue of border protection and immigration. Republicans believe that building a wall at our southern border will protect us from immigrant hordes of murderers, rapists, and drug gangs. A recent twist is that immigrants from Central America will bring disease to our shores. One commentator claimed that they will bring Small Pox, a disease which no longer even exists. It was eradicated by an international vaccination program almost 40 years ago. He also warned of a biblical plague of leprosy, a disease easily treated with antibiotics.

They believe that blocking immigration from predominantly Muslim countries will prevent terrorism in our country while the only real current terrorist threat is from indigenous white nationalists. Recently pipe bombs have been mailed to news agencies and democratic politicians, and a gunman murdered eleven at a Pittsburgh synagogue.

Democrats believe in an immigration policy that controls our borders while at the same time recognizing that migrants fleeing violence should be treated with dignity and respect. They don’t believe in open borders, regardless of what Republicans claim.

Dr. Bob Allen, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Chemistry at Arkansas Tech University.

Deregulations Have Harmful Effects

It doesn’t matter, we won. Although this claim was made by President Trump in regard to the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the supreme court, it could easily apply to most if not all of his accomplishments. He can claim two significant victories as president, the tax cut and deregulation of numerous environmental protections.

Republicans’ justification for tax cuts is always the same. Lowering taxes stimulates the economy and the growth in the economy will raise tax income despite the cuts. And as always it doesn’t work. Rather than increased revenue to the national coffers, The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that the annual deficit it will exceed 1.5 trillion dollars by 2028 and that assumes no changes from existing taxes and spending laws and no recession.

President Trump, with the devout approval of the republican party, appears to be winning on the deregulatory front as well. Even in the face of the most dire warning yet from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), his actions exacerbate global warming and climate change rather than reverse or even mitigate the problem. One might question the pronouncement of an individual scientist but the most recent IPCC report is based on a consensus of the world’s atmospheric scientists.

Imagine that you didn’t trust a diagnosis from your doctor and decided to get a second opinion, a reasonable precaution. By analogy with the IPCC report, you would have to go to hundreds of other doctors before you could find a different opinion, if at all.

Now is the time for us to be acting. You repair the roof while the sun shines, but the clouds are gathering and we are running out of time to act. The solution must be to decarbonise our energy systems. And it can be done with little to no change in our lifestyle. Efficiency through design and building codes save both energy and money. Fuel efficiency standards for automobiles and light trucks save both energy and money. Tighter controls of fugitive emissions of methane save both energy and money.

Wind and solar have the capacity to produce all of the energy we need in this country. The only shortfall is with energy storage, but we are not that far away. A modest investment in the development of battery storage plus overdue investments in the infrastructure for distribution and transmission of electrical energy is the path forward.

So what are we doing? Not just nothing, we are actually acting to make things worse. President Trump wants to burn more coal, roll back efficiency standards on cars and trucks, and remove restrictions on regulations of fugitive emissions of methane. By fiat; that is, executive order, he placed a thirty percent tariff on foreign-made solar panels. This has caused the shelving of billions of dollars of solar projects. Right here in the River Valley, Clarksville’s plan to expand their solar project is on hold.

If we are serious about making America great, we will do so by becoming the world’s leader in sustainable energy technology. Young Americans are much more concerned about the risks to the future, and their resolve to elect officials that care about the future and act accordingly will make the difference. VOTE BLUE

It’s Time for your Flu Shot

The efficacy of the flu vaccine in the 2017-2018 season was less than ideal, about 40 percent. This means that with the vaccination you were about 40 percent less likely to get the flu than without. The problem comes from nature of the Influenza virus itself. The virus is what is known as an RNA virus, when it reproduces it is likely to reproduce somewhat incorrectly. This makes matching the vaccine to the virus more difficult. Regardless, even with those low odds, you’re better off getting the shot and hopefully the vaccine will better match the virus this year.

Don’t be misled by anti-vaccination groups. They list scary sounding ingredients and list possible risks if exposed to millions of times higher doses than are present in a vaccine. An example is formaldehyde, present in many vaccines in trace amounts. In large doses it can be toxic, but not in the amounts present in vaccines. It is actually a component of natural metabolic processes in the body. If you want to talk about a dose, one bite from a pear contains many times as much formaldehyde than a slew of vaccinations. Don’t worry about exposures to trace amounts of ingredients.

The effectiveness of vaccinations depends on so-called herd immunity. To stop a communicable disease does not require absolutely everybody is vaccinated, just a high enough percentage to disrupt transmission. Some individuals can’t be vaccinated for certain diseases such as neonates for pertussis or because of severe immune reactions to proteins present in the vaccine. They are protected from disease by virtue of the fact that those around them have been vaccinated and therefore don’t carry the disease.

A real problem with getting a vaccination is a misperception of risk. A person may know of someone who got a flu shot, and had a bad reaction or had the shot and still got the flu. This knowledge introduces bias. It doesn’t however change the fact the overwhelming odds are in favor of getting the shot. Depending on the vaccine, the strain of influenza, and several host factors, “ … recent studies have supported the conclusion that the flu vaccination benefits public health, especially when the flu vaccine is well matched to circulating flu viruses” – Centers for Disease Control statement. The odds of a severe negative outcome, usually due to an allergic reaction to the vaccine are in the one to millions range.

Back to the bias of knowing someone for which a flu shot didn’t work, or had a reaction. Does knowing someone who won the lottery make you more likely to win the lottery? Most folks would say of course not. But this is the same kind of bias. You think of just one outcome among many. That doesn’t change your odds.

We all know someone who doesn’t wear a seat belt. S/he frequently justifies the self-endangerment by claiming that they know of a case where someone died due to the seat belt. The same bias. Evidence from literally billions of passenger miles shows seat belts save lives.

Vaccinations are generally safe and efficacious. Vaccinations protect not only those vaccinated but also others who can’t through the herd immunity. Participate in society, get the shot.

Evolutionary Views

Acceptance of Darwin’s brilliant deduction on evolution as the source of all biological diversity was brought to the world in 1859 with the publication of “The Origin of Species.” Now, almost 160 later, not all are convinced. The problem of accepting, really a matter of understanding, evolution becomes the sharpest when considering human origins.

All religions have their own take on the origin of mankind, and there are thousands of different stories. Abrahamic religions dominate with over half the world’s population and share the story of Adam and Eve. That said, much of modern religious thought sees no intrinsic conflict with evolution, but fundamentalist wings of many religions persist in denying what is obvious to science.

The United States is arguably the most scientific nation in the world based on the number of peer-reviewed scientific publications. Simultaneously, it is one of the more backward nations of the developed world with 4 in 10 adults believing that God created man in his image, with no evolutionary if, ands, or buts.

Besides the religious conflict about human origins is the problem of diversity itself. Who would ever have guessed that a whale is just a proto-cow that wandered back into the sea and decided to stay? Or that today’s chickens are yesterday’s dinosaurs. Many incrementally small changes over long periods of time have created the diversity we see today. We obviously can’t run experiments over billions of years to prove the concept once and for all, but experiments which prove evolution can be done in real time over the course of just a few years.

Johnathan Losos in his book “Improbable Destinies” described two such studies, one with guppies and one with lizards that clearly demonstrate how mutations and natural selection impact diversity.

The guppy study involved different populations of guppies in streams in Trinidad. It was observed that guppies in pools above waterfalls were much more flamboyant with colorful spots compared to guppies living in pools below waterfalls where drabness prevailed. The hypothesis was that the colorful guppies enjoyed an essentially predator free environment. Those below the falls were in pools which contained predators and therefore only the bland survive.

A simple but elegant experiment over the course of four years showed that transferring colorful guppies to a downstream pool free of other guppies but with predators causes the descendants to become much less gaudy and therefore less likely to be preyed upon. Random mutations among the guppies that produced less visible descendants were less likely to attract attention of predators.

The lizard study, actually brown anoles, also employed moving a population from one isolated locale to another. In this study the anoles from one small island were transferred to other small islands some with and some without predators. In a few short seasons, the anoles’ descendants on the islands with predators had shorter legs that allowed more facile movement into the upper branches of shrubs. Predation was the selective pressure, mutations allowed for the variance in leg length.

Real evolutionary morphological changes can be observed in a short time period, so now just imagine what kinds of changes can occur given millions and billions of years with different mutations and different selective pressures.

Charles Darwin (and Alfred Wallace who independently came to the same conclusion as Darwin) were right. We humans are evolutionarily related to every other living thing on the planet.

Democratic Disparities

Real democracy, where everyone gets an equal vote is just not working in the United States. Twice in the last five presidential election cycles we elected a minority president, George W Bush got half-million fewer votes than Al Gore in 2000 and Donald Trump got three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Blame the construction of the electoral college. Each state is allotted a number of electoral votes equal to the sum of the state’s representatives and senators. This means that voters in small states have more electoral “oomph” than those in larger states. Taking an extreme example, the 266,464 registered voters in Wyoming select three electors. Each elector is selected by 88,213 voters. In California on the other hand, 19,411,771 registered voters share fifty-five electoral votes. Here each elector is selected by 352,941 voters. Essentially an individual vote in Wyoming counts four times as much as a vote in California.

The authors of the constitution had several reasons, but the perception now is that using the electoral college to elect the president gives the smaller states protection from domination by the larger states. Perversely, this allows the politics of the people in smaller states to dominate those in the larger states. Further confounding the disparity is the fact that with the exception of Maine and Nebraska, every state uses a winner take all distribution of its electoral votes.

The composition of U.S. Senate is equally undemocratic, with each state having two senators regardless of its population. One California senator represents twenty million people, whereas one in Wyoming only a quarter of a million, an eighty-fold difference in representation! The structure of the Senate came about via what is called the Connecticut Compromise in 1787 during the writing of the Constitution. It gave more power to the less populace states, several of which were slave-holding states in the south.

The House of Representatives, the people’s house, comes the closest to a federal democracy, but even here there is inequity. In 2016, the Republicans garnered 51 percent of the votes cast in the House elections. That earned them over 55 percent of the house seats. This is the result of how district lines are drawn. Gerrymandering, drawing the lines to favor one group over another is alive and well.

Steps can be taken to fix our undemocratic processes. The Supreme Court has yet to rule in a case where partisan gerrymandering has been claimed as the sole reason for the case but they may in the future.

An interesting attempt to solve the problem in the electoral college is in progress. Called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, it would reform the college by a binding agreement between states to award all of a state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. It only takes states holding 270 votes in aggregate, for the system to work. Currently, states representing 172 electoral votes, two-thirds of the number needed, have joined the compact. As soon as the requisite 270 votes are secured the compact goes into effect.

Cities, States, Lead the Way

President Trump, with the assistance of our Attorney General Leslie Rutledge, is working to reverse several steps President Obama took to clear the air and reduce the rate of global warming. The result here in Arkansas means dirtier air. Although the main focus of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan is reducing greenhouse emissions, an important side benefit is a reduction of pollution that impacts our health.

Burning fossil fuels especially coal releases not only Carbon Dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, but other noxious substances. Particulate matter, acid-forming gasses, toxic heavy metals, and even radioactivity are dumped into the air we breathe. In terms of human health, the fine particles may be the most important. Tiny bits of ash from combustion processes can be inhaled into the lungs. These very small particles penetrate to the deepest reaches of the lungs where they cause irritation and inflammation. This damages lung tissue and makes breathing more difficult.

Luckily for us, president Trump holds a minority position. The rest of the world is working in the opposite direction to limit greenhouse gasses and clear the air. Many corporations other than the fossil fuel industry are working to clean the air because that is what customers demand.

Cities and states are also doing their part. Here in Arkansas, our shining city on the hill has joined an august group in a Sierra Club sponsored program called Ready for 100. Several cities across the country from Santa Barbara, CA to Concord NH, from Minneapolis, MN to Orlando, FL have joined to clean the air.

Fayetteville, by joining the Ready for 100 program, has committed to a goal of producing 100 percent of its energy for governmental operations from clean, sustainable sources by 2030. The commitment from individual cities in the Ready for 100 program vary. For example, Berkeley, CA has committed to 100 percent carbon free energy for all energy used within the municipality – everything including transportation.

Tiny Abita Springs, LA population about 2500 has committed to transitioning to 100 percent of the town’s electricity by 2030. At the other end of the spectrum is Denver, Colorado with a population approaching 3 million. Like little Abita Springs, much larger Denver is committed to 100 percent of the city’s electrical energy from sustainable sources.

At the state level are renewable portfolios which commit a state to a certain level of renewable energy in the state’s mix. Leading the way, and not surprisingly, is California. Legislation recently signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown commits the state to the production of 100 percent of the state’s energy by 2045. The challenge will be met by a mix of common sources such as wind and solar but also more unique programs such as waste to energy and ocean currents.

This aggressive approach is needed to stimulate research and in so doing, take California to the head of the class in the development of energy resources for the future. Here in much of Arkansas we will stand back and watch the future evolve somewhere else.

Demographic Transitions

Although there can be more than one kind of demographic transition, the most commonly used meaning is for one from higher to lower birth rates. Frequently this transition is described in four states.

The first, or pre-modern stage was the state of the world for most of history. This stage is characterized by high birth rates and generally high but variable death rates. Population growth was slow and governed by the death rate due to pestilence, famine, war and a simple lack of knowledge if disease prevention.

The first change occurred in Western Europe near the end of the 18th century. This time period coincided with industrialization and urbanization. A number of factors including a stabilization of the food supply were in play. Agriculture itself underwent a revolution in understanding like plant breeding, crop rotation, etc. Also important was the advent of new staples such as potatoes and corn. Equally important was the scientific understanding of disease mechanisms. Clean water and sewer systems along with personal hygiene went a long way to lower death rates. During this second stage, birth rates rose while death rates fell, hence more rapid population growth.

Stage three is characterized by a beginning of the fall of birth rates. Again this was first seen in Western Europe, around the end of the 19th century. As society urbanized the need for and actual cost of children changed. Parents saw that a large number of births were no longer necessary to ensure help on the farm and in old age. Child labor laws in urban areas, and the increasing importance of education meant children were also more expensive in the setting of a nuclear family. By the middle of the 20th-century convenient contraceptive technology greatly improved family planning.

The fourth stage is characterized by stability. Birth rates for all the aforementioned reasons are down. Death rates are down due largely to nutrition and health care practices, especially vaccinations. This is the hallmark of the developed world where low birth and death rates greatly moderate population growth and the age distribution shifts to an older average age. The single most important factor, across all cultures, is the education of women. When women are educated they are empowered to seek an independent income and make independent decisions about their family status.

The decrease in the United States has been so successful that the birth rate is now below the replacement rate. When fertility falls below 2.1 births per female, population decline is inevitable. In the US this has been the case for almost 50 years now. So why aren’t we losing population? Migration.

This migration to the United States comes from all over the world but is most obvious among Mexican and Central American populations. People of Hispanic origin, be they citizens or more recent immigrants of variable status represented just over seven percent of the population in 2000. Currently they represent almost seventeen percent.

Whites, which have dominated all aspects of American society have already reached minority/majority status (non-Hispanic whites are outnumbered by all others) in several south and western states. It is predicted that by about 2040 whites will only account for a plurality of citizens.

The takeaway here is that immigration is essential to our survival and if current trends continue our country will be a lot “browner” in the future. This is causing unease and even fear among the diminishing white population.

Electrifying Transportation

As of 2017, the United States regained the position of the world’s top oil producer. We now produce 15 million barrels per day (mmbd) of crude oil. That’s the good news, the bad news is that we consume 20 mmbd. The difference is made up from imports. Dependence on imported oil puts our markets at risk to forces beyond our control. A supply disruption in any overseas market would affect the price of oil here as oil is traded internationally.

As an example, we don’t buy oil from Russia or Iran, but if some or all of their production is taken off the world market, the price we pay for even domestically produced oil will rise. Oil is a fungible commodity and the price is set by international supply and demand.

Virtually all the crude oil we use goes to the manufacture of fuel- gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel for transportation. Conflict overseas could cost us dearly at the pump. All our other energy sources such as natural gas, nuclear, and renewables are produced exclusively here in the United States and therefore much less subject to the vagaries of the international markets.

The sensitivity of our transportation system to price fluctuations could be greatly reduced by a rapid conversion to electric powered vehicles because crude oil is not involved in the production of electricity.

Intense research is increasing the efficiency of renewable batteries. At the same time, economies of scale from increased production is lowering the cost. The technology already exists or is in pilot scale production for everything from passenger cars to big rigs like 18-wheelers.

Most automakers are already producing plug-in hybrids. These are really electric vehicles with a limited range, up to 50 miles. They also, however, have small gas engines that act as generators to power the vehicle after the battery charged from the grid is exhausted. Less common but in production are more exotic vehicles like the Tesla or the more mundane Chevrolet Bolt. These vehicles are total electric cars with ranges between charges of over 250 miles. As charging stations are built out, these total electric vehicles will rapidly replace the passenger vehicle fleet.

The production of electric light-duty delivery trucks trails passenger cars but not by much. Fleet delivery vehicles with limited daily range requirement are an ideal market. Daily round trips back to a station house for overnight recharge would actually help the electrical grid, as excess power already exists at night. Ryder Trucks has just ordered hundreds of electric trucks from a start-up company in – where else – California.

Buses for everything from rural schools to urban transportation systems are coming into play. Blue Bird Bus Company is now taking orders for electric buses to be delivered this year.

Most surprising is the advent of all-electric Semis. Elon Musk of Tesla and Space-X fame is now building prototypes of electric Semis with 80,000 lb Gross Vehicle Weight. These are the industry standard currently fueled by diesel that fills the interstates and move over half the freight in the United States. Tesla’s Semi is designed for a range of 500 miles and a recharge time of half an hour.