The Give Blog

University of Illinois Law Professor Suja Thomas, who teaches sports law, and her husband Scott have created the Give Blog, where up until December 24th they will match donations of up to $100 from new donors to five charities (The Hunger Project, The Grameen Foundation, Safe Passage, Catcholic Charities USA, and Eastern Illinois Foodbank). If you're interested in contributing to any of these five charities during this holiday season, please consider doing so through the Give Blog, as Suja and Scott will match the amount if you are a new donor. For more information, click here.

Read More

The "Born Again" Moment

Some of you were surprised when I mentioned in a recent post that I only began cycling again in Spring 2009 - so I thought it would be fun to share my "born again" moment. The Co-Habitant and I developed a huge batch of film for one of our art projects earlier this week, and it turned out that one roll contained these pictures from 8 months ago - pictures of my first real bicycle ride after not having cycled in 12 years.

After testing a coupe of bicycles on the premises of local bike shops, we finally took the plunge and rented a his and hers KHS Green, to see how feasible it would be for us to travel by bike round Boston. These shots were taken along the Charles River trail.

It was an unseasonably warm day, and within the first half hour of the ride my jacket was folded up and tucked under the spring on the rear rack. Also within the first half hour of the ride, I knew that this was "it". How could I have lived without a bicycle thus far? And what would I do when the time came to return the rental?

The day after these photos were taken, my search for a new bicycle began in earnest, and that is how this weblog was born: It was initially meant to be a collection of reviews and photos of beautiful, functional bicycles for people with similar skill levels to mine and with the same beginner anxieties. I guess my viewpoint has progressed a bit since then, and I have gotten much more into "cycling culture" than I had anticipated. But still, the whole point of this website is that I am not an expert and do not have a great deal of cycling experience - which hopefully makes me unintimidating and approachable to new readers curious about bicycles.

The Co-Habitant and I had been toying with the idea of bikes on and off for years. But what finally made me start cycling had nothing to do with the practical considerations this involved. It was a result of a very personal, visceral sense of pure joy - which apparently has been captured on film quite nicely! Seeing these shots was a nice surprise; we had forgotten that we took them. And it was especially timely before Thanksgiving, as I am most grateful for the role bicycles have played in my life this year.

Enjoy your week-end, and make sure to feed your bicycles some turkey. They don't like to feel left out!

Read More

China's Carbon Intensity Pledge

China has put some numbers on its carbon intensity pledge -- that is, its aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP. China has promised to reduced its carbon intensity of GDP by 40-45% by 2020. While a few folks have been fooled (or are trying to fool you) into thinking that it is meaningful, others including the Obama Administration are not fooled. The reality is a bit more subtle and complex than either of these perspectives.

The head of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change , Yvo de Boer spun the announcement as a breakthrough:

"The US commitment to specific, mid-term emission cut targets and China's commitment to specific action on energy efficiency can unlock two of the last doors to a comprehensive agreement. Let there be no doubt that we need continued strong ambition and leadership,"

In The New York Times, the Obama Administration was a bit less enthusiastic:

A senior Obama administration official said that the United States had pressed hard for a public commitment from China and was relieved that it had delivered. But the official, who spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of the matter, called the carbon intensity figure “disappointing,” and said that the administration hoped it represented a gambit that would be negotiated upward at Copenhagen or in subsequent talks.

Understanding the various receptions of the proposed target from China requires understanding a bit of the geopolitical context. Europeans simply want the US and China to come to the table talking about numbers, so any proposal is a step forward. Meantime, the US wants to avoid being cast as the international climate bad guy so will do whatever it can to portray its own proposed 17% cut from 2005 levels as more ambitious that China's intensity target.

But what do the numbers actually mean?

A 40-45% cut in carbon intensity in China is essentially business-as-usual as projected by the IEA. According to the IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 (p. 350), here are China's GDP and CO2 projections under its BAU "reference scenario" (with GDP in 2008 PPP dollars):

2007 -- 6.1 GtC and $7.6T
2020 -- 9.6 GtC and $18.8T

These numbers result in a decrease in carbon intensity of GDP of 40% by 2020 (from 2007 values, China's pledge is off a 2005 baseline, so right in the middle of the 40-45% range).

Other analysts have seen the proposal as little more than a promise to achieve business as usual, from the NYT:

Michael A. Levi, director of the climate change program at the Council on Foreign Relations, called the target announcement disappointing because it did not move the country much faster along the path it was already on.

“The Department of Energy estimates that existing Chinese policies will already cut carbon intensity by 45 to 46 percent,” Mr. Levi said. “The United States has put an ambitious path for emissions cuts through 2050 on the table. China needs to raise its level of ambition if it is going to match that.” Some environmental advocates have also said that the substance of Mr. Obama’s announcement on Wednesday was weak as well.

President Bush also used a carbon intensity target with goals based on achieving business as usual, and his administration was skewered (and rightly so) for trying to couch business as usual 9BAU) as some sort of meaningful emissions reduction policy. The difference between the Bush Administration's carbon intensity goals and those promised by China are that the Bush Administration based its targets on historical BAU whereas China has its based on BAU inclusive of a set of very aggressive energy efficiency goals. I recently had a correspondence in Nature questioning China's BAU trajectory (more details here and here and here). While the IEA numbers suggest a less aggressive version of BAU than do China's domestic numbers, they still imply an annual average rate of decarbonization of China's economy of about 3.7% per year.

A focus on carbon intensity of economic activity is a step in the right direction. At the same time, policy makers and analysts should not be distracted by the details of China's promises in the context of various BAU reference scenarios. What matters is the actual annual rate of decarbonization in coming years, and to discern this will require good data on both emissions and economic activity. If China can sustain a rate of decarbonization of 3.7% per year or more that would be a very impressive achievement. However, if China is going to continue to grow its economy at 9% per year, it is obvious that much more would need to be done to address ever growing emissions.

Bottom line? China's decarbonization target is indeed very similar to some versions of BAU, suggesting a lack of ambition. At the same time these versions of BAU already have rapid rates of decarbonization built in, so much so that I am skeptical about their realism. Even so, discussions about climate these days are more focused on politics than policy, so the exact details of China's emissions policy probably matter less than how its promises are perceived and spun in the negotiating process.

Read More

DVD-Star Trek

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is the greatest Star Trek movie ever made. Everything else in the Star Trek canon is a colossal joke, and this includes JJ Abrams' reboot Star Trek.

Star Trek is indebted to Khan and uses it as source material to begin the tale of Capt. Kirk and the gang. The first problem with the movie is the colossal bad acting. You quickly realize you don't give a fuck about any of these people. They act as people who know they are going to loom large in the future. It's like a bad sci fi version of Behind the Music.

The plot is also stolen from Khan with Eric Bana playing a bad guy who destroys Vulcan and does his best to piss off Spock in the process. Khan was an epic. This movie is more like a special effects soaked roller coast ride along the lines of Transformers.

Star Trek is bad acting and eye candy and nothing more. It will appeal to younger viewers who are stupid, but it did nothing for me. This flick will be an excuse to continue the series with the original characters, but this franchise is doomed. It is time to let Trek rest in peace.

Read More

Final Fantasy

I think I have decided on Maude and Reilly's baby's name. Maude's registered name is 'Fantasy' and this foal is Reilly's last so it seems 'Final Fantasy' pretty much fits the bill. I think I have decided on Enya as a paddock name. Enya is Celtic for 'Little Fire' and she's a raging redhead so it seems to fit too.

She's doing brilliantly and Maude is being the protective mother as per usual, racing her around the paddock if I so much as look at them sideways. I have managed to have a few cuddles tho and found all her lovely scratchy places.

Reilly demonstrated his superb temperament again this morning when I caught him with his mane and led him to the hosepipe and cooled and cleaned his wounds. He just stood quietly and let me do what I had to do - pretty sure he knew it was for his own good. He's such a lovely horse and I am so incredibly lucky to have him.

Below photos taken when Enya was aged around 15 hours.

'Ello thar

Break fast

Nom nom

Mum taught me how to go fassssst!

Read More

Why People Can't Get in Shape

Getting in shape is easy. Eat right. Exercise. There is no mystery to it. There is also no lack of external motivation. Society and the media urge us to lose the flab. Finally, getting in shape makes you feel better and feel better about yourself. So, why can't people get in shape?

The conventional wisdom points to a lack of will power. People are just lazy. But this just isn't true. The USA is the fattest nation on the planet, but it is also the hardest working. Americans work more than anyone else. They put in the hours and get shit done.

Some will argue that we just have bad habits of spending our leisure time on the couch eating potato chips. There may be some truth to that. But you can't watch much TV without getting the guilt trip about being out of shape.

I will tell you the reason why people can't get in shape--OTHER PEOPLE. That's right. Other people are holding you back.

Announce to all your friends and family that you are going to get off your ass and eat right and exercise. These people will be nothing short of enthusiastic and supportive of your new lifestyle direction. This support will end the moment you actually start doing it. Then, these same people will hamstring you at every step.

The reason for this is that a fitness lifestyle is an antisocial endeavor. It divides you from the herd. It is an individualistic pursuit, and it will cause all kinds of friction.

You will notice this when you start eating healthy. Your loving girlfriend or wife will make you a fat filled meat loaf, and you will have to tell her as nicely as you can that you can't eat that bullshit. She will cry, pout, or do whatever. Your friends will invite you over for beer and burgers, and you will either decline, go and not eat, or bring your own food. All three options will not make you a popular guest. Or they will all want to eat at some restaurant that has nothing but lard and gravy on the menu. If you get the idea that healthy eating means eating alone, you would be correct.

The same thing happens with exercise. Hitting the gym, riding a bike, or going for a run all involve being alone for some bit of time during the day. Naturally, in our constantly connected world, being AWOL for an hour per day is unacceptable. Your wife or girlfriend is mad because you are late for the fatty dinner you can't eat. Your friends can't understand why you have to cut out early to get some sleep for tomorrow's century ride. Where are you?

These same people who were so supportive of you getting into shape could really give a rat's ass. Their habits are your habits. To change those habits is to cut across the social grain.

If you look at people who are in shape, you will notice two things. They either do it for a living (pro athletes, models, personal trainers, etc.,) or they are self-centered types who are either introverts or narcissists. If you don't get fit for a living, then you have to be selfish.

I don't have an answer to this problem. The reality is that bad habits are social habits (smoking, drinking, eating bad food, etc.) while good habits are solitary (eating right, exercising, studying, working, etc.) Very little is said about this social dimension, and the impact it has on your life. I think it helps to have friends in the lifestyle you choose to have. But in the end, doing something remarkable is a subversive act. Don't expect people to like you or applaud your efforts in these things. Nothing good comes without some sacrifice.

Read More

The Case for Working with Your Hands

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/magazine/24labor-t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=print

How was it that I, once a proudly self-employed electrician, had ended up among these walking wounded, a “knowledge worker” at a salary of $23,000? I had a master’s degree, and it needed to be used. The escalating demand for academic credentials in the job market gives the impression of an ever-more-knowledgeable society, whose members perform cognitive feats their unschooled parents could scarcely conceive of. On paper, my abstracting job, multiplied a millionfold, is precisely what puts the futurologist in a rapture: we are getting to be so smart! Yet my M.A. obscures a more real stupidification of the work I secured with that credential, and a wage to match. When I first got the degree, I felt as if I had been inducted to a certain order of society. But despite the beautiful ties I wore, it turned out to be a more proletarian existence than I had known as an electrician. In that job I had made quite a bit more money. I also felt free and active, rather than confined and stultified.

This is an outstanding article.

Read More