White man's burden

Over a century ago, a poem by Rudyard Kipling introduced the world to the idea of the European being a civilizing force without whom the brown and black savages of Asia, Africa and Latin America would be leading lives of untold misery, wracked by disease and famine. The concept was not a new one - Christian missionaries had been travelling all over the globe proselytizing the glories of accepting Jesus as one's savior, and they were in turn followed by traders seeking to earn money by exchanging goods, only to be replaced by rulers who sought control over resources for no other reason than the well-being of people in their native lands. All the empires the world has known have operated in more or less the same way, the only difference being the extent to which they benefited or harmed their indigenous population of the lands they conquered.

That harm was caused is almost a given - when two human beings are placed in a situation where one of them has even the slightest advantage in power over the other, the desire to take undue advantage of the difference is, well, human nature. Subjugating the ruled to an inferior status can manifest itself in different ways - from simple apartheid (think "No Dogs and Indians allowed" in British India) all the way to complete genocide (the Spanish in Central and South America, or the British in Australia). Of course, the white man's burden does not really touch on this topic much, but instead suggests that the benefits brought along by empire made a positive impact on those whose lives it touched. Again, this is a debatable issue

With the dominance of Western empires from around 1600 to the mid 20th century, one can be excused for forgetting that there were other non-western empires during and even before that period, the most famous ones being the Mongols who conquered most of Asia and extended their rule into Europe, or the Caliphate that ruled Spain for over 700 years, at a time when Islamic scholarship in the sciences and arts was at its peak. In both these cases, you had non-white races essentially ruling over whites, which would have had many of the same features as the reverse scenario.

The recent Africa summit held in Washington DC had some hints of the "white man's burden" wrapped up in platitudes about the potential of Africa and how it was important to bring clean energy and water and other nice things to the continent's mostly poor - all lavishly funded by the American government to create opportunities for American businesses. CEOs who had run out of growth opportunities, or been thwarted by competitors or regulations, lined up to pay glowing tribute to the notion that Africa's time had arrived - it was set to take its place at the global table along with the developing countries of Asia and Latin America. It was time for the cradle of civilization to, well, leave the cradle and start to walk. And the US was there to help see it through!

The only trouble is that all these countries have already been wined and dined by the government of China, which has a very open mission, not altogether different from that of the East India company, which is to secure raw materials (primarily oil and metals) for its growing economy. In return, it has built infrastructure in these countries which would be the envy of the western world today - shining new buildings, highways and ports. Yes, bribes would have been paid to the dictators who rule many of these failed states. Yes, people would have been displaced under threat and not properly resettled. But the fact of the matter is that the Chinese recognized an opportunity to invest in a region that had been ignored by the west for most of the 20th century, and are going to reap the rewards for many years to come.

The Americans, naturally, take a very dim view of all of this - oblique references to "business practices" and "human rights" by the Chinese are meant to suggest that the US is a better partner for Africa. And they might well be right - except for the historical precedent of regime change, signing agreements with those same dictators and in general turning a blind eye to the country's real needs in favor of selling more American goods. The same threat of force that was shown by Commodore Perry's warships in Tokyo Bay over 150 years ago can be shown again should a country that has agreed to receive "American  help"  decide against renewing that contract.

That Africa needs help is without doubt. The dark continent has vast natural resources that, if managed properly, can sustain mankind for centuries. An exploding population can be controlled if traditional ideas of family and religion are put aside in favor of understanding the greater common good. But, most importantly, proper governance (such a clichéd term!) has to be learnt, but not from the Americans or the Chinese - you need states that are true models for democracy, such as the Scandanavians, to provide a guiding hand to the Zimbabwes, Kenyas and Nigerias. And, above all, the world needs to start to respect Africa - not treat it as a dumping ground or an open pit mine, with unlimited capacity to absorb or supply. Till such respect is lacking, the white man's burden will continue to raise its ugly head.

One small step

There is a well known anecdote of a man walking along a beach and seeing thousands of starfish that have been washed up on shore. Without water for a short period of time, they face certain death. so he starts picking them up one at a time and throwing back in the ocean. A passerby comments "there are so many, you can't save them all - how does it matter?" The man throws a starfish into the water, turns and says "It matters to that one".

The lesson, of course, being that while a task might seem enormous and beyond our capability to address on our own, that is no excuse for inaction. Focusing on the piece that we can fix is sometimes the catalyst that can show others the way forward to act in their own way. Very quickly you go from one person to an entire movement that will make a noticeable difference.

This story is, of course, very relevant for the modern day problems such as overpopulation, poverty, resource consumption, pollution and climate change. It has come to a point where one cannot distinguish the independent and dependent variables as the different issues are all interlinked. In trying to get our hands around the entire problem, we get so wrapped up in complicated solutions that we even fail to take the first step. What results is a very detailed plan that never sees the light of day.

 My humble contribution to reducing carbon emissions and (hopefully) slowing climate change is in eliminating one car from my life. Not buying a smaller car, or driving it less, or changing the fuel type - but essentially erasing it from ever being a requirement. The realization that I could do this came about as a result of having lived in the UK for a couple of years and seeing what truly walkable communities were like. While I did have a car there to get to/from work, I could essentially manage everything else (shopping, eating out, going to the gym etc) without ever needing to start the engine.

Now the US is of course very different from the UK and you would be hard pressed to find an environment here, other than in the middle of NYC or Chicago, where you could handle all your daily needs without a car. But I was lucky enough to live close to work (~ 3 miles) and there was a fairly frequent bus service that plied at all hours that I could use. To add to that, my wife travels during the week and we are both together only 3 days (Fri-Sun). I was able to convince her that we would not need a second car that would just sit idle during the week - and that she would have first dibs on it. So now I go to work and back on Friday by bus and we share the car on weekends.

Of course, this solution will not work for everyone. there are so many things that had to fall into place to make it work - my wife's travel schedule, the availability of a bus, the fact that we are able to do things together and don't end up going in opposite directions. It also takes some adjustment and planning to make sure our schedules are aligned - but in this age of the smartphone, how difficult is it to make plans in advance? Yes, there are times when we've had some conflicts because of "double booking" but those have been few and far between.

So by living off one car only, we have essentially "saved" the cost of a second vehicle - but did we stop it from being built? After all, auto companies are going to make the car whether I buy it or not (the same for practically any other consumer product - it gets manufactured without any owner in mind, and then companies spend tons in advertising getting you to buy it, and if they don't succeed then they trash it and start all over again). So I'm not sure whether my "sacrifice" has really helped in the grand scheme of things.

If you really want to make a change though, there are two decisions that will have the biggest effect - The size of your house -  and its location.

The size of your house dictates how much energy you will use and also how much junk you will fill it with. Humans have this amazing ability to occupy the entire space they are given - a bigger house will not have any more open space than a small one because the tendency is to buy more things to put in it. And how many bathrooms can you use at one time? We would be so much better off if privately owned houses were at most 2-3 bedrooms (for a family with 2 kids) and there were community "guest houses" where visitors could stay close by if they were visiting. After all, how many guest rooms are occupied ever? Makes you wonder why hotels were invented??

The location of your house dictates how much energy you will spend in getting around to work and other activities. This is basically measured as high or low density living. So the ideal environment would be a small house/condo/aptt in a densely populated area (i.e. a city) and the worst would be a sprawling mansion in the boonies. I've chosen the former, or at least as close as I could get to city living.

These are choices that are made independent of the economics - that is to say, I did not choose this lifestyle because it is the cheapest for me, but I chose it because I knew I would enjoy it more than any of the other alternatives, and then proceeded to figure out how the rest of my life should be built around it. This is in contrast to the typical decision making process mandated for the "American dream" which says that one should pick the biggest house one can afford, live far away from other people where you have plenty of empty room such as a huge lawn where you can display all the junk you have in your house so that others can come and buy it.

If more people started to focus on what is really important, and also took a step to examine what part of their daily existence is truly important, they would perhaps make small changes that cumulatively alter the face of society.

Getting back to basics

After almost a hundred years in which it has churned out perhaps close to a billion cars, the auto industry worldwide seems to have imploded in the recent past. The high profile cases of Toyota, with stuck accelerator pedals, and recently GM, who apparently tried to cover up the fact that it had known about a major problem for over a decade, seems to point towards a group of otherwise talented and skilled individuals who just seemed to have lost their way. Even the maverick startup Tesla which has so far done an outstanding job of bringing out a luxury electric vehicle (I confess I am a fan!) had to deal with some well publicized fires. It's as though they suddenly decided to hire music majors instead of engineers to design and manufacture cars!

This is not to say that the car industry is doing everything wrong - for the most part, they still do a very good job of making quality products that meet their need of getting people from point A to B in a safe and comfortable manner. Nor would it be correct to say that problems have not existed to some degree from the time car manufacturing started - indeed, the history of just about any technology is replete with examples of missteps and goof-ups that helped pave the way for improvements that might otherwise not have been realized. As the saying goes - good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.

But while our tools and techniques to make ever more sophisticated cars has gone up, so has their overall complexity. The car of the 1960s that Ralph Nader attacked so viciously had very little thought put into it - designs were quite garish, the focus was on making more powerful engines with no attention paid to fuel economy and of course safety was a distant concept. And while we have learnt quite a lot from that time (in no small part to the advances made by the Japanese and Germans, as well as sound environmental regulations), the internet age has transformed a mere instrument of conveyance into a giant computer, unfortunately with some of the same drawbacks.

While in the past, most systems in a car were mechanical, these have almost all been replaced by electronics today. The accelerator pedal in the Toyota (and in virtually ever other car) communicates to the engine not through some simple tie rod that could be inspected and replaced as required, but by an electronic signal that is generated as and the pedal moves through a magnetic field. The same concept applies to sensors - a car today has dozens of different lights that turn on when you first crank the engine (or push an off/off button, as many cars now have, further proof that that the car is starting to be designed to appeal to the computer loving generation). Some of these sensors are merely for reporting, but others are also for control and could potentially disable a vehicle at the wrong time if they happen to fail (or seem to have failed). In the best of cases, an annoying light comes on and you have to pay good money to get it fixed - in the worst, it could lead to death, as happened in the case of GM and Toyota.

The solution to the above is not to stop making cars - but it does lead one to question the wisdom of "accessorizing" this otherwise simple piece of machinery to make it something that it was never designed to be. I'm sure Henry "You can have them in any color as long as its black" Ford would roll over in his grave if he were to sit inside one of his company's creations today - while he might appreciate the comfort of the seats and the suspension as compared to the boneshaking ride of a Model T, he would likely scoff at the iPod connector, the DVD player setup to amuse kids in the backseat or any other "knick-knack" that has been introduced in the century since his creation first took to the roads.

The aircraft industry has also gone from mechanical to electronic and no doubt faced challenges in doing so - a 747 or A380 is far more complicated than a car, but then again, there is no pressure to release a new model every year, and there are only two established manufacturers. Testing of a new aircraft model is also extremely rigorous and requires thousands of hours of mandatory tests before it is allowed to fly commercially. The testing for cars is designed only to check the integrity of frame (a mechanical property) and does not probe the electronics to ascertain how they might potentially cause harm.

With the prospect of self driving cars in the not too distant future (being promoted by Silicon valley), it is high time that the industry in general looked to simplifying their products to avoid losing total control. The freedom to go anywhere, anytime was the USP of the auto industry which has led to the spectacular adoption of the private car as the most sought after mode of transport worldwide. But it has come at a price, one that future generations might not be willing to pay.

Status Quo 1 - Change 0

The report on climate risks released by ExxonMobil last week was received with a lot of fanfare by the environmental community - after all, here was the largest oil and gas company in the world, evil personified to some, bowing to the demands of a small group of activist investors who wanted an admission of vulnerability to the growing threat of climate change. But the initial sense of hope was quickly dashed to the ground when the report essentially concluded that while climate change was a risk (something the company has maintained for some years now, in itself a step change from the 1990s when it was of the firm opinion that global warming was a load of hot air!), the fact that growing populations around the world would choose their personal tangible economic development over the relatively intangible common threat from climate change made the risk of "stranded reserves" a remote possibility. correction - a very remote possibility. Ergo - there was no real threat that the company - indeed, the world - would need to stop chasing oil and gas reserves to keep its continued economic growth on track.

The reaction from as green a person as Bill McKibben was expectedly one of disgust - but unless he, and a whole bunch of others, are willing to go out there and educate the masses to embrace green energy and accept that a high standard of living does not necessarily equate to large amounts of energy usage, the status quo will not change. This is the underlying premise behind ExxonMobil's view (and something that they are counting on) - that growing economies need large amounts of energy and the company has a duty to go out and help the millions of destitute people around the world find salvation in the form of an oil well. This "civilizing" mission is certainly not unique to ExxonMobil in this day and age - it of course has its roots in the Christian missionaries who, while spreading the gospel in all parts of the world, also found it convenient to open up those countries for exploitation of their natural resources. "Lord, accept this person as your disciple - oh, do I see a large copper mine over yonder?"

Anyway, I digress - a treatise on resource grabbing will require much more than a blog post. What would it take to truly get people to change - move away from fossil fuels, lower their carbon footprint, live sustainably - in short, all of the things that folks like Bill McKibben already know and do? The solution provided almost always comes down to economics - put a price on carbon, tax the living hell out of gasoline, give incentives to people who want to buy an electric car and so on. But since we live in a global economy, a small change in one part of the world could have a massive effect elsewhere. For example, take China's decision to increase electric car sales - that leads immediately to increased mining activity in far away Bolivia, which by far has the world's supply of lithium on its vast salt flats. And economics has its limitations - an increased tax on gasoline does little to hurt the rich, who will easily bear the added burden, and it hits the poor much harder as they might need to forego something more important (like food) in order to keep driving. Yes, you could argue that the poor can benefit from public transport - but unless public transport is reliable and affordable, the poor will invariably get driven to private means of transport, even if that is an aged gas guzzler! My humble opinion is that a change of this nature cannot be forced - it has to come from within, with a full knowledge of the pros and cons. The modern way of life, while definitely a step up from a subsistence way of living, also brings with it a certain paucity of human contact. We get in our cars, drive on roads, sit in cubicles, communicate via electronic devices - all of which takes energy, but leaves us with not much in the way of interacting with other people. Man is a social animal, said Aristotle, and that has not changed in the over two thousand years since he said it. So getting back to the climate risk assessment put forward by ExxonMobil - it is upto each and every person to digest the information and decide how they want to act. There are plenty of vested interests that would cause us to maintain our current thinking about economic growth - but very few that would have us take the road less travelled. There are lone voices and some organizations that are trying to make a difference - but they don't usually get advertising space on TV or a spot on every street corner. Imagine an organization that existed solely to not have you consume anything but to convince you that you were better off without that consumption?

A tale of two obesities

It is the best of times.

If you are an inhabitant of the developed world today, one of the many benefits you enjoy is an abundance of food, the likes of which mankind has hitherto not experienced in its first hundred thousand years on the planet. From the minute you wake to the time you lay your head down to sleep, the availability of food and drink is almost unending - from the coffee shop at the corner to the drive-in restaurant, and millions of vending machines that hum innocuously in the corner of offices, schools, hospitals, amusement parks and anywhere else one can find a few square feet of empty space.

You are also the beneficiary of an energy infrastructure that delivers 24x7 - something that you take for granted every time you flip a switch and the lights come on, or drive into a gas station to fill up your car. This infrastructure is a direct outcome of the technological advances of the late 19th and early 20th century, when both the oil and electricity industries were growing in leaps and bounds, with strong support from governments that saw the availability of energy as a key driver of industrial and, therefore, economic growth. And while most mature economies have stopped growing in terms of energy consumption, they are still light years ahead of much of the developing world in both reliability and affordability.

And yet it is the worst of times.

While there is plenty to eat, the general quality of food is often cited as one of the prime causes for the growing physical obesity of people across all demographic segments. Whereas infectious diseases used to be the single largest killer of people in the first half of the 20th century, that has now given way to "lifestyle afflictions", of which cardovascular disease and cancers linked to poor dietary habits and sedentary daily routines. Approximately one third of Americans are considered overweight, with a significant fraction of those in the "obese" category - with the projection of this reaching over half the population in the next few decades. And this is after the criteria for obesity have been redefined - if the comparison were made with people at the end of the second world war, that number would surely be higher. The US is not alone in this regard - the UK, Australia and other European countries also have a similar problem, albeit to a lesser extent.

Similarly, while energy is available 24x7, it is typically derived from sources that result in significant amounts of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Excess use of energy, akin to overeating at a buffet table, is the norm and with the growing number of electronic gadgets owned by individuals and households, or the large vehicles that people drive with the view of being safe, society tends to actively encourage (or at least accept without too much of a fuss) this behavior of overconsumption. Even though laws have been in place for years that have resulted in cleaning up of the environment, the need to keep the lights burning in car dealership lots all night long, or heading out for a vacation in the family car every long weekend is so ingrained into the culture that is seems almost impossible to change.

The debate we need to have at a local, national and global level is the solution to this Faustian bargain that the human race has made - while we can realize huge gains, there is also the prospect of massive losses. And where you end up is purely a matter of chance. The largest economics of the 17th century are today backward countries struggling to improve, while the developed countries at one time were at the bottom of the ladder.

I say Eh-lectric, you say Eee-lectric

The big debate raging in the auto world today is whether the future will belong to what are referred to as "electric vehicles" by the lay person, or hydrogen powered fuel cell vehicles. Already there are two camps emerging - Toyota and Honda appear to have rejected the view that electric vehicles like the Tesla or Nissan Leaf will emerge as the winner, while the makers of those cars are obviously fighting back with their own version of the story yet to unfold. GM, VW, Fiat, Daimler, BMW are all somewhere in the middle - GM of course has the hybrid Volt and BMW has the all electric i3, as does VW with their hybrid Jetta - but BMW at one time also was testing hydrogen burning internal combustion engines.

What everyone seems to be overlooking is the fact that a fight between hydrogen fuel cell and electric vehicles makes no sense - simply because both are, at the end of the day, cars that move using electric motors. That's right - a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is an electric vehicle. And what the media refers to as electric vehicles is, more accurately, a battery powered electric vehicle. The electrons that are generated by a fuel cell cannot be distinguished from those that are generated from a lithium ion battery. If you sat inside either vehicle, they would be equally silent, deliver full torque at zero speed and most likely be linked to your smartphone!

So there you have it - the debate is over - because whether we end up with fuel cell vehicles or battery electric vehicles, what they will NOT be is an internal combustion vehicle fueled by gasoline or diesel. The sooner people realize this, and the less time the auto factions spend fighting one another but trying to compete in the free market to deliver a superior product, the more likely we are to have a future where a mix of vehicles is a reality.

But before environmentalists start rejoicing at the huge emissions reduction that is going to take place when the CO2 coming out of the tailpipe is replaced by "pure" water vapor, we have to consider how these new vehicles will be fueled. Here there is a difference, albeit slight - while the battery electric vehicle will be charged using electricity, the way we charge all our other electronic gadgets, the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will need to refilled with hydrogen at a location similar to a gas station. So the battery electric vehicle merely stores electricity and releases it, a fuel cell vehicle involves a chemical reaction that results in the generation of electrons.

Both a lithium ion battery (or for that matter, any battery) and a fuel cell are incredibly complex systems of materials that are designed to either store or generate energy. They have to compete with a fossil fuel like gasoline that has an enormous energy density and, as a liquid, can be transported long distances easily, thus resulting in a global infrastructure that has been built up over a hundred years.While R&D at both the private and government level is on-going, it will be several years or decades before either of these can compete with an internal combustion engine for power, reliability and cost.

Getting back to the fuel that will drive both battery and hydrogen vehicles - as the economy moves towards cleaner sources of energy, natural gas will be the preferred fuel for electricity generation. So a natural gas fired power plant will send the electricity over to your house or to a public charging station where you charge your battery driven car. But what about the hydrogen? Where does that come from?

Almost every report on hydrogen cars will reinforce the cliche that it is the "most abundant element in the universe". And while that is true, all of the free hydrogen that can be theoretically used to power fuel cells exists in outer space. On earth, hydrogen is bound with other elements, most notably oxygen to give the molecule without which life could not exist - water. So if we wanted to extract hydrogen to power fuel cells, you would need to take water and split it apart, which is highly energy intensive.

Luckily for us, another abundant hydrogen containing molecule that can be used is - natural gas. A very well established reaction called steam methane reforming is used to generate hydrogen which can then be used for fuelling cars. And since natural gas pipelines exist in many locations (and infrastructure next only to oil pipelines), the hydrogen would presumably be generated at specific locations, much like a transformer steps down the high voltage in transmission lines to the 110/220v for domestic use, and then used for filling cars.

But wait - isn't natural gas also being converted to electricity that is used to charge a battery electric vehicle? Yes it is! So there you go - another reason that the "hydrogen vs electric" debate is less competition and more cooperation - because they share the same start fuel, one that has the ability to drastically reduce carbon emissions and realize all kinds of global targets for climate change. The time is ripe for a natural gas producer/distributor to take the leap and start the transition to a gas driven economy.

And what about when the natural gas runs out one day, as it surely will? Well, in that case, the hydrogen in outer space will surely come in handy - sunlight, which is the direct product of hydrogen fusion to helium, will create electricity from solar panels which will then charge our cars. So in the reeeeallly long run, battery electric vehicles will win out - but by then, who knows what the world will be like?