RoguePundit

Random Nature #220

Shrinking Coastal Seagrass Meadows:  Some marine ecologists were recently shocked at the loss of seagrass meadows in many parts of the ocean.  I'm shocked--well, disappointed--that a scientific report (with 14 co-authors) which was published in a recent Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences Early Edition contained such basic math errors. 

Seagrass meadows, along with coral reefs, mangrove forests, and salt-marshes, provide valuable ecosystem services like nutrient cycling. They also protect edible crustaceans, like shrimps and crabs, and juvenile fish such as salmon. In addition, seagrass meadows provide habitats for endangered species like dugongs, manatees, and sea turtles.

While marine ecologists have been measuring localized seagrass loss for decades, they had never before pooled their information to get a global perspective. So a team led by Michelle Waycott of James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland, Australia pooled data from 215 regional studies, from 1879 to 2006.

They found that the total area of known seagrass meadow had decreased by 29 per cent over the 127 years. They also found that the rate of loss had accelerated, from less than 1 per cent per year in the 1940s to 7 per cent per year since the 1990s.

At 7 percent per year, that's a 44 percent loss from 2000-2006 alone.  Yet, the overall loss is 29 percent over 127 years??  If you've had enough math to become a scientist, a basic error like that should jump off the page when you read it.  And after reading some of the emotional quotes from the scientists, it's obvious that this was more about activism than science.     

Reducing the Flaring at Landfills:  Waste Management currently collects some of the methane produced by its Altamont Landfill (near Livermore CA) and burns it for power--about 6.6 MW.  But, the landfill is producing more methane than its turbines can burn.  Thus, the excess is flared.  That will soon change.

Landfill gas is about 50 percent methane and 50 percent carbon dioxide, nitrogen and other particles. Through a series of tubes, the gas is filtered to just methane and cooled down, to the tune of -275 degrees, and it becomes a fuel source, Lewis said.

The plant will produce 13,000 gallons of fuel a day. Three tanks will store 45,000 gallons for the trucks to use. Statewide, the fuel is expected to power hundreds of collection trucks.

There should be sufficient methane production at the landfill for 30 years.

By the by, a bit of climate change math pertaining to this topic...

The carbon dioxide derived from biological decomposition is considered carbon neutral, but the methane is considered to be a man-made greenhouse gas that is more than 20 times more potent to the ozone than carbon dioxide.

But if you just toss those table scraps and lawn clippings into a backyard compost or empty field...  

Verification:  When city leaders brag about recycling, who actually checks to see that their numbers aren't a bit rosy?

The City of Toronto boasts that its green bin program diverts a third of our garbage and turns it into "black gold" compost. But a Star investigation shows that the program--although nobly conceived--is a sham.

There are two problems. First, the city's claim of how much waste the program diverts from landfill is inflated. Second, some of the compost that is being produced will kill your plants because of its high salt content, according to laboratory tests.

The Star found that, over the past two years, thousands of tons of organics in various stages of the composting process have been dumped into a gravel pit, tossed into landfills or stockpiled on city property. What's more, some of the material residents are told to place in green bins--plastic bags and diapers--has wound up in the belly of a Michigan incinerator, despite Mayor David Miller's vow Toronto will never burn garbage.

Over $15 million a year for organics recycling buys that?  Meanwhile, Toronto's civic workers are on strike, which has garbage piling up in the city. 

On Thursday, health officials ordered the city to regularly inspect all of the temporary dumpsites for infestations after swarms of maggots were found crawling through the growing piles of garbage, most of which have been steadily increasing since the city workers strike began 13 days ago {June 22}.

...

As city officials closed the temporary dumpsite at Christie Pits this evening, a city-hired contractor blanketed the location with pesticide early this afternoon, just one day after officials obtained a court injunction preventing protesters and picketers from blockading the site.

Christie Pits is a city park with an outdoor hockey rink.  Switching links...

Birds have pried many garbage bags open and others were ripped when hit by trucks driven by managers staffing the site, Mr. Burgess said, adding that rain water and leaking garbage have combined into a sludge that has now seeped out onto the cement floor around the rink.

"It’s been long enough that the garbage is starting to liquefy so you can imagine …"

When the strike is finally over, where will that rotting garbage actually end up?  And, what about all of the methane that's getting away?

Trying to Buy Canadian

The USDA and Canadian Food Inspection Agency have worked together for years to develop and manage an integrated meat market.  The goal is for customers to focus upon the quality of a product, not its source.  That's part of the reason that Canadian beef and pork producers had a conniption when the U.S. moved towards country-of-origin labeling (COOL--previous blog here). 

The Canadians complained that COOL would increase their costs and thus create a trade barrier.  That was an easier argument to make with pork, as Canada's problems with mad cow disease had reduced the integration of our beef production.  But, the Canadians also feared that their meat soon wouldn't sell as well here...no Product of USA label.  Indeed when COOL went into effect last fall, packing plants paid less for Canadian beef and pork.  

Flashing forward...

Earlier this week, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced a recall involving a variety of President's Choice beef products, including steaks, roasts and ground beef over fears of E. coli contamination. The products came from JBS Swift Beef Co., based in Colorado, and are part of a larger recall that has been linked to at least 18 illnesses in numerous states.

While news of a food recall is hardly surprising--in recent weeks, the CFIA has announced recalls on everything from pistachios to salad greens to food made with peanut products--many consumers were startled to find out some fresh meat products sold by Canadian companies actually originate in the U.S..

The recall is prompting new questions about sources of meat sold in Canadian grocery stores, and whether consumers have a right to know where the product originated.

Under current regulations, companies that sell fresh meat products, such as ground beef, aren't required to name the product's country of origin on the label, according to several industry experts.

Representatives of two of Ontario's biggest supermarket chains said that they usually bought Canadian meat, only tapping American sources to meet spikes in demand.  However, neither would say how much of the meat they sold was Canadian.  Hmmm. 

Last year, the CFIA toughened its own COOL requirements.  Yes, it was likely in retaliation for what they view as our protectionism under the guise of helping consumers.  Here's what it now takes to legally use a Product of Canada label. 

A food product may claim Product of Canada when all or virtually all major ingredients, processing, and labour used to make the food product are Canadian. This means that all significant ingredients are Canadian and non-Canadian material must be negligible. Ingredients that are present in a food at very low levels and that are not generally produced in Canada, including spices, food additives, vitamins, minerals, and flavouring preparations, may be used without disqualifying the food from making a Product of Canada claim.

Thus, it ought to be pretty simple to determine how much of the meat was Canadian...at least if the producers feel that adding a Product of Canada label to the packaging is worthwhile.  It's not like many Canadians shun their own beef because of fears of mad cow disease. 

On the other hand, it's possible that the contaminated beef from the Colorado plant was imported from Canada, slaughtered, and then exported back to Canada.  If that's the case, it wouldn't qualify for a Product of Canada label.  It's rather like cattle born in Canada and raised in the U.S. can't be labeled Product of USA.  That's hurt Canadian beef sales here.  Finishing with the original article...   

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with the products involved in the current recall.

And hopefully there were none that went unreported.

FYI, here's how one well-known brand dealt with our new mandatory COOL regulation.

Certified Angus Beef® product source

• With mCOOL, you’ll begin seeing a label on packages for "Product of USA, Canada and Mexico." This is a change only to the packaging, not to the Certified Angus Beef® brand or its high standards. The brand continues to offer the same high quality you and your customers have enjoyed for 30 years.
• The vast majority of Certified Angus Beef® products are from the United States. In fact, less than 4% of all Certified Angus Beef® products could ever come from cattle born in Canada or Mexico. The United States imports a small number of cattle from Canada and Mexico, and most of them are raised and harvested in the United States and incorporated into the nation’s cattle herd.
• Less than 1% of the brand’s beef is certified in Canada. Most satisfies consumer demand in that market. A very limited quantity could be exported to the United States as a "Product of Canada", and will likely end up in foodservice.

That Product of Canada label disappears in the foodservice industry. 

Just Focus on Saving Energy

Earlier this week, Yahoo announced that...

...it will no longer purchase carbon offsets for its operations, focusing its climate strategy on reducing the energy used by its data centers.

Rather than simply giving money away, Yahoo has decided to reduce its emissions by saving energy, which will save the company money.  The fact that it took Yahoo two years to figure this out provides yet another hint as to why the company has been sinking into irrelevancy.  

In a blog post, [co-founder David] Filo also committed the company to reduce the carbon intensity of its data centers "by at least 40% by 2014," stating, "We'll get there through a combination of innovative data center design, improving how we utilize our servers, cloud computing, and locating our data centers in areas where cleaner energy is available."

Carbon intensity...cut the pretentious terminology and just talk about saving energy.  The only data centers that aren't energy hogs are ones that aren't running.  Hitting both of those points...

Data centers account for more than half of the company's carbon footprint, says Page, including its global office operations, employee commuting, and air travel.

...

Electricity consumption from data centers "have doubled over past five years and are expected to double again," says Page. 

It ought to be incumbent on every company, government organization, etc. to save energy wherever it can help the bottom line.  With that thought in mind...  

Yahoo! also announced that it would build a state-of-the-art data center near Buffalo, N.Y. -- beating out sites in Illinois, Ohio, and Pennsylvania -- that would take advantage of the region's hydropower and climate. Among other things, the data center will operate without any chillers, utilizing a natural cooling system supplied entirely by the cool air coming off Lake Erie. Chillers are among the most energy-intensive parts of a data center.

...

A facility in Quincy, Wash., opened in late 2007 and the first built by Yahoo! from the ground up, similarly utilizes hydropower for electricity and is cooled using ambient air for most of the year. "It's been a great learning curve for us," says Page, noting that the Buffalo center "is the next generation."

Credit to Yahoo on that.  Unlike much of the political leadership in Oregon and California, Yahoo understands that hydropower is a valuable, renewable asset. 

Why isn't Governor Kulongoski out selling coastal Oregon as a great source of natural cooling? 

Focusing on Recycling, Not the Exporting of Garbage

It took a half a year to get the final calculations, but Seattle proudly announced yesterday that its waste recycling hit 50% in 2008.  It got there a lot slower than expected (previous blog here), and the 60% goal by 2012 still looks rather steep.  But, at least it's making progress.

In 2008, Seattle’s single-family residents diverted 65.4 percent of their waste through recycling and composting, up from 64.8 percent in 2007. Multifamily residents recycled 28.3 of their waste, up from 27.6 the previous year.

Commercial recycling climbed 2.2 percentage points, to 54.7 percent in 2008. And 18.4 percent of waste dropped off at the city’s two recycling and disposal stations was diverted to recycling or compost in 2008.

One of the key ways Seattle hopes to achieve that impending 60 percent goal is by improving the recycling of organics, especially food wastes.  Residential programs get the most publicity, but the foodservice industry is a big player.  Switching links...

The foodservice industry is one of the most significant producers of food and materials waste on the planet, Shakman said. In fact, Seattle foodservice operations alone produce almost 30 percent of the nearly 500,000 tons of waste the city ships to landfills via nearly 4,500 railcars, according to Carl Woestwin, landscape team leader for Seattle Public Utilities.

And of course, most of that garbage comes here to Oregon.  Remember that whenever Seattle pretends it's concerned about climate change.  Same goes for Portland, Vancouver WA (and maybe soon BC), Olympia, and other long-distance customers of the big landfill in Arlington.  However, Seattle did send less garbage to Oregon last year.  Returning to the original article.

With increased recycling and less solid waste generated last year, Seattle reduced the amount of garbage shipped to a landfill in Arlington, Ore., by 40,000 tons.

Their reduction is our loss. 

Not Perservering as Well

About a month ago, Pendleton Woolen Mills had only laid off two permanent workers in Pendleton, despite a 30 percent loss of business during the downturn (previous blog here).  Unfortunately, things haven't picked up.

The 100-year-old company, whose colorful woven blankets have gained a global reputation, will lay off 43 workers permanently, many of them at its mill in Pendleton, the eastern Oregon city for which it is named.

In addition, the company has announced pay cuts for all employees earning more than $50,000 a year, although it declined to say how much.

The company, based in Portland, employs 900 people nationwide, most of them in Washington and Oregon.

Sad.  But while the slowdown in spending is bad for businesses, it will be even worse long-term if Americans don't get their borrowing under control and save more.  

Inflating Green Jobs

Most green jobs are just regular jobs that have gained a new title.  That's how Oregon can hype that nearly three percent of its workers--in the state with the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation--have green jobs.  What types of jobs are these?

Three industries accounted for 47 percent of Oregon's green jobs: construction, wholesale and retail trade, and administrative and waste services.

The five occupations with the most green jobs were carpenters, farmworkers, truck drivers, hazardous materials removal workers, and landscaping and groundskeeping workers. Together these workers represented 27 percent of Oregon's green jobs.

Hazardous materials removal is kind of lonely in that list.  I'm sure that all the truckers transporting metro-Portland's garbage up the Gorge (previous blog here) are counted as having green jobs. 

Nearly two-thirds of all green jobs require no more than a high school education, 7 percent require some college, 7 percent require an associate degree, 18 percent require a bachelor's or graduate degree, and 4 percent required other education.

...

Employers project the number of green jobs will grow 14 percent between 2008 and 2010. Most growth will likely be in the farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, transportation and material moving occupations, and production occupations.

Wow, growth in green fishing.  Gee, let's just ignore the fact that some of the chemicals organic farmers use are more environmentally destructive than their conventional counterparts.  Heck, as we know from California's organic problems, some of the chemicals organic farmers are exactly what their conventional counterparts have been using (previous blog here).  Et cetera.

No doubt the people who tally these inflated statistics count themselves as having green jobs.  No doubt Governor Kulongoski does as well.

Studying Jaguars to Death

A century ago, the jaguar was found in the four states bordering Mexico--as far north as the Grand Canyon.  However, it has been all-but-extirpated from this country via hunting and habitat loss.  Jaguars are still occasionally seen in southern Arizona and New Mexico, but there's no known breeding population here.  Recently, it seems that one of the greatest dangers to jaguars in or near the U.S. is researchers trying to study them.  

In the last seven years, biologists have captured four jaguars in the Arizona-Sonora region, in each case intending to put a radio collar on the animal and follow its movements.

June 9, 2002: Nacori Chico, Sonora

...

The animal never recovered from sedation and died as the warm morning turned hot. Rosas attributed the death to "heat stress."

Ugh.  The animal had been trapped in a leg snare.  The first ketamine dart didn't do the trick, but the second dart--a half-dose, sure did.  The researcher was a PhD student from New Mexico State University.

March 30, 2003: Rancho Los Pavos, Sonora

...

They managed to sedate and collar the jaguar, who was released.

"Her health was good, and we made sure she was in good condition several weeks after capture," Avila said in a statement written this year.

Researchers discovered in October 2003 that the jaguar had slipped out of the collar.

A few months of data is better than nothing.  And two days later, the same pair of biologists captured another jaguar.

April 1, 2003: Rancho Los Pavos, Sonora

...

The two biologists had already trapped mountain lions as part of the research, but they said in e-mails they were woefully unprepared for the jaguar capture. They used a blowgun and a "jab stick" to try to sedate the jaguar, which lunged at them.

They put a radio collar on the jaguar, but it died. McCain concluded that the heat of that day and the difficulty sedating the animal combined to cause the death.

Woefully unprepared??  Switching to a more detailed article on this debacle.

The biologists involved in the Mexican capture blamed their supervisor—a prominent researcher and published authority on jaguars—for failing to adequately prepare them for the capture. 

...

Avila and McCain also wrote in their e-mails that Lopez Gonzales told them to keep the death quiet and to hide the cat's skin and skull at the ranch. Emil McCain skinned the jaguar, cleaned the skull and buried the body close to the ranch, Avila wrote.

Lopez Gonzalez denied telling the biologists to cover up the death but acknowledged that he didn't want them traveling anywhere with the jaguar corpse, saying he "didn't think he would be looked at very good in the towns."

Lopez Gonzalez said he notified Semarnat, the Mexican environmental agency, of the death, but agency representatives told the Star they could find no information about the 2003 jaguar capture.

Carlos Lopez Gonzalez is a Mexican research biologist at the Universidad de Queretaro.  In the late '90s,

...Lopez Gonzalez started researching jaguars in Sonora while working on a book—published in 2001—with David Brown, an Arizona State University adjunct professor and a wildlife biologist for 40 years.

Lopez Gonzalez targeted the rough, steep, canyon-filled eastern Sonora terrain centering on Los Pavos, a 10,000-acre ranch in the thornscrub, 65 miles from the nearest town. His work drew support from 20 conservation groups and environmentalists, including Tucsonan Craig Miller of Defenders of Wildlife.  Miller recently said he had long felt that if any hope existed for jaguars to recover north of the border, it had to start with protecting and recovering the far larger population in Sonora.

I agree, but not killing the jaguars already here also matters.  Back to the original article.

Feb. 18, 2009: Between Nogales and Arivaca, Ariz

Arizona Game and Fish biologists Thorry Smith and Michelle Crabb were checking snares, set as part of a mountain lion and bear study, when they found a jaguar had been trapped.

...

Smith used an injection rifle to fire a dart containing the sedative Telazol into the old jaguar's rump, and after 13 minutes, the jaguar was quiet. The morning was cold and the cat's body temperature was cool. He looked healthy when released, but within days he was barely moving.

On March 2, a team recaptured the jaguar and took him to the Phoenix Zoo for treatment. There, a medical team diagnosed terminal kidney failure and euthanized him.

That cat--Macho B--had been first photographed in Arizona in 1996. Switching back to the other article...

Since Macho B's death, environmentalists have said the department did not learn the lessons of the earlier Sonoran jaguar deaths.

For one, there was no veterinarian or anyone with jaguar-capture experience on the scene at Macho B's capture, although the capture team had consulted with veterinarians on what kind of anesthetic to give a jaguar in the event of a capture. Because the trap that snared Macho B had no electronic signal, biologists didn't learn of the capture until three to 14 hours after it occurred.

The captors also used a snare trap even though a risk assessment done for the Jaguar Conservation Team had warned that was the riskiest of three possible methods of capture, instead advocating the use of hounds.

Game and Fish officials have said they did not take those steps because that was the protocol for deliberate jaguar capture—not for accidental capture.

Yeah, but why would one trap big cats in that area without being prepared for the possibility of snaring a jaguar?  Meanwhile, environmentalists actually recommended using hounds to go after jaguars?  And if the officials had used hounds, what would the environmentalists say they instead should have been doing? 

The Body's Regulation of Copper

Prion proteins still aren't well understood. The misfolded ones get most of the press, as they're linked to fatal neurodegenerative conditions like mad cow disease, chronic wasting disease, and scrapie.  Quoting an old post...

There is a divergent line of thinking when it comes to the causes of prion diseases.  It relates to the presence or lack thereof of certain metals. 

There are links between prion proteins and the regulation of copper in the brain, leading some to believe that prion diseases are related to a copper deficiency.  It could be because of a shortage of copper in the diet and/or the presence of other metals (typically manganese--which is unrelated to magnesium) that can occupy prion protein receptors instead of copper.  However, there is also research which fails to support prion protein's role in regulating copper in the brain.  Nevertheless, there are clusters of TSE cases in areas with high manganese and where, for instance, strong pesticides have been used that can impact the uptake of copper.

Last week, a research team published the following on the topic. 

Prion proteins, or PrPs, are commonly found in brain tissue and throughout the central nervous system. In humans or animals with prion diseases, these proteins deform and aggregate, creating clumps of PrPs that interfere with the nervous system's ability to function normally. A team of NC State physicists, led by Miroslav Hodak and Jerry Bernholc, has found that when PrPs bind with copper in the human body, their structure becomes more stable and less likely to misfold or aggregate.

"We believe that a prion protein's normal function is to serve as a copper buffer in the human body, binding with copper ions and keeping those ions from damaging human tissue," Hodak says. "We wanted to determine whether this was the normal function of the prion, and then look at how that binding affected the prion's structure."

The researchers created a 3-D model of the PrP using supercomputers at Oak Ridge National Laboratories. With the model, they determined that PrPs can bind up to four copper ions apiece, depending on the concentration of copper present. They also found that when the PrPs bind to the copper ions, the structure of the protein changes, becoming more stable.

...

"Prion proteins are unusual in that half of the protein has a well-defined structure, but the other half of it - where the binding occurs - is a flexible, random tangle," Hodak says. "When we looked at the so-called 'random' portion of the PrP where that binding occurs, we found that the copper ions lend stability to the overall protein. This stability may play a role in preventing PrPs from misfolding or aggregating - which indicates that with prion diseases, copper binding may be beneficial.

Slowly but surely, scientists are chipping away at this mystery.

Random Nature #219

Not Bulletproof:  It's no mystery that many teens engage in a range of risky behaviors.  People keep looking for reasons why.  

Borowsky and colleagues analyzed data collected by the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, a nationally representative sample of more than 20,000 youth in grades 7 through 12 during three separate study years. In the first set of interviews, nearly 15 percent of adolescents predicted they had a 50/50 chance or less of living to age 35. Those who engaged in risky behaviors such as illicit drug use, suicide attempts, fighting, or unsafe sexual activity in the first year were more likely in subsequent years to believe they would die at a young age. Vice versa, those who predicted that they'd die young during the first interview were more likely in later years to begin engaging in these same risky behaviors and have poor health outcomes. Notably, these teens were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with HIV/AIDS just six years later, regardless of their sexual preference.

"While conventional wisdom says that teens engage in risky behaviors because they feel invulnerable to harm, this study suggests that in some cases, teens take risks because they overestimate their vulnerability, specifically their risk of dying," Borowsky said. "These youth may take risks because they feel hopeless and figure that not much is at stake."

I thought we already knew that with--for instance--gang activity.  Anyway...

Nearly 25 percent of youth living in households that receive public assistance and more than 29 percent of American-Indian, 26 percent of African-American, 21 percent of Hispanic, and 15 percent of Asian youth reported believing they would die young—compared to just 10 percent of their Caucasian peers.

So, hope is about income?

"Our findings reinforce the importance of instilling a sense of hope and optimism in youth," Borowsky said. "Strong connections with parents, families, and schools, as well as positive media messages, are likely important factors in developing an optimistic outlook for young people."

Sounds nice, but that's way easier to claim than to prove. 

Consequences:  Plenty of research shows that alcohol consumption increases the risk of cancer (example here).  Men still drink more than women, but the gap is closing.  From this link...

Research from Canada's own Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) featured in this week's edition of the Lancet shows that worldwide, 1 in 25 deaths are directly attributable to alcohol consumption. This rise since 2000 is mainly due to increases in the number of women drinking.

CAMH's Dr Jürgen Rehm and his colleagues found that alcohol-attributable disorders are among the most disabling disease categories within the global burden of disease, especially for men. And in contrast to other traditional risk factors for disease, the burden attributable to alcohol lies more with younger people than with the older population.

There is research that attributes 3.5% of all cancer deaths worldwide to alcohol drinking.  But how often does an autopsy or death certificate for a cancer victim note that the cause of death was alcohol consumption?  In other words, part of this study was based upon estimates rather than hard data. 

The study showed that Europe had a high proportion of deaths related to alcohol, with 1 in 10 deaths directly attributable (up to 15% in the former Soviet Union). Average alcohol consumption in Europe in the adult population is somewhat higher than in North America: 13 standard drinks per person per week (1 standard drink = 13.6 grams of pure ethanol and corresponds to a can of beer, one glass or wine and one shot of spirits) compared to North America's 10 to 11 standard drinks. The recent Canadian consumption rate is equivalent of almost 9 standard drinks per person per week age 15 plus, and has been going up, as has high risk drinking. Globally, the average is around 7 standard drinks per person per week (despite the fact that most of the adult population worldwide actually abstains from drinking alcohol).

Most of the deaths caused by alcohol were through injuries, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and liver cirrhosis.

...

"Globally, the effect of alcohol on burden of disease is about the same size as that of smoking in 2000, but it is relatively greatest in emerging economies. Global consumption is increasing, especially in the most populous countries of India and China."

Most of the alcohol related injury and disease burden occurs in people under 45 years of age.  The global statistic is 72.4%, but in the Americas it is 82.1%.  Unfortunately, the data is rather broad...the four categories are ages 0-14, 15-44, 45-69, and 70 & older.  As one would expect, the big numbers are in the 15-44 category.

Slow-Motion Prohibition:  When our nicotine addict-in-chief signed the bill giving the FDA authority to regulate tobacco, a couple of tobacco researchers jumped on the bandwagon and offered some advice for reducing smoking rates over the next 50 years.

Substantial increases in federal and state tobacco excise taxes.

A national clean-indoor air law.

Elimination of nicotine from tobacco products.

Funds for an aggressive mass media campaign to counter the tide of tobacco industry ads and sponsorships.

A ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship.

Evidence-based counseling and medication for every smoker who wants to quit.

Protecting young people, particularly those 17 and younger, from starting to smoke. Research shows that a major genetic risk for lifelong nicotine dependence can be suppressed if young people avoid daily smoking prior to age 17.

That suggestion to eliminate nicotine from tobacco products didn't do much for their credibility.  And how much more anti-smoking advertising do we need before they consider it an aggressive campaign?  But, the point about genetic risk is certainly interesting.

One of the things the researchers emphasized is that adult smoking rates have been steadily decreasing for 40 years.  Switching to another piece of research published this past week...

In 2005, 32 percent of active-duty personnel and 22 percent of veterans were smokers; rates among active-duty personnel have recently increased, possibly because of growing tobacco use by deployed troops.

Not good...but why didn't they ask the age the troops took-up smoking?  For instance, perhaps as the standards for new recruits have been relaxed, an increasing percentage of smokers has been accepted into the military.  

Not Self-Sufficient:  Many of those who make it to old age aren't financially prepared to take care of themselves.  The U.S., like most industrialized nations is dependent upon population growth to fund pay-as-you-go benefits.  This is one of several reasons that politicians tend to be more enthusiastic about immigration than the people they serve.  

Spain has been studying this issue.  From an press release on research entitled (in Spanish) "The effect of immigration on the long-term sustainability of the pension system in Spain."

Researchers from the University of Valladolid have constructed a demographic and economic simulation model called 'Carrión', which projects the costs of pensions, Social Security contributions and GDP up until 2060. The model also includes detailed scenarios about the behaviour of people migrating to Spain currently and in the future, in relation to the length of time they stay, their fertility, salaries and employment rate.

The new study ... evaluates the stability of the Spanish pensions system and carries out a detailed analysis of the effect of immigration on the accounts of the Social Security system.

One of the most striking results is that by 2055 the contributions/pensions ratio of immigrants "will have a net value in excess of that of native-born people", Jiménez-Ridruejo tells SINC. The researcher says that, through this demographic and economic simulation model, his team has provided the first projection of the contribution made by migrants to the Spanish pensions system, both in terms of contributions and pensions expenditure.

In 2008, foreign-born individuals comprised roughly 12% of the Spanish population.  From 1996-2008, the number of immigrants--both legal and otherwise--rose from about 500,000 to 5,220,000.  The biggest sources of legal immigrants are Romania and Morocco.  The majority of the immigrants are from Latin America--especially Ecuador, Bolivia, and Colombia.  And we can't forget the sun-deprived British; the official number is 350,000, though it may be as high as 1 million.

The study also shows a more pronounced increase in the fertility rate, which will reach almost two children per woman, and that the pension load will start to decline after 2020. This will primarily be due to the rejuvenation of the population, implying reduced increases in the dependency rate, an indicator that "could even start to decline by 2055".

Spain's fertility rate is currently well-below replacement--just 1.37.  Of note though is that it's been climbing since the late 90s...along with immigration.  However, expecting the number to rise to almost 2.0 sure seems optimistic.  But then, optimism is a key component of pension math.

When our politicians claim they're pro-environment, ask them how they're going to pay for social security long-term without a continuing increase in the population--which isn't good for the environment. 

With Green Priorities Like These...

For an organization that is claims to be a coalition of over 50 Oregon conservation groups, the Oregon Conservation Network (OCN) sure doesn't make it easy to find out who its members are.  This incomplete list (linked from here) includes groups like 1000 Friends of Oregon, the Bicycle Transportation Alliance, and the League of Women Voters of Oregon.  Hmmm.  

Anyway, the OCN recently amended its legislative wish list for the umpteenth time this session.  There is some disappointing stuff in its top five.  

• Senate Bill 101: Prevents Oregon utilities from entering into new contracts for coal-fired power.

That's a pretty obvious one, though it wouldn't be good for the energy bills of most Oregonians.

• SB 740: Allows Water Resources Department to charge $100 annual fee to holders of water rights to fund administration, field staff and science for managing more than 85,000 water rights in Oregon.

So, property owners with wells--like me--would have to pay $100 a year in exchange for what?  The Water Resources Department needs another $8.5 million to do what it's already doing?  Meanwhile, there's nothing in the bill to stop the legislature from cutting a similar amount from the department's budget and spending the money elsewhere.  And laughably, the bill would declare the collection of this money a public peace, health, and safety emergency.  This bill smells.    

• House Bill 2020: Authorizes issuing $10 million in lottery-backed bonds for a fund to target invasive species as soon as they're spotted.

Combating invasive species is usually a good thing.  But doing it with debt rather than within the state budget is a lousy idea. 

• HB 2220: Charges fees to boaters to fund check stations that would check boats for aquatic invasive species. Establishes civil penalties for knowingly transporting zebra mussels and other invasive species on a boat.

I suppose it's possible that boat check stations could be more effective than the agricultural inspection stations we pass through when entering California.  We do need penalties though for knowingly transporting invasive species in boats...and cars, trains, planes, etc.  The release of bait fish has certainly caused all sorts of problems in Diamond Lake (previous blog here).  One would presume the state would try to prove the "knowingly" part through the permitting process.    

• HB 3369: Authorizes $175 million in loans and $10 million in lottery-funded grants for water development projects that meet conservation requirements.

This is another proposal to expand the state budget via debt.  No matter what the money would be spent on, this is fiscally reckless.  No, no, no.

At least the following is moving forward despite its absence from the list...though the governor may veto it.

By a 26-2 vote, the Senate approved House Bill 2472, which lowers the maximum state payments to large wind projects from $10 million to $3.5 million. Along with some other changes, the bill is expected to save taxpayers about $10 million a year.

...

At issue is Oregon's Business Energy Tax Credit, a once minor subsidy program aimed at boosting conservation efforts. Two years ago, at Kulongoski's behest, the Legislature vastly expanded the program, offering millions of dollars to lure wind and solar companies to bring their projects -- and the jobs that come with them -- to Oregon.

The changes allowed a business to recoup up to half the cost of building a new plant that either generates renewable power or makes equipment for renewable power generation. With a maximum credit of $20 million, the subsidies quickly became the most generous in the nation. They have been credited for bringing a number of wind and solar projects to Oregon, including SolarWorld.

As a result, however, state spending on the projects ballooned to more than $60 million over the past two years and was expected to rise to about $150 million in the coming two years.

An investigation by The Oregonian this year showed that millions of dollars in credits were being handed to some risky startup companies, to projects with questionable environmental benefits and to projects that would have been built even without the credits.

If we could just get the leadership in Salem to think long term.  We're bribing companies to come here for a few years rather than investing more money in our university system to build foundations that would attract green businesses here on merit.  Most of the green jobs we've lured here with subsidies don't involve setting down roots...those employers will go wherever their costs are lowest. 

We need to grow more of our own jobs, but our university system isn't up to the task in the sciences and engineering.  There needs to be more research...and the quality of some of what's being done needs to improve.  Our universities are known for producing too many activists and not enough scientists...and of course, the ugly uniforms.