Golgool is my quick little exercise in creating a Google custom search engine. Check it out at www.semret.org/golgool.
For example, a search for [seeds export] on golgool yields more interesting results than a search for [ethiopian seeds export] on google.com.
Volunteers welcome! Send email to the address at the bottom of the Golgool pages and I'll send you an invitation to contribute (so you can add sites, search refinements, etc.)
2008/03/23
How can carbon-offsets work?
What do Norway and the New Jersey Nets have in common? They are among the myriad entities declaring that they are or will be carbon neutral. That's is great but it reminds of one thing that has been bothering me for a while now. In a lot of these cases, they rely on "carbon offsets". And to me, well I have an issue with carbon-offsets -- they can't work. Here's a rant expanded from an email exchange I had back in November 2007.
First of it's not that I'm not green -- far from it, I even joined Greenpeace way back! Second, it's not that I don't believe in markets -- far from it! So now let's back up for a second and consider the common "green market mechanisms". As far as I know (which is not much but hey, who else is around?), there are four types of incentive-based mechanisms being suggested in the world with the goal of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere due to human activity. Do they work? And what's wrong with carbon-offsets in particular?
My favorite is the carbon removal X-prize. A prize is a very efficient way of funding R&D. Basically you put up a $25M prize, and it might lead to 10 teams spending $24,999,999 each in parallel, and then one or more of them would actually solve it, while creating many useful partial solutions and spin-offs along the way! So from society's point of view, you get up to $249,999,999 worth of R&D using just $25M to stimulate it. But it's a long shot approach, excellent return, but high risk. Clearly, the world needs incremental approaches as well to balance our species-survival portfolio.
The popular incremental approach is cap & trade. That seems to work.. Sounds like the incentives are right on. Those who can figure out ways to reduce emissions get rewarded, and those who can't, pay for it. Both sides work incrementally thus, without any huge disruptions to society, we get gradual improvements. The only problem is that the cap levels are kind of arbitrary and could be changed by fickle and/or corrupt politics which might distort the incentives. Still given some consistency across time and space, the incentives should work as expected because both the reward and the penalty happen at more or less the same time.
If you really think about it, carbon tax is a simpler better version. It has the advantages of cap and trade with fewer costs, and it can work more widely since it wouldn't only apply to specific industries. The only downside is that its' tough to get people to support anything with the word "tax" in it. (So the difference in cost between "carbon tax" and "cap & trade" is simply the cost of weak leadership in democracy.
But really maybe there's a magic solution? One with no new taxes! Yay! No caps or limits! Yay! A win-win solution! Maybe... carbon offsets. Are they too good to be true? Yes. Here's the problem as I see it: If I want to build a carbon-belching factory or travel on a carbon-spewing jet plane, and then offset it by paying someone to plant a forest of trees, what will prevent the trees from being cut down in the future? When that tree will be cut down or die -- after 5 years or 20 years or 500 -- really changes the value of the offset and whether it truly cancels out my plane trip or my factory.
And here securing the tree is not just another implementation detail. It's a central, fundamental flaw of the market. Because the incentives are not there. If I'm the polluter and you're the off-setter, once I pay for the right to pollute, I will happily pollute and I don't care anymore about whether you truly keep the tree alive, I've already gotten the credit for it. You the seller can take my money and still cut the tree. This is not like normal uncertainty/risk about the value of a product or service. In a normal market, the buyer wants to get the stuff they bought, which is what keeps the seller from cheating. But in the carbon offset, the buyer has no incentive to care once they got the credit, and the seller, once they are paid for planting, has a huge incentive to just chop the tree and use the wood.
Of course people cheat in all markets. But enforcement, regulations etc. can only work if the vast majority of buyers and sellers have the basic incentives to make it work, and the law only has to deal with a small minority of cheaters. For example in stock markets or commodity markets, the buyers and sellers police each other because if one cheats the other loses. In the carbon-offset market, they can both cheat and not tell anyone. SO enforcement is going to be prohibitively expensive. Basically you have to set up a well-meaning intermediary like a fund that receives the money from the offset buyers and pays out the planters over the lifetime of the tree... That's a huge problem.
My guess is the offset market is of purely psychological value... It's very much like Catholic "indulgences" that you could buy from the church to cancel out your sins in exchange for some money. Clearly a very profitable scheme. If you're the church, it's just free money. It's better than free money: they give you money and they thank you and you increase your power over them! Which begs the question... Who is the church of carbon-offsets?
First of it's not that I'm not green -- far from it, I even joined Greenpeace way back! Second, it's not that I don't believe in markets -- far from it! So now let's back up for a second and consider the common "green market mechanisms". As far as I know (which is not much but hey, who else is around?), there are four types of incentive-based mechanisms being suggested in the world with the goal of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere due to human activity. Do they work? And what's wrong with carbon-offsets in particular?
My favorite is the carbon removal X-prize. A prize is a very efficient way of funding R&D. Basically you put up a $25M prize, and it might lead to 10 teams spending $24,999,999 each in parallel, and then one or more of them would actually solve it, while creating many useful partial solutions and spin-offs along the way! So from society's point of view, you get up to $249,999,999 worth of R&D using just $25M to stimulate it. But it's a long shot approach, excellent return, but high risk. Clearly, the world needs incremental approaches as well to balance our species-survival portfolio.
The popular incremental approach is cap & trade. That seems to work.. Sounds like the incentives are right on. Those who can figure out ways to reduce emissions get rewarded, and those who can't, pay for it. Both sides work incrementally thus, without any huge disruptions to society, we get gradual improvements. The only problem is that the cap levels are kind of arbitrary and could be changed by fickle and/or corrupt politics which might distort the incentives. Still given some consistency across time and space, the incentives should work as expected because both the reward and the penalty happen at more or less the same time.
If you really think about it, carbon tax is a simpler better version. It has the advantages of cap and trade with fewer costs, and it can work more widely since it wouldn't only apply to specific industries. The only downside is that its' tough to get people to support anything with the word "tax" in it. (So the difference in cost between "carbon tax" and "cap & trade" is simply the cost of weak leadership in democracy.
But really maybe there's a magic solution? One with no new taxes! Yay! No caps or limits! Yay! A win-win solution! Maybe... carbon offsets. Are they too good to be true? Yes. Here's the problem as I see it: If I want to build a carbon-belching factory or travel on a carbon-spewing jet plane, and then offset it by paying someone to plant a forest of trees, what will prevent the trees from being cut down in the future? When that tree will be cut down or die -- after 5 years or 20 years or 500 -- really changes the value of the offset and whether it truly cancels out my plane trip or my factory.
And here securing the tree is not just another implementation detail. It's a central, fundamental flaw of the market. Because the incentives are not there. If I'm the polluter and you're the off-setter, once I pay for the right to pollute, I will happily pollute and I don't care anymore about whether you truly keep the tree alive, I've already gotten the credit for it. You the seller can take my money and still cut the tree. This is not like normal uncertainty/risk about the value of a product or service. In a normal market, the buyer wants to get the stuff they bought, which is what keeps the seller from cheating. But in the carbon offset, the buyer has no incentive to care once they got the credit, and the seller, once they are paid for planting, has a huge incentive to just chop the tree and use the wood.
Of course people cheat in all markets. But enforcement, regulations etc. can only work if the vast majority of buyers and sellers have the basic incentives to make it work, and the law only has to deal with a small minority of cheaters. For example in stock markets or commodity markets, the buyers and sellers police each other because if one cheats the other loses. In the carbon-offset market, they can both cheat and not tell anyone. SO enforcement is going to be prohibitively expensive. Basically you have to set up a well-meaning intermediary like a fund that receives the money from the offset buyers and pays out the planters over the lifetime of the tree... That's a huge problem.
My guess is the offset market is of purely psychological value... It's very much like Catholic "indulgences" that you could buy from the church to cancel out your sins in exchange for some money. Clearly a very profitable scheme. If you're the church, it's just free money. It's better than free money: they give you money and they thank you and you increase your power over them! Which begs the question... Who is the church of carbon-offsets?
2008/03/18
2008/03/01
Researchers discover gene that blocks HIV
Isn't this kind of a big deal?
Researchers discover gene that blocks HIV.
Stephen Barr, a molecular virologist in the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, says his team has identified a gene called TRIM22 that can block HIV infection in a cell culture by preventing the assembly of the virus.
[...]
"We are currently trying to figure out why this gene does not work in people infected with HIV and if there is a way to turn this gene on in those individuals," he added. "We hope that our research will lead to the design of new drugs, or vaccines that can halt the person-to-person transmission of HIV and the spread of the virus in the body, thereby blocking the onset of AIDS."
I remember around ten years ago, researchers had found a way to prevent the HIV from attaching itself to and attacking white blood cells by making another organism that would go and attach itself to the same geometric spot (or something like that). That sounded really promising. I wonder whatever happened to that....
Researchers discover gene that blocks HIV.
Stephen Barr, a molecular virologist in the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, says his team has identified a gene called TRIM22 that can block HIV infection in a cell culture by preventing the assembly of the virus.
[...]
"We are currently trying to figure out why this gene does not work in people infected with HIV and if there is a way to turn this gene on in those individuals," he added. "We hope that our research will lead to the design of new drugs, or vaccines that can halt the person-to-person transmission of HIV and the spread of the virus in the body, thereby blocking the onset of AIDS."
I remember around ten years ago, researchers had found a way to prevent the HIV from attaching itself to and attacking white blood cells by making another organism that would go and attach itself to the same geometric spot (or something like that). That sounded really promising. I wonder whatever happened to that....
2008/02/20
Wiimote -- Go Johnny go!
This is truly amazing. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/projects/wii/
I always had high hopes for the sony playstation running linux to do some fun unexpected revolutionary thing.. But this one takes the cake. Wiimote!
I always had high hopes for the sony playstation running linux to do some fun unexpected revolutionary thing.. But this one takes the cake. Wiimote!
2008/02/14
Obameme
I nominate for Meme of the year to date: barackobamaisyournewbicycle.com.
Barack Obama is your new icon.
Barack Obama is your new icon.
2008/01/26
Ethiopian Commodities Exchange
Ethiopundit has a very lame critique of the Ethiopian Commodities Exchange. It's basically that the government is so corrupt and the rule of law so non-existent that the exchange is like a Potemkin village and therefore can't possibly work. The prototypical player in the market that Ethiopundit wishes were possible: "one bright young fellow outsmarts some TPLF conglomerate by cornering part of the coffee market on his own or with a few daring foreign investors. " That is a hollywood-inspired vision of markets, and even what it tries to represent, the succesful high-risk speculator is not what makes markets work.
Indeed the critique ignores the necessity of bottom-up success. I have no inside information at all (even though I happen to know the person spearheading it from childhood), but I imagine that the exchange will tap into existing markets. The exchange should initially represent traders of the actual goods. These people already engage in buying and selling the stuff wholesale, but they do it by negotiating one-on-one or in a fragmented market. Everyone knows there's berberé tera, for example, the more or less centralized place where people buy and sell that particular commodity wholesale in Addis Abeba. An exchange can give those buyers and sellers a place where they are always guaranteed to find each other easily, i.e. create liquidity, and market prices. Second, the exchange generates reliable, centralized price information. That information is available down the chain all the way to the producer. Farmers, transporters, storage providers, all would benefit from improved liquidity and access to price information.
Only after the market succeeds by serving the primary players does it create a environment fertile enough for secondary players like arbitragers, speculators, and the hot-shot that our pundit friend envisions, to try their luck. These purely financial players add value too of course, they make prices more accurate by eliminating temporary gaps, and bring more flexibility to the primary players by allowing them to trade-off risk and reward. But if they come, it's not as a pre-requisite for success, on the contrary it means it's already a success.
Of course there are many reasons why the exchange could fail. For example there's what I would call the "user interface". Not necessarily with computers but in general the means by which traders interact with this market. Do they go in person and stand in a pit, do they talk to a professional in a booth who then goes on a floor to bid/ask, or do they sit at desks and punch in or speak their orders. Those are tough design issues and the answers cannot simply be copied from other exchanges elsewhere.
But to say, as Ethiopundit does, that it will fail because government interference will prevent secondary activity is putting the butter before the slice of bread (to coin a phrase!). Even if you accept the premise of interference and kleptocracy, which I don't know enough about to accept or reject, it's still not a reason why the primary layer, people who already trade these goods, cannot benefit from an exchange platform. It may be many years before (or if ever) we see commodities trading fortunes built on this exchange, and kleptocratic government going after them, but long before that Hollywood scenario, the exchange could very well make a lot of people who are currently dealing in commodities somewhat better off. And that deserves to be looked at on its own merits, not lumped with everything in the country as part of a general critique of the government.
Indeed the critique ignores the necessity of bottom-up success. I have no inside information at all (even though I happen to know the person spearheading it from childhood), but I imagine that the exchange will tap into existing markets. The exchange should initially represent traders of the actual goods. These people already engage in buying and selling the stuff wholesale, but they do it by negotiating one-on-one or in a fragmented market. Everyone knows there's berberé tera, for example, the more or less centralized place where people buy and sell that particular commodity wholesale in Addis Abeba. An exchange can give those buyers and sellers a place where they are always guaranteed to find each other easily, i.e. create liquidity, and market prices. Second, the exchange generates reliable, centralized price information. That information is available down the chain all the way to the producer. Farmers, transporters, storage providers, all would benefit from improved liquidity and access to price information.
Only after the market succeeds by serving the primary players does it create a environment fertile enough for secondary players like arbitragers, speculators, and the hot-shot that our pundit friend envisions, to try their luck. These purely financial players add value too of course, they make prices more accurate by eliminating temporary gaps, and bring more flexibility to the primary players by allowing them to trade-off risk and reward. But if they come, it's not as a pre-requisite for success, on the contrary it means it's already a success.
Of course there are many reasons why the exchange could fail. For example there's what I would call the "user interface". Not necessarily with computers but in general the means by which traders interact with this market. Do they go in person and stand in a pit, do they talk to a professional in a booth who then goes on a floor to bid/ask, or do they sit at desks and punch in or speak their orders. Those are tough design issues and the answers cannot simply be copied from other exchanges elsewhere.
But to say, as Ethiopundit does, that it will fail because government interference will prevent secondary activity is putting the butter before the slice of bread (to coin a phrase!). Even if you accept the premise of interference and kleptocracy, which I don't know enough about to accept or reject, it's still not a reason why the primary layer, people who already trade these goods, cannot benefit from an exchange platform. It may be many years before (or if ever) we see commodities trading fortunes built on this exchange, and kleptocratic government going after them, but long before that Hollywood scenario, the exchange could very well make a lot of people who are currently dealing in commodities somewhat better off. And that deserves to be looked at on its own merits, not lumped with everything in the country as part of a general critique of the government.
2008/01/25
Wisdom of crowds revisited: intrade
Aha! Search engine futures by Intrade. One year after Google and wisdom of crowds, the idea is catching on.
2007/11/21
Collected rants about a certain Mr. Jeffrey Gettleman
Over the last few months, I have had quite a bit to say to
Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times. But like Don Quichotte at the windmills I waive and waive my sword, and he refuses to fight back! What a coward. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Jeffrey Gettleman of the New York Times. But like Don Quichotte at the windmills I waive and waive my sword, and he refuses to fight back! What a coward. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
It all started out nicely about 4 months ago... with a front page article about Ethiopia on the NY Times. Here's what I had to say on 21 Jun 2007:
The journalist was clearly sympathetic to the ONLF .. but still I was glad that article appeared on the cover of the Times. Somalia was a big mistake by Meles. A Times article wont make things worse... Instead of worrying about the Times, the outside force they should be concerned about is the mullahs in the madrassas preaching about christian Ethiopians raping and killing muslims on behalf of Bush.
At least this article will make things better because the sooner they feel pressure from outside and the stronger it is, the better chance there is that ET can get the out of Somalia, bring in the AU and de-escalate the situation in Ogaden.
On a month later, our destinies crossed paths again when he wrote a more aggressive piece about the Ogaden region. Here's what I wrote in response on July 24, 2007:
True the fact is that ONLF is resurgent, there's a huge crisis in
Ogaden and that is a big story that deserves to be on the cover.
But this guy is either biased or irresponsible. He repeats the
allegation that three guys who spoke up at a meeting were tortured and killed
by the govt. He simply echoes Ogaden Online, adding that they have "a
network of reporters and contributors, some equipped with satellite
phones." Isn't that a pathetic way to validate their legitimacy? For all we
know it could be the ONLF office in Toronto that runs that website.
Moreover, he knows who the alleged victims are (the guys spoke on a NY
Times video!!!). And he can't verify it? He can't even get an official
response or statement from the govt about this? He has quotes from the
govt spokesman for other things but not this. WTF?! He didn"t have
time to call back before the deadline? The dog ate the response? We're
talking about 3 specifc guys who were tortured and killed allegedly
because of the Times material. It's a disgraceful level of investigation.
Hopefully we'll soon know whether the truth is that it's ONLF
propaganda or a government atrocity but it won't be thanks to Jeffrey Gettleman
-- the new Judith Miller... Pffff! Shame on the Times. Plus they just
raised the daily price to $1.25! I swear I'm this close to dumping the
old grey lady
Finally, the epic showdown on Oct 2, 2007. As you can see the temperature rose
Check this out: "A calm voice from embattled Eritrea" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/world/africa/02eritrea.html
by.... you guessed it! Our hero Jeffrey Gettleman, aka Judith Miller the Second. Yes the same Jeffrey "excuse me while I regurgitate ONLF press releases" Gettleman who we last saw a couple of months ago in the thread below.
This time Isaias is the subject of Gettleman's fantasy. Acoording to the article, Isaias is simply a righteous guy, leader of a mighty little country in a fight against superpowers, who don't like it simply because it's "one small voice"! Besides the noble and righteous struggle against superpowers, Eritrea has a few mundane little economic challenges. But the only thing holding back the flourishing of democracy and growth of the economy is... you guessed it, the evil big neighbor to the south. To cap it off, Gellman says "... Mr. Isaias’s mustached face, which has been likened to an African version of Tom Selleck." Seriously. They actually printed that. I swear I expected the article to continue: "After the blowjob, Isu asked me if it was as good for me as it was for him". Seriously.
In fact if you read it carefully, there are no meaningful facts at all, no sign that any pointed questions were asked, nothing but a glowing portrait of Issayas, exactly as he would want himself portrayed, a calm nice guy, with hobbies, no pretensions, but idealist, fighting for justice.
Last time I was angry at the Times, now shock, disbelief.... What comes next again? Weyne weyne... New York Times... Anyway forget them, others are doing quality reporting and analysis, I just came across the example pasted below.
From http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/08/05/ethiop16594.htm
[...]
"Ethiopia has often justified military action in Somalia on grounds of cooperation between what it calls "terrorist" groups in Somalia and the rebellion in Ogaden. The ONLF certainly has strong ethnic and political links to Somali insurgents now fighting against the Ethiopian military presence in Somalia. It may have decided to escalate its rebellion in Ogaden in response to Ethiopia's full-scale military intervention in Somalia in December last year.
Now there are reliable reports that, as a result of Ethiopian military pressure inside Somalia, Somali insurgents including members the militant Islamist al-Shabaab have sought refuge in Ogaden where they could be regrouping. Thus instead of containing and calming the situation in Somalia, the actions of Ethiopia's forces there may well be exacerbating the conflict and regionalising it.
The emerging crisis in the Ogaden is indicative of an increasingly volatile political and military situation in the Horn of Africa. Predictably civilians are bearing the brunt of the crisis both in the Ogaden and in Somalia where hundreds of thousands have been displaced by fighting since the Ethiopian intervention. Predictably human rights abuses and violations of the laws of war are being perpetrated by all sides. It could all get a lot worse, especially if it leads to a resumption of the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
So why isn't the international community doing more to address this crisis. Hasn't the UN being saying for years that crisis prevention is better than cure?
The EU and the United States have significant leverage over Ethiopia in the form of foreign aid and political influence. They should use it instead of turning a blind eye to abuses carried out by the Ethiopian security forces in the name of counter terrorism.
Western support for Ethiopia's counter insurgency efforts in the Horn of Africa is not only morally wrong and riddled with double standards, it is also ineffective and counterproductive. It will lead to the escalation and regionalisation of the conflicts of the region and may well help to radicalise its large and young Muslim population. "
2007/09/26
Killer app? Spam and HIV epidemics
Talk about tackling evil: Using Spam Blockers To Target HIV...
A Microsoft researcher and his team make a surprising new assault on the AIDS epidemic ...
A Microsoft researcher and his team make a surprising new assault on the AIDS epidemic ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)