Tech Talk iconTech Talk

President Bush Proposes Lame-Duck Climate Plan

The conventional wisdom about the presidentâ''s climate speech yesterday, April 16, is that it was calculated to head off international efforts to tighten binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions and U.S. legislation to cap and reduce emissions. I see no reason to dispute the usual view. Whatâ''s a little puzzling is why Bush thinks, given his rock-bottom standing in national opinion polls and his short remaining time in office, he still has any real political capital to expend on the climate issue.

Oddly, the presidentâ''s mastery of mathematical calculus seems better than his command of political calculus. The following captures the essense of what he had to say: â''To reach our 2025 goal weâ''ll need to more rapidly slow the growth of power sector greenhouse gas emissions so they peak within 10 to 15 years.â'' That is, rather than belatedly accept the Kyoto goal of reducing U.S. emissions to 7 percent below their 1990 level, or alternatively agree in upcoming climate talks to some less ambitious schedule of greenhouse gas reductions, the United States will only try to reduce the rate at which emissions are increasing. What the president is proposing is that we merely tinker with the first derivative.

Why does he think thatâ''s going to impress anybody? The underlying logic of the Kyoto Protocol is that those countries responsible now for the most emissions and that have the greatest per-capita emissions should start cutting them immediately, and that the countries with fast-growing emissionsâ''China and India, first and foremostâ''should start cutting theirs in the next phase. The diplomatic rationale is exactly analogous to that underlying the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires non-nuclear-weapons countries to not acquire atomic bombs now, in exchange from a longer-term commitment from the nuclear weapons states to start getting rid of theirs in the future.

The non-nuclear weapons states have shown a growing impatience with the lackluster pace at which those countries with atomic bombs have been disarming. But it would be a tragedy is they lost patience altogether and all started acquiring nuclear weapons. By the way token, it will be most unfortunate if the American people gives into demagogic reasoning and persists in refusing to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: the inevitable effect will be Chinaâ''s refusing to ever do anything constructive, and the Europeans giving up on ambitious efforts theyâ''re already making.

In his speech, Bush said he sought to reconcile climate policy with continued economic growth, roundly rejecting the Kyoto approach. He took some credit --justly--for working to tighten automotive fuel efficiency standards (over the opposition of some Democratic Party leaders) and for mandating higher efficiency standards for lighting and appliances. Those wishing to dissect the speech in every detail can go to the blog maintained by Andrew Revkin, the lead climate reporter at The New York Times. Revkinâ''s posting includes both his own comments and those from readers.

Astronaut Tosses First Pitch at Yanks/Sox Game from Space

We've become used to the sight of astronauts taking the field at the opening of a baseball game to deliver the ceremonial first pitch. Today, though, the New York Yankees invited an astronaut to throw out the ball from orbit, over 200 miles above their famous stadium.

As if the century-long rivalry between the Yankees and the Boston Red Sox needed any more promotion to gin up interest, tonight's game got an out-of-this-world introduction.

Longtime Yankee fan Garrett Reisman, 40, who is serving as a mission specialist aboard the International Space Station (ISS), appeared just prior to the start of the game on the giant DiamondVision screen looming over the outfield of the stadium garbed in a Yanks workout jersey. He then tossed a baseball at a camera held by a crewmate.

It sailed a little high.

Still, it was close enough to the strike zone to merit applause, considering that Reisman was weightless in the zero-gravity environment of the ISS.

For the occasion, the Yankees had provided Reisman with a sample of dirt from the stadium's pitcher's mound to take to the space station when he traveled into orbit on March 11 aboard the Endeavour shuttle.

Reisman grew up in the New York area an avid baseball fan. He makes his terrestrial home in Parsippany, N.J. He joined NASA in 1998, with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the California Institute of Technology, to enroll in an Astronaut Candidate Training class. Since then, he has worked in the agency's robotics and advanced vehicles branches. During this mission, his first in orbit, Reisman has been tasked with putting the newly delivered Dextre robotic manipulator, from the Canadian space program, through its shakeout paces.

"Launching on the space shuttle and living aboard the International Space Station is a once-in-a-lifetime experience," Reisman said in an online news release. "But as a lifelong Yankees fan, throwing out the first pitch at a Yankees-Red Sox game is also a once-in-a-lifetime experience. I am really honored to have this opportunity in such a historic season in the House that Ruth Built, and I would like to thank the Yankees for being so supportive of our mission up here in space."

This year marks the swan song of the legendary stadium. After the season (or postseason) comes to a close, Yankee Stadium will be shuttered after 85 years, and a newer model of the ballpark, built literally across the street, will take its place going forward, offering more modern amenities to its fans.

According to NASA, Reisman keeps up with the Yankees' progress via news feeds provided by Mission Control in Houston while he's in orbit. He is scheduled to return to Earth in June aboard the Discovery shuttle, after some three months in space.

Update: For the record, the Yankees won the contest 15 to 9.

Color Stanford's Y2E2 building green


From the outside, Stanford University's just-opened Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki Environment & Energy building (Y2E2) looks a lot like the other buildings on campus. Its façade is mostly stone, its roof is mostly tile, and its surrounded by long colonnades with graceful arches.


But this building, the first of four to go up in what will be Stanford's new engineering quad, is different. It is as environmentally friendly as its designers at Boora Architects and Hargreaves Associates could make it; a level that the university calls LEED-platinum equivalent. Stanford did not seek official LEED platinum certification like some Bay Area builders; some building requirements, like the separate ventilation systems for the basement laboratories, arenâ''t accounted for in the LEED system, and certification would have added a costly paperwork burden that, says Stanford civil and environmental engineering professor Richard Luthy, would have come out of the budget for solar cells, for example. While the building is too new for operating data to be available, Luthy expects about a 60 percent energy savings and about a 90 percent savings in potable water use.


I toured the 11,000 square meter building last week. I've toured a lot of green buildings, and Iâ''m always impressed with how features that are good for the environmentâ''like natural lightingâ''also create a space that feels good to the people working inside of it.


The Y2E2 building struck me by its level of detail. It's not just the four atria letting in natural light, the automatic louvers and windows bringing in cool air at night to chill the mostly carpet-less concrete floor for daytime cooling, or the grey-water system used for the toilets that gives this building its tiny environmental footprint. Itâ''s all the little things: like making the shelving and tables out of bamboo and recycled press-board; the fly ash, a byproduct of coal burning, that replaced cement in the concrete; the angled landscaping that sends rainwater into channels where it is collected and used for irrigation.


Take a look for yourself.


Nanofood companies reduce risk by staying mute

In a recent opinion piece over at Nanowerk, itâ''s argued that the food industry has pulled so far back from discussing their use of nanotechnology that they are allowing anti-nanotech activists to frame the debate over the safety of nanotechnology in food.

The subtitle of the piece â''how the industry is blowing itâ'' manages to frame the issue in such a way that it seems there is something to lose by food companies not discussing the specifics of their material science labs beyond what they report to the Food and Drug Administration to demonstrate the safety of a new food additive.

There may well be, but the food companies could lose out equally by actually engaging in the debate.

The fallacy in the argument of the editorial seems to me the idea that â''safety-consciousâ'' and â''mature, grown-upsâ'' want to hear both sides of the argument and then come to an informed opinion. Itâ''s hard to believe that argument about any subject, but especially so regarding food, which is such a personal matter regarding what we decide to put into our bodies.

The editorialâ''s premise leads to a machine-gun series of questions:

â'¢ Why not come out guns blazing and educate the public about the exciting opportunities for nanotechnologies in the food sector?

â'¢ Why not demonstrate that the risk aspects of the technology are being thoroughly investigated?

â'¢ Why invite the cliché of 'bad corporate citizens' â'' companies that keep information from the public and hide the risky aspects of what they are doing?

The answer seems to me that the publicâ''s opinion is rarely, if ever, determined by reasoned consideration of all the data. It depends more on personal biases and appearances rather than facts.

I imagine that the food companies have the position that to engage in a debate will indicate that there is some controversy to argue over. To ignore the issue will result in the public ignoring it as well.

Currently there is no shortage of second-guessing on what the public wants or how it will react to nanotechnology and there is even NSF-funded research to codify personal biases when it comes to nanotechnology.

Itâ''s a difficult game to play anticipating the vagaries of the consuming public, and I imagine the food companies want to avoid what my mother would have described as being â''too smart by half.â''

By thinking that you can reason your way into people understanding the science and then making a rational decision, you just opened the door to people drawing their own conclusions based on their own flimsy-based notions. All they needed in order to draw these misguided judgments was news that there was some controversy out there that big bad companies were trying cover up with science.

There will always be people who happily eat Twinkies without a second thought of whatâ''s in them or how theyâ''re made, and there will always be those who will keep a strict organic vegan diet and the twain shall never meet.

For those Twinkie eaters out there, who spend less time agonizing over the ingredients in their food than their vegan brethren, there is the anticipation that the Food and Drug Administration is keeping an eye on the ingredients for them. Until the FDA report otherwise, food companies will likely continue using nanotechnology without engaging in a potentially lose-lose debate over its safety.

U.S. Mutual Funds Starting to Address Climate Risk

Mutual funds, having long resisted shareholder resolutions demanding they focus more on financial risks arising from climate change, are starting to have second thoughts. That is the central conclusion of a report released today by Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmentalists that encourages big financial players to factor environmental sustainability into their strategic decision making. Among other things, Ceres directs the Investor Network on Climate Risk, with 60 institutional investors whose collective assets total $5 trillion.

The Ceres mutual funds report, covering the years 1004-2007, finds that in that period firms were somewhat less likely to oppose shareholder resolutions on climate or more likely to abstain in proxy fights about climate risks. Such financial risks, says Ceres president Mindy S. Lubber, can include penalties caused by regulatory changes (e.g. carbon caps or taxes), the costs of Katrina-type disasters, law suits against emitters, and â''reputational damageâ'' (being seen as a bad actor rather than a good guy).

In previous reports and actions, Ceres initially focused on utilities and energy firms with big carbon footprints, encouraging investors to demand formulation of long-term strategies that would reduce footprints and exposure to financial risk. Then it took on the automobile industry, and takes satisfaction from Fordâ''s move last year to assess its own contributions to the climate problem. Increasingly, Ceres sees climate risk as an economy-wide issue.

In its most recent report on mutual funds, Ceres says that most firms still are resisting shareholder action, with some standout exceptions such as Goldman Sachs, which has supported some resolutions outright and also has steered its investments in directions that minimize exposure to climate risks. â''Schwab, MassMutual and Janus also registered relatively high suppoirt for climate resolutions compared to other mutual fund firms,â'' the report says.

Lubber, speaking in a media teleconference this morning, asserted that investors should be â''scrubbing their portfoliosâ'' for climate risk the same way theyâ''ve had to scrub their sub-prime mortgages.

Transnational Green Energy Lab Established at MIT

Europeâ''s leading solar energy research, the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, and MIT are jointly establishing a Center for Sustainable Energy Systems at the campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The center will emphasize use of novel materials and techniques to bring down the costs of solar systems, and advanced construction technology to reduce the energy consumption of new and retrofitted buildings.

Itâ''s a measure of the importance attached to sustainable energy systems that the German foreign minister showed up in Cambridge to witness, with MITâ''s president and the Massachusetts energy secretary, the signing of the centerâ''s memo of understanding. Besides getting an initial $5 million in funding from MIT, the center is receiving $1 million from Britainâ''s National Gridâ''the organization created when the UK deregulated and â''unbundledâ'' its electricity system, and which now has acquired energy companies outside the UK. (It was a surprise to this blogger when he learned his natural gas in Brooklyn was being supplied by Englandâ''s electricity system operator.)

The Fraunhofer solar institute in Freiburg is one of 56 German institutes of the Fraunhofer Society, a national organization partly funded by the federal government, and partly by contract research done for public and private sector customers. The society is a close analogue of the Max Planck Society, a network of institutes dedicated to basic research, many of them very prestigious. Fraunhofer concentrates exclusively on applied research and, increasingly, has global connections.

Though itâ''s unusual for Fraunhofer to jointly sponsor research centers outside Germany, itâ''s not unprecedented in the United States. The first such center was set up a dozen years ago, and there are now five in allâ''two in Michigan, one connected with Boston University, one Maryland, and one in Delaware.

In all, Fraunhofer supports about 12,700 researchers, 160 of them in the United States.

Putting flowers on the grave of Ampex Corp.

sign01.jpgOn March 30, Ampex Corp. filed for Chapter 11. The company, once THE place for audio and video innovation, has been withering away for a long time, surviving in recent years on specialized archival data storage systems and licensing video technology developed in its heyday.

Last week, San Jose Mercury News columnist Mike Cassidy declared Friday Ampex Appreciation Day. He reported that Ampexâ''s headcount is down to 101 from a peak of 12,000. â''Watching Ampex,â'' he wrote, â''is like watching some beloved relative stagger and wheeze and shuffle around the house.â''

Mike, I have to say, I donâ''t think the company is going to recover. But I, too, have fond feelings for this venerable corporation. I spend a lot of time interviewing technologyâ''s pioneers, and Iâ''m never surprised to hear when someoneâ''s roots go back to Ampex.

Ray Dolby, founder of Dolby Labs and noise reduction pioneer, started his career at Ampex as a high school student running a movie projector for a meeting, he went on to work on the video recorder project there. Nolan Bushnell and Allan Alcorn, whose company Atari essentially started todayâ''s videogame industry, and other videogame pioneers also started their engineering careers at Ampex.

I visited the Ampex building once, back in 1988 when I was working on an article on invention of the VCR. At that point, Ampexâ''s past was already more interesting than its present. It was a thrill to be where so many technologies started. Besides video recording, Ampex was responsible for the first tape-delay radio broadcast, the first multitrack tape recorders, the data recorders on U.S. space missions from 1958 forward, video recording, helical scan recording (used in video cassette recorders), slow-motion instant replay, the first commercial video paint system, and the ADO, that enabled television stations to whiz video around on the screen.

The campus I visited disappeared, for the most part, sold in 1996 and replaced with now-empty modern buildings that were once Excite-At-Home and came to represent dot-com boom excess; theyâ''ll soon be converted to a medical clinic. The Ampex sign, however, remains as a part of Silicon Valley history.

Do you remember Ampex? Tell us your Ampex stories in the comments below.

Photo by Keith Graham

John A. Wheeler, Giant of Physics (1911-2008)

The physicist who coined the term black hole to describe the densest phenomenon in the cosmos has passed away at age 96. John Archibald Wheeler worked with some of the most important figures in the history of science and eventually became, himself, one of the towering giants of 20th-century physics.

According to an online account from the Associated Press earlier today, Wheeler succumbed to pneumonia Sunday at his home in Hightstown, N.J., not far from Princeton University, where he served as a professor of physics from 1938 to 1976, alongside some of the world's most renowned theoreticians.

Wheeler received his Ph.D. in physics from Johns Hopkins University in 1933 for his research into the properties of helium. In 1937, after a year of study in Denmark under the tutelage of Niels Bohr, he formulated the scattering-matrix, which relates the initial state and the final state for an interaction of particles. Also called the S-matrix, Wheeler's formula became a fundamental tool in the field of quantum physics.

His understanding of the basic forces at work at the subatomic level led Wheeler to join a growing cadre of advanced physicists in the late 1930s who believed that a sufficiently large fission event could produce a chain reaction capable of great destruction. When war broke out in Europe in 1939, Bohr relocated to the United States and joined Wheeler to work on a model of nuclear fission.

When hostilities escalated into World War II, Wheeler suspended his academic career to participate in the American atomic bomb endeavor, the Manhattan Project, offering key insights into the physics involved. Afterwards, he volunteered to work on the next-generation nuclear weapon, the hydrogen bomb in the late 1940s.

With his government research finished, Wheeler returned to Princeton, where he collaborated with Albert Einstein in the waning years of his life on a unified field theory of the physical forces of nature. Continuing in this elusive pursuit after Einstein's death, Wheeler described a theoretical curiosity he called a "wormhole" that should exist in nature if the principles of relativity were correct. This same research led him to posit, in 1967, that extremely large masses throughout the universe could collapse under the force of their own gravity to form what he termed a "black hole."

Further pursuit of the role of gravity in a Grand Unified Theory of physics led to his collaboration with Bryce DeWitt on the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, which he later described as the "wave function of the Universe."

Later in life, Wheeler became a champion of a form of cosmological anthropism, which states that humans should take into account the constraints that human existence as observers impose on the sort of universe that can be observed. His version of this line of thinking is known as the Participatory Anthropic Principle.

Recently, he stated: "We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more?"

Throughout his career at Princeton and later the University of Texas, where he served out his last years in academia before retirement, Wheeler was known for the enthusiasm he exhibited for education. Even after he had achieved fame, he continued to teach freshman physics, telling protégés such as Richard Feynman, that young minds were the most important to inspire.

He inspired many.

DARPA's 50th Birthday Present: Hyp-hop-notherapy

What do you get the advanced research projects agency that has it all?


A persistent rumor haunting DARPA has it that the agency has a tough time finding program managers for its high-risk, high-reward research. In what was possibly a self-aware nod to that rumor, but was more likely a crushingly obtuse PR move, every table was adorned with pens and several sheets of paper titled "New Ideas."


"no more fish at banquets."

Every table was also adorned with several bottles of wine. That coincidence can't have been accidental. I settled on snark and made my case against serving 1600 individual pieces of salmon at enormous events (although there might be a DARPA grand challenge in there: how do you keep 1600 pieces of salmon perfectly cooked and warm through three speeches?).

If only the trusty Danger Room readership had been at the party with me.

"How can I find out more about sending the Army a proposal of my own?" writes one intrepid Danger Room reader. "I created, "hyp-hop-notherapy", self-empowering poetry using acrostic writing."

Read the whole letter.

Airline maintenance games are old news

atccover.JPGBack in 1986 IEEE Spectrum took a long hard look at the state of the U.S. commercial aviation system. As part of that effort, I spent several months researching air traffic control along with fellow writer Paul Wallich, who also was talking to the folks that maintained the aircraft themselves. I remember being horrified at how the airlines and sometimes even the FAA played fast and loose with maintenance rules. Paul and I learned all sorts of new language. â''Put the timber to it,â'' meant to sign off on work that was never done, assuming itâ''ll be noticed on the next inspection. â''Discrepancy,â'' was the FAA word for overlooking a defect noticed by mechanics, or putting a plane back into service before a set of repairs is complete. Paul talked to a lot of mechanics, and found out that inspection documents often didnâ''t reflect the true state of the aircraft. An example one mechanic gave: a check at American Airlines found that an emergency exit door was stuck. He got it through an FAA inspection with a liberal spraying of WD-40, but shortly thereafter discovered the door was sticking again. Still, he had signed paperwork in hand, so released the plane to fly.

This kind of thing happens all the time, mechanics said. And sometimes FAA inspectors, assigned to remote regional offices, go along; John Oâ''Brien, then representing the Air Line Pilots Association, told Paul, â''The further from headquarters you are as a inspector, the more on your own you are. Unless youâ''re very independent and strong-willed, you may be subject to all kinds of pressures and influence.â''

Since then, Iâ''ve flown with my eyes wide open. I know that broken lights and loose compartment doors arenâ''t going to get fixed any time soon, and that a lot more is broken than I can see. I know that a lot of maintenance can be legally deferred until an aircraft reaches a maintenance base or parts are available, and airlines play games with what that means. And I reassure myself that redundancies mean that the plane wonâ''t come crashing down out of the sky, and that pilots are smart enough not to take off if things are really bad. Though I had to wonder when I was on an aircraft that made an emergency 1 a.m. landing at a closed, icy, Midwest airport because it lost one of its hydraulic systems, if maybe a minimum requirement that two of three hydraulic systems needed to be working wasnâ''t quite enough.

And last month, when I got a 5 a.m. phone call that my 9 a.m. flight was being canceled for a â''mechanicalâ'', and I was rebooked on a conveniently half-empty afternoon flight, I shrugged my shoulders at yet another airline game. It was clear to me that the airline was going save money by combining two empty flights, and was using the â''deferred maintenanceâ'' list as an excuse to pull a plane out of service. After all, what passenger would want to go ahead and fly on a â''brokenâ'' plane, never mind that, had that flight been sold out, the maintenance would have continued to be deferred.

So now the FAA is cracking down and making the airlines do all the inspections and maintenance they were supposed to be doing all along. And flights are being canceled, and tens of thousands of passengers inconvenienced. Of course, with the high cost of fuel, many of those flights were likely not making a profit anyway, so stranding passengers isnâ''t costing the airlines anything but good will, something thatâ''s been in short supply for a while. Not that making the industry do the job that itâ''s supposed to do is a bad thing, but come on, does anyone really think the FAA would continue to force planes out of service if most of those flights were profitable?

Itâ''s simply a convenient time right now to do a little deferred maintenance and enforcement. And during this little contraction, airlines will be able to jack up prices because of seat shortages while they tout their concern for customer safety. And flying may really be safer, for a while, anyway, until profit margins again prompt airlines to â''put the timberâ'' to problems instead of really dealing with then.


Tech Talk

IEEE Spectrum’s general technology blog, featuring news, analysis, and opinions about engineering, consumer electronics, and technology and society, from the editorial staff and freelance contributors.

Newsletter Sign Up

Sign up for the Tech Alert newsletter and receive ground-breaking technology and science news from IEEE Spectrum every Thursday.

Load More