ian andrew bell

File this item under the “triumph of compromise and the death of innovation” category, dear readers. Here is a car I would be delighted to buy, unveiled in January 2007 — The Chevy Volt concept car:

It’s a car so popular that it was requested for the upcoming Transformers movie by the director. Graceful, aggressive styling made it clear that, where Priuses and their ilk have become the equivalent of a worsted hemp-wool sweaters, this would not be your mom’s Hybrid.
Read More

Finally, some common sense! On Friday in the Guardian World Bank head Robert Zoellick was quoted while speaking at an IMF meeting, saying that “in the US and Europe over the last year we have been focusing on the prices of gasoline at the pumps. While many worry about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs. And it’s getting more and more difficult every day.”

This is the condemnation of Ethanol that many of us have been waiting for — and it frames a problem I have discussed here and here. To wit: in a world of finite natural resources and arable land, policies which encourage us to grow fuel in fields inevitably lead to deforestation and competition with food crops.

Read More

This, dear friends, is a headline which should scare you.  Last week’s The Economist featured this rather alarmist (but accurate) headline on the cover.  And you should all pay heed.  Food is of course a benchmark for inflation, and among peoples in differing classes its price has served as a great equalizer.  When food costs more, we all suffer in a reversal of “trickle-down” economics (though this chain reaction actually works).The article blames of course our increasing gluttony and penchant for beef, and typically the rise of China and their emulation of our gluttony.  But more succinctly it targets agflation in the United States (and Canada, and Europe) sparked by the boom in Biofuels like Ethanol which, as I’ve been known to rattle on, is in turn economically-driven by subsidies and artificial incentives to convert what used to be food into fuel. Read More

Through various chicanes and twists I stumbled today on a 20-minute talk from TED 2005 by architect and designer William McDonough. There is of course much discussion of sustainability at events like this, but moreso than most he’s a guy who’s walking the walk. The video describes a building complex designed for The Gap headquarters as a bird sanctuary, rolling turf fields for wildlife resting atop a Ford plant in Michigan, and a sustainability-engineered city in China. It made for good reading while eating Cheerios but more than that it shows that sustainability could be achievable on a mass-scale. Read More

The law of unintended consequences can be a bitch. When you meddle with the natural order of things, imbalances inevitably occur. Regulators (because that’s what they do) observe the imbalances and add more meddling regulations in an attempt to counteract them — creating yet further imbalances. The end result is what you have today: an economy in which growing corn to create fuel to power our automobiles actually seems to make sense.

But that economy is not a reflection of the ecosystems to which it is very closely tied, nor is it tied to the priorities that we, as societies, must maintain. We have always paid more to fuel our vehicles than we have to fuel our bodies, but this quixotic miscarriage of effort was not particularly problematic so long as our food and our fossil fuels came from different places. Rice paddies to not typically compete with oilfields.

I think that most of us intuitively agree with the fact that food sustenance is a much more important priority than transport. And while the two are interdependent, corn subsidies have knocked the whole dependency chain deeply out of alignment. The thesis I attempt to draw your attention to here is that without those subsidies, at least for the time being, the whole notion of “growing energy” in fields would be akin to mania. And without them, at least in the interim, the whole notion of our food supply competing for arable land with our fuel supply would be a non-issue.

Read More

I am reading with increasing dismay about the steady march of Ethanol into the North American psyche as an alternative to buying fuel in the form of light, sweet crude oil from those mean, nasty Arabs. On the surface the idea behind biodiesel and ethanol is appealing and touches all of the perceived pain points of the modern, SUV-driving, suburbanite nuclear family: we can be energy-independent in North America, since the one commodity we have plenty of is space. Canola and Corn, the prime sources for biodiesel and ethanol, are hearty plants that can grow with less effort than potatoes, lettuce, or other food sources, too; theoretically in places where growing those latter crops can be tough. The promise, therefore, of guilt-free living is a simple one with universal appeal: we can have our gas-guzzlers, and eat it, too!

Indeed, this whole Ethanol fuel thing would be all hunky-dory if only it didn’t take dozens of gallons of oil derivatives per acre on a seasonal basis to grow it. Read More

Some folks wanna put warning labels on Soft Drinks.

I think that, just to be sure, the US should install warning labels
on all fingers indicating that putting them in proximity to one’s
mouth while holding food could result in dire obesity, particularly in North America. But does
anyone really think that Warning Labels are meaningful anymore, after
decades of useless labels on CDs, Cigarettes, and Ladders?

In the longer term I think that history will illustrate that the real
problem isn’t simply, “sugar” (which is a generic term referencing
dozens of different additives) but instead High Fructose Corn Syrup,
or what I call “engineered sugar”. HFCS was born in the 1970s, in
part to address two things: the high cost of sugar, due to America’s
ongoing embargo of Cuba (which has traditionally ranked highly within
the top five exporters of sugar); and the dramatic overproduction of
corn, due to America’s moronic ongoing subsidy of its growth by
farmers (which has also resulted in the wholly unnecessary emergence
of Ethanol, BioDiesel, and lots of other stupid Corn-Into-Gold
technologies).

High Fructose Corn Syrup is not natural. Its existence is the result
of a mad chemist’s array of processes, fermentations, chain
reactions, and engineering. As such it’s natural to assume that we
organisms might have a really hard time ingesting, processing, and
excreting it safely. Consumed in high enough quantities (which most
of us do today) it has been revealed to effectively turn our bodies
into mush.

What’s circumstantially different between the relatively svelte
peoples of Europe and the statistically obese heifers of North
America is the quality of the sugars we intake. Europeans consume
lots of sucrose (from beet and cane) and us Americans eat mostly
biochemically-engineered sugars. We’re fat. They ain’t.
Confectioners can’t even use the term “chocolate” in the EU unless
their product uses real sugars, which is one reason why Mars bars in
the UK kick ass on North American ones.

So go ahead and label Soda cans all you want, but it’s pure,
unmitigated folly and will have no appreciable effect on the number
of forklift cases faced by paramedics in the future.

You really wanna cope with the obesity problem?

- Educate children (and adults) in schools on how to eat
better in SIMPLE terms
- Stop subsidizing the growth of corn and other crops we
don’t need
- Stop fucking with our food supply unless you’re going to test thoroughly the effects
- Disincentivize the sale and distribution of junk food with extra taxes, etc.
- Close forever the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto

.. of course we won’t do that, because the Fat Kids can’t afford
expensive Washington/Ottawa lobbyists as can Monsanto, Yum! Foods,
and McDonald’s. Instead, the problem will just continue to amplify
until — like the hormonally-unbalanced, permanently ill beef cattle
of the North American livestock industry — many of the people of our
countries will be managed in a continuous state of illness and sloth,
taxing our social services to the maximum while displacing the truly
sick. All of this at no expense and to the massive profitability of
a dwindling (through consolidation) number of megacorporations
(including, of course, health providers who triage and manage the
lingering deaths of the populace) in the BioTechnology, Food, and
Health Care industries.

High Fructose Corn Syrup is a poison by many names (dextrose, glucose-
fructose, etc.), and is so pervasive in North American foods that
it’s almost impossible to avoid consuming it. My Snapple that
contains the “Best Stuff On Earth!” lists glucose-fructose second in
quantity only to water on the label. Just about the only package on
my desk today that doesn’t contain any HFCS is my bottle of Evian.

Some info:

http://www.westonaprice.org/modernfood/highfructose.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8003-2003Mar10
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/jun99/927695713.Ch.r.html

A short term answer: go organic.

But what happens to society when only rich people can afford to eat a
healthy diet, free from chemicals and engineered foods?

-Ian.