A few days ago I read a comment to an article that rather brilliantly iterates on this. It is related to the recent BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused by an explosion and consequent sinking of the Deepwater Horizon. The author calls on commenter who say, I quote, “Why in the world do we continue to allow companies like BP ruin the environment?” The author’s basic argument is, I quote, “We as consumers demand that they continue to ruin the environment because we all use petrochemical products in EVERY facet of our lives!” The author goes on listing products that most of us affluent consumers know. Then, what I consider to be the best remark,

I think it’s funny how people are so righteous and indignant about the big bad oil companies, yet fail to take an honest look at their own connection to the situation.

Actually, I kind of falter between that statement and this one,

It’s so lazy for people to sit here and talk about boycotting BP or ousting the CEOs, because that’s simpler than individuals taking a cold hard look at their own consumption and lifestyle.

Indeed.

For a seminar at UEF I’m looking into ways to translate quantitative polygon data digitized in ArcGIS into qualitative data represented with the Region Connection Calculus (RCC). In a nutshell, an ArcGIS polygon described as a closed path of line segments each defined by two coordinates is translated to a symbol that represents an RCC region. For a model with at least two polygons, spatial relationships between polygon pairs (e.g. Disjoint or Overlaps) are computed and represented as RCC relations between regions.

The prototype — named Amber according to the feminine arabic name — is implemented as .Net application written in C# a design choice that is motivated by the idea of supporting at least a second Geographic Information System (GIS) beside ArcGIS, i.e. the open source MapWindow GIS. Though ArcGIS provides a Java API, as far as I know MapWindow GIS only provides a .Net API. The translation is compatible with Pellet Spatial which can, thus, be used for RCC spatial reasoning and querying (see also details on Pellet Spatial).

Currently, Amber comes with a command-line interface that reads an RDF assembly description for the input and output of the translation. The output is an RDF file that is compatible with the Pellet Spatial ontology. The input describes the source (ArcGIS) shapefiles that define the polygon and attribute data to be translated. Shapefile assembly descriptions contain a directive on where to locate the corresponding file and the description for a set of polygon attributes that are translated to RDF properties, e.g. the name, area, perimeter of a polygon. Amber uses dotNetRDF to read, write and query RDF and NetTopologySuite to test polygon pairs for spatial relationships. As far as I understand, in the current version NetTopologySuite does not fully support RCC-8 semantics which means that Pellet Spatial is currently more expressive.

Given that I contributed to the development of Pellet Spatial, one of the motivations for Amber is to bridge a GIS with Pellet Spatial. I’m not entirely sure yet whether this brings some enhanced spatial reasoning capabilities to the data or a computationally less expensive framework. The set of features provided by ArcGIS is quite large and even more is possible by chaining features so it is not straightforward to tell what exactly is supported and this is why I’m cautious here. However, representing qualitative spatial relations using the Pellet Spatial RDF/OWL ontology brings a range of new options to data that is otherwise more or less locked into ArcGIS, in particular SPARQL querying and a potential for easier integration of related data. It is perhaps also worth to note that exposing attribute data of (ArcGIS) features in RDF/OWL looks like a straightforward task and may be interesting for integration and reuse of geographic information.

There are a number of problems with the all-inclusive lease, though. Of course, utility costs have to be covered. I suppose, the property management distributes the expected costs according to the square meters to the individual apartments. You bet, the management won’t underestimate the costs. Further, with this model the frugal typically subsidizes the prodigal.

The bigger problem, however, is that with the all-inclusive model I have no incentive, at least not monetary, to do anything to reduce consumption. An example. In the cold of the northern winter a hot morning shower is even more enjoyable and I think, without having any data, my average time under flowing water increased significantly compared to my standard in warmer climates. Knowing how much my longer showers cost me and shorter showers having a positive effect on my monthly bill are likely the only two conditions that may motivate me to step out of the shower quicker, knowing that outside it is subzero. Even though I’m wasting time and resources, the thought of “just another few minutes” typically wins over all environmental concerns. Knowing magnitudes and the ability to influence spending, however, might trigger my self-interest more effectively. I think, this is perfectly fine and the rationale of most [1] of us wealthy. But to do so I need (a) to know how much my habit is costing me and (b) a lease model that reflects my true consumption — and doesn’t “penalize frugality.”

I think, this holds for a number of resources, not just water. It also holds for waste. The town council where I grew up charges a fixed tax for waste management. Other cities I lived in tax the single trash bag. The incentive not to throw almost everything — from kitchen waste to cans and newspapers — to trash is, to a considerable degree, greater if your trash bag is taxed.

[1] “The vast majority of Americans who have taken steps this year to make their homes more energy efficient, 71%, say they did so mostly to save money rather than to improve the environment.” (GALLUP, December 8, 2009)

Recently, I read the Environmental informatics special issue editorial of the Environmental Modelling & Software journal [1]. I think, the idea of consumption data democratization is related to what the authors call environmental awareness, the “main effect of environmental information.”

In economics, one of the fundamental assumptions on individual human action is rational self-interest. I think, a necessary condition for rational self-interest is complete information, meaning that for an action to be rational w.r.t self-interest one needs to consider all the information associated with the action. Of course, this is impossible given that the information we typically have access to is inaccurate and incomplete. Thus, individual human action is likely to be rational w.r.t self-interest only to a certain degree of probability. An example. Assuming long life is in my self-interest the action of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day is likely to be rational to a different degree of probability depending on whether or not I have the information that I’ll prematurely die of lung cancer (no confounding).

Environmental awareness, of which knowing individual consumption might be a specific instance, enabled among others by information technology might deliver a further brick in the information wall towards more complete and accurate information, a necessary condition for rational human action. For instance, in knowing the cost of my TV on stand-by I might realize that for me the benefit of switching it off is greater than the associated cost (i.e. to poke my laziness). Switching off the TV might, thus, be the rational action w.r.t self-interest.

Knowing the magnitude of the opaque monetary cost of consumption is probably the single most important factor. I argue that, if anything, self-interest motivates most to optimize spending. Which, I think, is perfectly rational (at least on individual scale). The trouble from an environmental perspective is, however, that likely nothing is conserved; as some argue, conserving conserves nothing. I’ll spend the money elsewhere. Probably. However, my capital allocation is likely to be rational to a greater extent, which is good.

An action that is rational w.r.t self-interest is expected to maximize welfare. Typically, only the welfare of those involved in the transaction is, however, considered. Though, it could be that the action causes a problem to somebody else. A different, more informed, action would maximize total welfare, i.e. it makes somebody else better off without making me worse off, a state that, I think, is perfectly in my self-interest. The former case is suboptimal in that my action externalizes costs (borne by somebody else). Quantifying environmental externalities is a particularly daunting task given that the value of environmental assets is not directly reflected in a market [2]. Internalizing such costs is, I think, another necessary condition along the way toward rational human action.

[1] Lorenz M. Hilty, Bernd Page, and Jiří Hřebíček. Environmental informatics. Environmental Modelling & Software, Volume 21, Issue 11, November 2006, Pages 1517-1518, doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.05.016

[2] Michael Harris. Environmental Economics. Australian Economic Review, 1996

Even though it might sound silly, to start the first article on Wikipedia was kind of an event for me. After having used Wikipedia for many years, limiting my few contributions to the correction of typos, starting a new article was, well, a different interaction with Wikipedia — I suppose with the community, too.

An acknowledgment goes to an ex-colleague at HP Labs and friend who pointed out the inexistence of the article back in December 2008. Thanks.

A few days ago, I forwarded the Wikipedia article to a friend. His comment was just “OMG,” meaning Oh My God (or Oh My goodness, or Oh My Gosh). Perhaps he was in a hurry or perhaps it’s really how he could best express his thoughts. Now, I think it is best to ignore for a second religious dimensions because if you read the Wikipedia article (and what follows here) through a religious lens I argue you are likely not to find any sense.

What one needs to do to perhaps find some sense is to strip off all but one dimension of the personality of a prototype human being. Take off ethics, morality, empathy or just common sense, yes, perhaps even rational self-interest and wear the coat of homo economicus. What follows is an excerpt of the excerpt of Summer’s memo,

The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. (Wikipedia)

If you read the statement only through the lens of economics and from the mentioned point of view, then the conclusion that “the logic to dump toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable” is probably rational. After all, it is a statement of a former Chief Economist of the World Bank. I’m sure, any Chief Economist of the World Bank knows an awful lot more about economics than I do.

I would like to question the validity of the conclusion nevertheless. The first problem I have with the statement is that I need to dump all dimensions of my personality but the one of economics to have a chance to find some sense in it. I argue, this is a flaw in itself. But, as a thought experiment, I’ll give it a go. The second problem I have with Summer’s statement is actually mentioned, namely “from this point of view.” Not only I need to strip myself, but of the remaining dimension I need to consider only one point of view. Provided I’m almost naked and I’m looking at what remains from a single perspective, then, I might see the logic.

While it might be true that the cost of health impairing pollution depends on forgone earnings, I’m confident that forgone earnings are not the only factor affecting the cost of health impairing pollution. Even just through the lens of economics, by internalizing all the costs of health impairing pollution the conclusion is, I think, likely to be different. For instance, proper treatment of human health effects caused by pollution might be specific to and result in higher costs for low wage countries, e.g. due to the lack of proper infrastructure, education, human and capital resources. On a similar line, studies on the exposure assessment as well as preventive measures for workers and the general population, too, might be more demanding with respect to human and capital resources in low wage countries. Sure, Summers may argue low wage countries don’t have such services and we do not intend to provide them; thus, no costs. Right, I suppose at this point one needs to consider a few more dimensions next to economics to conclude that this reasoning most likely lacks at least justice.

I think this pealing off all dimensions, including plain common sense, until one hits a single point of view from which a statement can be argued to be rational is an example of an analytic ability driven to the extremes that, however, I’m afraid is completely “out of touch,” to the point that whatever one may conclude has essentially no value.

On a side note. The author of the memo, Lawrence Henry Summers is, currently, the Director of the U.S. National Economic Council under the Obama administration.

In The Botany of Desire (2002), Michael Pollan writes about apples, tulips, cannabis and potatoes to tell a similar story, a story of stories I honestly love. The story of apples that captured our attention with their sweetness to spread their seeds across Earth; the story of the beauty of tulips for which the Dutch fell mad seeding the success story of the flower’s worldwide demand; the story of cannabis and how its ability to synthesize a compound and our ancient desire for altered consciousness lead us to be attentive listeners to the particular needs of a weed; the story of the nourishing potato that knew how to satisfy our constant need for control, of which the need of feeding ourselves is a remarkable instance.

So, is the hen an egg’s way to create another egg?  From the apple, tulip, cannabis, potato viewpoint, are we their way to spread their genes, diversify and evolve? You may argue, no way, eggs, apples and tulips have no consciousness. Indeed, they probably didn’t meticulously plan it, having us under control, but then it is hard to ignore the success stories they had through us — which we didn’t probably plan either. I love the story because it makes it difficult to draw a hard line between nature and us, it makes me wonder whether stating that nature has no intrinsic value extends to our intrinsic value, too. For being without consciousness — which is, I believe, what we assume — it is breathtaking how some instances of nature found solutions to problems that are sometimes far more elegant than the absurdity we design. Simplicity. What if nurturing the art of the apple, the tulip, the cannabis and potato would actually make problems look to us way more simple?

I started this post because I want to quote Michael for a statement that I think I love even more,

Forgetting well is almost as important as remembering well.

Sure, in our daily life we need to remember a lot of things but for a balanced life we, perhaps, need to forget even more things. Indeed, you better forget things unworthy to remember because if you don’t, or can’t, they are likely to turn into trauma.

Forgive or forget, but don’t forget to forgive.

This post is about the turkey and the plastic thrown to landfills — more about the plastic — and raises a similar question as for some practices of burning natural gas and stamps: Would biodegradable plastics already be competitive with conventional plastics if goods based on conventional plastics would internalize the cost of being “permanent waste and a stress on the environment” [1]?

According to NOVA, supported by the Australian Academy of Science,

[Polyhydroxyalkanoate] PHA [used in the production of bioplastics] is significantly more expensive to produce and, as yet, it is not having any success in replacing the widespread use of traditional petrochemical plastics. Indeed, biodegradable plastic products currently on the market are from 2 to 10 times more expensive than traditional plastics. (NOVA, 2002)

Steiner argues [1] that the latent potential of bioplastics will be unlocked at the latest with rising gas prices, at $10 a gallon, something he argues is only a matter of time. Independently of the cost of crude oil, I wonder whether bioplastics might not have seen mass adoption because of failures in assigning correct prices.

Happy Black Friday shopping.

[1] Christopher Steiner. $20 Per Gallon (2009). First edition. Grand Central Publishing, New York.

Whatever -ism best suits you — capitalism, feminism, Buddhism, socialism, environmentalism, nihilism (I wonder how many isms the world knows, anybody?) — perhaps we agree, likely all of us need to make decisions. Ideally, informed decisions.

I believe, an area where we may want to improve the availability of information to support decisions is consumption. (Yes, in our age, I suppose this entails also accessing some sort of data.) Ever wondered how many gallons water you need to shower, to shave, to bathe? Or perhaps how much rated power your kitchen appliances use when turned on? Don’t care? Fine. Capitalist self-interest and wondering how much the cost is? Good. The safe limit for humanity: 350ppm CO2? OK, let’s drive it down. Whatever -ism best suits you, the point I would like to make here is knowing what you consume is, perhaps, a building block for making informed decisions.

I wonder if democratization of consumption data might be an interesting idea worth exploring. In a nutshell, individuals should have access to real-time data and information on their consumption of natural resources, water, electricity, gas, oil being perhaps the most straightforward but we can go further with, e.g., food, waste. As such, the idea is to empower people by providing data on something that today is central for many — in fact that important to significantly weight on global recessions — and hidden to most.

What you do with the information, that’s your business.

Chetty et al. nicely describe this idea in a recent paper [1] so if you can’t wait to read more on this, that’s a good study to start.

[1] Chetty, M., Tran, D. and Grinter, R.E. (2008) Getting to Green: Understanding Resource Consumption in the Home. Ubicomp 2008, Seoul, Korea.