25% of US Grain Crop Used for Biofuel

The Guardian UK reported today that 2009 USDA figures show 25% of grains grown in the US were used to produce liquid biofuels.  The typical food vs fuel story follows.  And it is mostly on point, if tinted by The Guardian's usual populist tone.  Yes, all the grain could in principle be used to feed people.  No, it isn't clear that grain-based ethanol is in fact better than burning petroleum when it comes to total greenhouse gas emissions or energy content.

The story ends with a nod toward "continued innovation in ethanol product" that supposedly is increasing yields and reducing costs.  Huh.  No mention, though, of the fact that any starch crop used to make fuel starts at a major disadvantage with respect to sugar crops, nor that there is an ethanol glut in the US due to construction of too many ethanol production plants.  Neither does the story get into why ethanol isn't a very good fuel to begin with (wrong solvent properties, low energy content, water soluble).

I go into detail about this in my forthcoming book, but the upshot of the argument is that the US is investing quite a lot of money in ethanol production technology and infrastructure that will never be competitive with sugar derived fuels.  And then relatively soon we will get butanol, longer chain alcohols, and true drop-in petroleum replacements made using modified organisms.  In the meantime, I suppose we will just have to suffer through the impact of decisions made more for political reasons than for competitive or national security reasons.  But grain to ethanol isn't really good for anybody except US Senators from farm states.

Good Climate Data, Bad Climate "Data" -- Science Always Wins.

This week brings news of 1) a dramatic improvement in the estimates of how soil carbon content is related to atmospheric carbon concentration and 2) the exposure of some really crappy work on the rate of melting of Himalayan glaciers by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The soil carbon work is Good Data, but Bad News if you care about the effects of high atmospheric carbon concentrations, while the Himalayan glacier story is all about terrible peer review and Bad Data (non-existent data, actually), which doesn't help anybody figure out the real story on water supplies in Asia.

First up, a paper from this week's PNAS by Breeker et al at UT Austin, "Atmospheric CO2 concentrations during ancient greenhouse climates were similar to those predicted for A.D. 2100".  Already from the title you can see where this is going.

The problem Breeker and colleagues address is the following: how do you correlate the carbon content of fossil soils with prevailing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations?  Well established methods exist for measuring the carbon content of compounds in fossil soil, but less certain were conditions under which chemical reactions produce those particular compounds.  It turns out that model used to infer atmospheric CO2 contained an error.  Breeker determined that the primary compound assayed when determining soil carbon content forms at much lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations than had been assumed.

Prior attempts to correlate soil carbon (and by proxy atmospheric CO2) with greenhouse periods in Earth's climate had concluded that warm periods experienced CO2 concentrations of much greater than ~1000 parts per million (ppm).  Therefore, one might conclude that only when average atmospheric CO2 spiked above this level would we be in danger of experiencing greenhouse gas warming that threatened glaciers.  The correction supplied by Breeker substantially lowers estimates of the average CO2 concentration that is correlated with continental glacial melting.  Eyeballing the main figure in the paper, it looks to me like we could be in real trouble above 450 ppm -- today we are at just shy of 390 ppm and there is no sign we will be slowing down anytime soon, particularly if India and China keep up their pace of development and emissions.

Looking forward to 2100, things get a touch squiffy because Breeker relies on an estimate of CO2 concentrations that come out of model of global economic activity.  So the title of the paper might be a tad alarmist, simply because 2100 is a long way out for any model to be taken too seriously.  But the correction of the paleodata is a big story because at minimum it reduces the uncertainty of atmospheric CO2 levels, and it appears to clarify the connection between CO2 levels and continental glaciation.  More work is needed on the later point, obviously, or this paper would have been on the cover of Science or Nature.

Now on to a serious screw-up at the IPCC.  Elisabeth Rosenthal at the NYT is reporting that "A much-publicized estimate from a United Nations panel about the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers from climate change is coming under fire as a gross exaggeration."  Here is Andrew Revkin's take on DotEarth, and anyone interested in this story should read through his post.  The comments are worth perusing because some of the contributors actually seem to have additional useful knowledge, though, of course, nut jobs aplenty show up from both sides of the debate over climate change.

In a nutshell, the issue is that the most recent IPCC chapter on glaciers contained a conclusion, advertised as real analysis, that was in fact a speculation by one scientist promulgated through the popular press.  The authors of that section of the IPCC report may have been warned about the unsubstantiated claim.  Contradictory data and analysis seems to have been ignored.

So, to be frank, this is a giant, inexcusable fuck-up.  The IPCC is composed of so many factions and interest groups that this may be a case of simple blundering or of blatant politicization of science.  But here is the beautiful thing about science -- it is self-correcting.  It may take a while, but science always wins.  (See also my post of a couple of years ago, Dispelling a Climate Change Skeptic's "Deception".)  Every newspaper story I have seen about this particular IPCC screw-up notes that it was brought to light by...wait for it...a climate scientist.  It is an excellent public airing of dirty laundry by the community of science.  So while this episode demonstrates that the last official IPCC report on glacial melting in the Himalayas should not be used for any sort of scientific policy recommendation or economic forecast, you can bet that the next report will do a damn fine job on this topic. 

Finally, whether or not the IPCC gets its act together, there are plenty of good data out there on the state of the planet.  Eventually, Science -- with a capital S -- will get the right answer.  The same methodical process that has resulted in computers, airplanes, and non-stick fry pans will inevitably explain what is really going on with our climate.  And if you use computers, fly on airplanes, or eat scrambled eggs then you are implicitly acknowledging, whatever your political or religious persuasion, that you believe in science.  And you better, 'cause science always wins.

Video from The Economist's World in 2010 Festival

The Economist has posted video from the World in 2010 Festival, held in Washington DC in early December.  The Innovation panel is below, with me (Biodesic), Dean Kamen (DEKA Research), Dwayne Spradlin (Innocentive), and Kai Huang (Guitar Hero), moderated by Mathew Bishop (The Economist).  (Here is a link to video selections from the rest of the event.)  I was chatting with a reporter a few days ago who observed that everyone else on the panel is quite wealthy -- hopefully that bodes well for me in 2010.  But maybe I am destined always to be the odd man out.  C-Span is re-running the video periodically on cable if you want to watch it on a bigger screen, but I can't seem to find an actual schedule.  (Here is their web version: Innovation in 2010.)


I have a couple of general thoughts about the event, colored by another meeting full of economists, bankers, and traders that I attended in the last week of December.  I met a number of fantastically accomplished and interesting people in just a few hours, many of whom I hope will remain lifelong friends. 

First, I have to extend my thanks to The Economist -- they have been very good to me over the last 10 years, beginning in 2000 by co-sponsoring (with Shell) the inaugural World in 2050 writing competition.  (Here is my essay from the competition (PDF).  It seems to be holding up pretty well, these 10 years later, save the part about building a heart.  But at least I wasn't the only one who got that wrong.)

Here is a paraphrased conversation over drinks between myself and Daniel Franklin, the Executive Editor of the newspaper.

Me:  I wanted to thank you for including me.  The Economist has been very kind to me over the past decade.
Franklin: Well, keep doing interesting things.
Me:  Umm, right.  (And then to myself: Shit, I have a lot of work to do.)

On to the World in 2010 Festival.  The professional economists and journalists present all seem to agree that we have seen the worst of the downturn, that the stimulus package clipped the bottom off of whatever we were falling into, and that employment gains going forward could be a long time in coming.  Unsurprisingly, the Democratic politicians and operatives who turned up crowed about the effects of the stimulus, while the Republicans who spoke poo-pooed any potential bright spots in, well, just about everything.

At the other meeting I attended, last week in Charleston, SC, one panel of 10 people, composed Federal reserve and private bankers, traders, and journalists couldn't agree on anything.  The recovery would be V shaped.  No, no, W shaped.  No, no, no, reverse square root shaped (which was the consensus at The World in 2010 Festival).  No, no, no, no, L shaped.  But even those who agreed on the shape did not agree on anything else, such as the availability of credit, employment, etc.

Basically, as far as I can tell, nobody has the slightest idea what the future of the US economy looks like.  And I certainly don't have anything to add to that.  Except, of course, that the future is biology.

Here is John Oliver's opening monologue from the Festival.  He was absolutely hilarious.  Unfortunately you can't hear the audience cracking up continuously.  I nearly pissed myself.  Several times.  (Maybe the cocktails earlier in the evening contributed to both reactions.)

Back to Innovation in 2010.  Dean Kamen had this nice bit in response to a question about whether the imperative to invent and innovate has increased in recent years (see 36:20 in the C-Span video): "7 billion people can't be recipients, they have to be part of the solution.  And that is going to require advanced technologies to be properly developed and properly deployed more rapidly than ever before."

To this I can only add that we are now seeing more power to innovate put into the hands of individuals than has ever occurred in the history of humanity.  Let's hope we don't screw up.

Quote of the Day

The semi-ancient electrophoresis power goes on the fritz, so of course we open it up to see what's what.  Lot's of discrete logic, some massive (1 milli Farad each!) capacitors, a couple of Motorola 68000s.  Nothing obviously amiss, and no hope of figuring out what has gone wrong.

But we did get this gem: "Oh, that's where the beeping noise comes from."  That's what makes it all worthwhile.

In the News

The December issue of Nature Biotechnology contains a special focus section on synthetic biology.  Here is my commentary, "The Changing Economics of DNA Synthesis".  The PDF version appears to be available for free, at least for the moment.

My interview in the Fall 2009 issue of GBN:bulletin is now available from the Global Business Network.  The issue also contains a short interview with Stewart Brand about his new book -- it is well worth reading.

Revisiting Mood Hacking with Scents

Following on my post last spring about mood hacking, October brought more hints that behavior can be explicitly modified using scents.  A variety of news outlets picked up on a press release from BYU describing a forthcoming paper in Psychological Science that demonstrates, "that clean scents not only motivate clean behavior, but also promote virtuous behavior by increasing the tendency to reciprocate trust and to offer charitable help."  Here I am quoting from a pre-print, entitled "The Smell of Virtue", cached at the University of Toronto.  The paper describes two experiments in which citrus-scented window cleaner appeared to alter behavior.  I have to say that I found the references to Proust, saints, sinners god, and cleanliness (all that in 4 pages!) to be distractions from the main ideas, not to mention the data.

Here is the ScienceDaily reporting, and here is Time's take.

(Not everyone is happy with the methodology described in the paper, the conclusions, and the way it was written.)

What makes this interesting (to me) is that the researchers don't necessarily imply a direct biological mechanism.  The induced behavior may simply be the result of a learned association.  That is, there is no suggestion that anything about the scent that serves to flip a biological switch that leads to different behavior.  Rather the lead author, Katie Liljenquist of BYU, and her colleagues had  previously demonstrated a link between transgression and a desire for cleanliness (see "Washing Away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing", Science, 313(5792), 2006).  "Out, damned spots!" and all that.

The citrus scent may simply something that Prof. Liljenquist's test subjects (probably undergraduates at US universities) have learned to associate with cleanliness.  Would students at Asian universities have the same response to the same scent?  I suppose one way to quickly address this question is to see what sort of scents Asians prefer in their window cleaners.  Here is my point: even though there may be no innate molecular pathway exploited in this "behavior reprogramming", it may still be possible to exploit culturally defined (or perhaps "contextually constructed") neural pathways (from the receptors to the brain) for the purpose of mood hacking.

I am not particularly excited about the possibility of having my own mood hacked without my knowledge.  That this might be accomplished even in the absence of genetically identifiable response pathway should give one pause.  Any molecular pathway responsible for this effect (should it prove reproducible and engineerable) is unlikely to be well understood for many years to come.  But if the results from the citrus-scent study are to be believed, then it is already possible to manipulate behavior using scents, even though we have little idea how to defend against it other than by using more scents.  Perfume warfare.  Lovely.

Can't wait until the iGEM undergraduates get a hold of this.  They have already built bugs that smell like bananas and mint.  When will they start trying to influence the judges' decisions directly using synthetic scent pathways?

US Market Value of GM Crops is Approximately $70 Billion

I have a short letter in the November 2009 issue of Nature Biotechnology (subscription req.) correcting the record on US revenues from genetically modified crops.  Based on USDA data for corn, soy, and cotton, revenues from the GM versions of those crops were about US$ 65 billion in 2008, rather than the widely misreported ~$4 billion.  The latter figure is in fact just from GM seed revenue.  I would put the total from all GM crops and seeds at $75-85 billion, though it isn't yet clear where GM sugar beets are going to come in.  Assuming US revenues are representative of global averages, thentotal worldwide revenues are probably north of $150 billion for crops and seeds together.

Below is a figure showing US yearly revenues from the three big crops, as well as the US annual total.  Note that although the GM fraction of each crop continues to grow (see the ISAAA report from 2008), prices fluctuate sufficiently from year to year that total revenues declined from 2007 to 2008.  Food and crop prices have come off their 2007 highs -- which cannot last given increasing demand around the world.  I would expect revenues to resume their climb in 2010.

Carlson_US_rev_GM_crops_Nov_09.png