How Is A Human Like An Anchovy?

We’re at the same level of the food chain, technically:

[Ecologists] have a statistical way of calculating a species’ trophic level – its level, or rank, in a food chain. And interestingly enough, no one ever tried to rigorously apply this method to see 3282011083_d1584e24f4_zexactly where humans fall. Until, that is, a group of French researchers recently decided to use food supply data from the U.N Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) to calculate human tropic level (HTL) for the first time. Their findings, published today in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, might be a bit deflating for anyone who’s taken pride in occupying the top position: On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being the score of a primary producer (a plant) and 5 being a pure apex predator (a animal that only eats meat and has few or no predators of its own, like a tiger, crocodile or boa constrictor), they found that based on diet, humans score a 2.21 – roughly equal to an anchovy or pig. Their findings confirm common sense: We’re omnivores, eating a mix of plants and animals, rather than top-level predators that only consume meat.

To be clear, this doesn’t imply that we’re middle-level in that we routinely get eaten by higher-level predators—in modern society, at least, that isn’t a common concern—but that to be truly at the “top of the food chain,” in scientific terms, you have to strictly consume the meat of animals that are predators themselves.

(Photo of onion and anchovy pizza from Flickr user Elin B)

The Lawsuit That Could Kill Obamacare?

Arit John summarizes remaining legal challenges to the ACA. A big one:

As we explained earlier this yearHalbig v. Sebelius is a case launched by conservative small business owners in states using the federal exchange. They argue that, because the Affordable Care Act only specifically mentions subsidies for exchanges “established by the state,” the federal exchange can’t grant subsidies. And if they can’t get subsidies, then the insurance becomes unaffordable, so they want the court to block the IRS from implementing the law. The government argues that, obviously, they meant for everyone to get subsidies, and the case is ignoring all the prep work the administration has done to provide subsidies in all states.

Alec MacGillis comments:

On this the two sides agree: for a court to strike down the subsidies in the federally-run exchanges as out of keeping with the text would utterly devastate the Affordable Care Act.

Expanding coverage only works if many people are buying coverage in the new exchanges, the only way large numbers will do so is if the plans are relatively affordable to them, and the way the law makes coverage affordable is by providing income-based subsidies, in the form of tax credits, to the vast majority of people buying plans on the exchanges. Since no fewer than 36 states have opted to let the federal government run the exchange for their residents, ending the subsidies for people in those exchanges would blow up the law in whole swaths of the country, if not all of it.

Drum isn’t so sure:

Would it, in fact, cripple the law? Or would we end up with Obamacare being available only to about half the country? This is a trickier question than it seems. In the non-subsidy states, a couple of things would be going on. First, a lot of the provisions of Obamacare would still be in effect: community rating, guaranteed issue, the individual mandate, etc. Having all these in place without the subsidies might be bad news for insurers, which means the insurance industry could start putting real pressure on holdout states to set up their own exchanges. Second, there would be a whole lot of people who had gotten subsidies the year before and were now having them yanked away. Taking existing benefits away generates far more passion than refusing to approve benefits in the first place, and eliminating the subsidies could end up generating irresistible public pressure to set up state exchanges in order to put them back in place. Put these two things together and you have a lot of pressure to set up state exchanges in the states that don’t have them.

Hewitt Award Nominee

“I think that we should proceed with sanctions so that the Iranians know that this is not an American deal with them … this is a Kerry/Obama deal with them and that the rest of Congress is not behind them,” – GOP congressman Duncan Hunter, in an interview in which he also supported nuclear war on Iran.

This man is not a fringe character. He is senior Republican member of the House Armed Services Committee. In contemplating whether to give Republicans control over foreign policy again, we truly have to grasp how radical they have become. Pre-emptive nuclear war is where the logic of neo-conservatism is leading us.

Update from a reader:

You’ll probably get a ton of emails about this, but Duncan D. Hunter isn’t a senior member of House Armed Services. He’s a member, alright, but pretty rank and file; it’s only his third term in Congress and he’s not even a subcommittee chair. The confusion is easy, though, because his father, who he replaced – also Duncan Hunter – was chairman of the committee for two Congresses before running for president in 2008.

On Ever-Thinner Ice

dish_thinice

A report released yesterday by the National Research Council (NRC) cautions that “the uncertainties associated with passing tipping points in the climate system are dangerously large.” Dan Vergano puts it in context:

The new report differs from past ones in taking continued global warming as inevitable and looking for impacts on humanity and animals, not just geophysical and weather effects like melting glaciers or drought. “The report is a break from the past in that it includes abrupt changes in the environment that can result from even small, steady increases in temperature or other climate change effects,” says geoscientist Peter Clark of Oregon State University in Corvallis, who was not on the report panel. “I think that is an important point [that] the report is making.” …

In coming decades, the report forecasts a high risk of the disappearance of summertime Arctic sea ice—an abrupt climate change impact already under way—and extinctions in the ocean and on land.

Rapid ecological shifts that threaten farmland as well as wildlife across broad regions, such as tropical forests, are rated as a “moderate” risk. An abrupt slide of the vast West Antarctic Ice Sheet into the ocean would suddenly sink coasts worldwide under 10 to 13 feet (3 to 4 meters) of water. The report rates the risk of this calamity as “unknown” although probably low for this century. …

[P]aleoclimate expert Thomas M. Cronin of the U.S. Geological Survey office in Reston, Virginia, expressed caution about the report’s conclusion that abrupt climate change would likely drive coral extinctions in the ocean or wipe out species in tropical forests. In the latter case, he said, “it is hard to separate human effects, or the timescale of possible extinctions.” On the other hand, Cronin also suggested that the report underplays the threat of the Atlantic Ocean’s circulation disastrously halting, or the sudden release of large quantities of methane from warming Arctic permafrosts.

Recent Dish on climate change here, here, and here.

Is Drone Delivery A Pipe Dream?

Adam Ozimek shakes his head:

[T]here is no reason that the drones cannot be incorporated into a hub and spoke model of their own. I think people are taking video Bezos showed to 60 Minutes of a drone leaving the warehouse and going straight to someone’s home a little too literally. You could, for one example, have the autonomous robots … loading packages into self-driving trucks that transport the packages on highways to just outside the city limits. Then once they’ve covered the longer haul from the fulfillment center to just outside the city the top of the truck opens and the delivery drones come out to fly to the final destinations. This would focus the drones on the notoriously expensive “last mile problem” of transportation, and would mean you don’t need thousands of drones making a redundant journey from warehouse to city limits.

Chinese entrepreneurs are already toying with commercial applications for drones:

Drone delivery undoubtedly has a certain appeal to the Chinese authorities, who are increasingly struggling to control both traffic and pollution in China’s major cities. On top of that, e-commerce is growing much faster than delivery infrastructure in rural and mountainous parts of China, such that logistics systems are emerging as a big area of investment (paywall).

Earlier Dish on the announcement here.

Slang In The Service

Ben Brody presents “the definitive glossary of modern US military slang,” noting that well-known terms like “chopper” and “GI” are out of date. Brody writes that “soldiers fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have developed an expansive new military vocabulary, taking elements from popular culture as well as the doublespeak of the military industrial complex.” Some examples:

Bird: Helicopter. “Chopper” is rarely used, except in movies, where it is always used. A chopper is a kind of motorcycle, not an aircraft.

FAN: Feet, Ass and Nuts. Used to describe a smell common to military tents and barracks.

Groundhog Day: From the Bill Murray movie, the phrase is used to describe deployments where every day proceeds the same way, no matter how the individual tries to change it.

Gun: A mortar tube or artillery piece. Never used to refer to a rifle or pistol. Military-issued pistols are usually called 9-mils.

Kinetic: Violent. Example: The Pech Valley is one of the most kinetic areas in Afghanistan.

Meat Eater: Usually refers to Special Forces soldiers whose mission focuses on violence, as opposed to those whose mission focuses on stability and training.

Moon Dust: The powdery, flour-like dust that covers everything in southern Afghanistan and much of Iraq.

Self-Licking Ice Cream Cone: A military doctrine or political process that appears to exist in order to justify its own existence, often producing irrelevant indicators of its own success. For example, continually releasing figures on the amount of Taliban weapons seized, as if there were a finite supply of such weapons. While seizing the weapons, soldiers raid Afghan villages, enraging the residents and legitimizing the Taliban’s cause.

Reinventing The Wheel

dish_smartwheel

Liat Clark investigates a new idea from collaborators at the MIT SENSEable City Laboratory: the Copenhagen Wheel, a “smart” wheel “that can be attached to almost any bike, transforming it into an electric hybrid that powers up seamlessly when you need it most”:

Unlike other similar products coming to market — including the FlyKly, which recently smashed its Kickstarter target by $600,000 — Superpedestrian’s unit (which slots on to your back wheel) is not about powering up continually to save your lazy legs. A series of sensors are embedded in the red casing, which track your speed, incline, pedal-pushing prowess and other factors, in order to calculate when you need the power most. As such, the battery-powered 5.5kg pack will save energy, while also recharging every time you brake, powering up to speeds of 32km/h with a range of 48km. …

[Superpedestrian founder Assaf] Biderman is secretive about the magic formula that goes into making the red unit run, and part of the system will be patented after the first stock ships in 2014. Those cogs and sensors are what makes the power seamless and smart, with all that data being fed to a smartphone app so the user can track their route and progress and share it with other like-minded cycling enthusiasts in real time. He would tell us that it houses the usual inertial sensors you might expect — accelerometers, gyroscopes, rotational and heading sensors — a GPS sensor and a strain guage. In total there are 12.

Biderman envisions “a whole ecosystem of apps around the product”:

“… It could help you find that route that many people like you have identified as ideal by gathering information from the environment, whether it’s potholes, how much elevation up and down or by comparing statistics with others. … Riders could opt in and share information about where everybody moves together — municipalities would love to know.”

(Image of the Copenhagen Wheel via Superpedestrian)

Public Pensions On The Chopping Block

Yesterday, a judge ruled that Detroit is allowed to go through bankruptcy. And it looks like it will be painful for The Motor City’s pensioners:

In his ruling, [Judge Stephen] Rhodes turned away arguments that the bankruptcy violated the federal constitution. The use of federal mechanisms for resolving municipal debts does not violate the tenth amendment, he said, citing the Supreme Court case of US v Bekins. Then he turned to the state constitution, which protects the pensions of public workers, except in the case of bankruptcy. Mr Rhodes ruled that those constitutional protections “do not apply to the federal bankruptcy court” and that pensions ought to be treated like the city’s other debts.

Scott Shackford praises the judge’s decision to allow pension cuts:

Rhodes’ comments on pension cuts may well prove to be extremely important not just for Detroit, but for any city currently in bankruptcy or considering bankruptcy. Chad Livengood of The Detroit News tweeted quotes from the judge as he delivered the ruling. The judge said that pensions are no different from other contracts under federal bankruptcy laws and “not entitled to any heightened protection in bankruptcy.” That’s a big deal. Pension protectors have been trying to argue that public employee pension benefits can’t be cut back and are protected by state laws or within state constitutions. Federal bankruptcy courts don’t have to care. Cities like Stockton and Vallejo, Calif., have resisted trying to change their pension plans even while in bankruptcy. Maybe this ruling will give city leaders the political courage to address one of their biggest sources of budget debt.

David Cay Johnston worries about the precedent:

Norman Stein, a Drexel University law professor who is an expert on pensions, said that if the Detroit order stands it will become standard practice to slash benefits. “It would be a human catastrophe of the first order if pensions of vulnerable older workers can be cut whenever a local government goes to bankruptcy court,” Stein said. “We will be consigning firemen and policemen, who did nothing wrong other than protecting the city and depending on the city’s promise, into old-age poverty.”

Heather Long is more sanguine:

In coming months (the tentative deadline is now 1 March), Detroit’s emergency management team has to present a workout plan to the judge. Creditors will have plenty of opportunities to object to the plan, and the judge will likely ask for revisions along the way. At the end of the day, the judge will decide whether to accept it based on one key criteria spelled out in the bankruptcy law:

The plan is in the best interests of creditors and is feasible.

That’s a huge protection for creditors, which include the city workers and retirees. The judge isn’t going to accept any old plan from the city. As Judge Rhodes has already stated, he is sympathetic to the needs of city residents and retirees. The proclamations that pensions will go from an average of $19,000 a year to about $3,000 are PR scare tactics. Deep cuts – or anything close – aren’t going to meet the legal test that the plan is in the “best interests of creditors”. It’s possible pensions won’t be cut at all.

Kevin Roose weighs in:

Whether or not the Detroit pension cuts end up happening — and it’s likely that they will, in some form and amount — today’s decision represents a major development for the entire country. Four cities in California, for example, are currently wrapped up in negotiations about whether they can cut pensions as part of their bankruptcy petitions. These other efforts to shed debt by cutting pensions might ultimately fail, or be overturned by the Supreme Court. But now that hosing pensioners is possible in Detroit, there’s not much to stop other cities from trying to do the same thing when they run into trouble.

McArdle sympathizes with the retirees but sees no alternative:

This is terrible for the pensioners, who are likely to see their checks cut back quite a lot. But it’s hard to see what else could have happened. Detroit can’t pay its debts and keep the city running. There is no more tax revenue for the city to take; the citizens are poor, and the commercial base is the sort of low-margin retail and dining that cater to a very poor population, plus a few corporate headquarters bobbing in a sea of beautiful, empty Art Deco office buildings.