Lemons and a bit of lemonade

Lemon: the driveway and front yard are torn up, the contractor isn’t showing up to finish the job, and the landlords have already paid them 2/3, so who knows when they will finish. I need to move the car to the street every day, and move it to the dirt driveway at night to avoid a ticket. I sometimes fall asleep before moving the car at night.
Lemon: in an absurd parody of security, air travelers need to put their toothpaste into ziplock baggies to fly.
Lemonade: the envelope-sized ziplock baggies from the Menlo Parking Patrol are just the right size for a toothbrush and toothpaste.

Water in California: The Great Thirst and Battling the Inland Sea

The Country in the City tells the story how Bay Area residents organized to preserve open space. It is an inspiring and encouraging tale. The evidence of success is visible on any clear day. The culture and organizing practices that kept the hills green is active today, as Bay Area towns organize to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
The story of California water by contrast, is an ongoing tale of human folly. Battling the Inland Sea, by Robert Kelley, focuses on the efforts to deal with chronic flooding in the Sacramento / SanJoaquin delta. The Great Thirst is a magisterial overview of water use and water wars in California.
Robert Kelley wasn’t just a bystander to the ironies of water history, but an actor. In the the 50s, he served as an expert witness, marshaling the history of the century of failed efforts to control flooding in the delta. The earlier efforts, he concluded, were doomed to fail because they lacked a comprehensive perspective of the delta water system. Estimates of the volume of seasonal floods were off by factors of hundreds. Piecemeal flood control efforts were next to useless.
Kelley puts the history of delta flood control in the perspective of the history of California political culture. In the 1800s, politics was polarized between Democrats, who distrusted central authority and formal education, and believed in local control, and Whigs, who believed in the enlightened rule of an educated elite. The local-control approach to flood control was a disaster. Landowners on either side of a river mounted futile arms races to build levees on their side of the river and sabotage the levee on the other side.
During the civil war era, Southerners broke with the Whig party, and the remnants formed the Republicans, but the traits of political culture remained. The centralizing, technocratic, elitist impulse held sway in the early 20th century and enabled larger, more centralized projects. Kelley seemingly sympathizes with the Whig point of view. With the massive, California State Water Project in the 50s and 60s, Kelley is confident that they finally got it right (I have the 1989 edition from the library, I don’t know if he’s more appropriately pessimistic in the 1998 version)
But they didn’t. The vast quantities of water siphoned from the delta has left the ecosystem on the verge of collapse. A judge’s recent order limiting water export from the Delta to protect the endangered Delta Smelt has thrown the system into disarray. A recent special legislative session to deal with the water issues ended without agreement.
Reading the 150 year history of the Inland Sea in the context of current events is sobering enough. The Great Thirst surveys California’s water follies with a panoramic perspective of California’s massive water works. The draining of the Sacramento Delta to irrigate farms and supplement Southern California’s water supply is parallel to Los Angeles’ taking of Owens River water, and San Francisco’s appropriation of Tuolumne river water with the Hetch Hetchy dam.
In recent decades the hubris of the great waterworks has been tempered by values of conservation and environmental protection. The LA area has learned conservation lessons — its population has grown over the last 20 years, but water consumption has barely increased Scientists have realized that surface water and groundwater supplies are connected, and groundwater recharge is seen as a major source of storage.
Systematic problems remain. Farmers get subsidized water at 1/100th of the cost paid in the city, and farmers consuming 80% of the state’s water. Pesticides, industrial pollutants, and urban runoff pollute groundwater and streams. There are periodic droughts. Meanwhile, global warming threatens to cut water supply by 50% or more.
Like Kelley, Hundley puts the history of water in the context of political culture. Hundley’s analysis is proportionate to the book’s broader scope.
Hundley contrasts the system of California’s early Spanish rulers — central authority dividing water proportionately, in times of need, for the common good — with the American system. The American system has been cobbled together from a hodge podge of legal principles, including riparian (water control to the landowner of the banks of the river), appropriator (whoever claims the water first), and homesteader (a principle of Reclamation law, honored more in the breach than the observance, which allocated water only to small independent farmers). None of these principles recognizes compromise and common good; and a result has been endless court battles in the attempt to win a zero sum game.
While “The City in the Country” left readers with the feeling that concerted organizing can make a big difference in the environmental health of a region. The books on water history leave the reader with the feeling that our civilization is not unlikely to head down the path of ancient Mesopotamia, where irrigation led slowly toward environmental and political demise.

She’s Geeky

This week, I went to She’s Geeky, an unconference for women in technology. There were sessions on topics technical, organizational, entrepreneurial, and personal.
One interesting session was on managing groups of men. The conversation dealt with some of the style differences between women and men, the list below comes from that session and some others that dealt with the topic:
* women communicate by telling stories that put the issue into context; men are more likely communicate with bullet points and arguments
* women often try to lead conversations by asking questions and getting others to contribute; this can be read as weakness
* decisiveness and strong opinions from women can be read as bitchiness. People varied in their reaction to this, ranging from “claim your inner bitch” to “learn to respect people with alternative skills and styles”
* see above: women may care too much about what other people think about them.
* women sometimes have trouble saying no; there was a whole session on the topic that I didn’t go to.
* on the whole, more men believe they’re above average, and more women believe they are below average (think about this for a moment…) women need to learn to filter men’s boasts when they aren’t matched by reality, realize their own competence, and get safe support to build confidence.
There were also some rather unfunny stories of traditional sexism: the only female engineer in a group being asked to decorate a new office; a woman who found she was making less than similarly qualified men; a woman executive being asked to regularly provide fashion advice to her CEO (and she seemed to feel obligated to do it). (I suggested that she refer him to the neiman marcus personal shopping service.

Doctors with Email

I wanted to get my first medical checkup since arriving in California, so I asked a friend for a referral. The doctor herself seemed fine, but:
* they required two appointments to get a checkup, since so many patients bail before the appointment (this in retrospect was a bad sign)
* they required a second visit for routine blood tests, and there was a 45 minute wait to get blood drawn
* when I called to make the real checkup appointment, I spent over 30 minutes on hold, and then gave up
That was enough. After some research, I found that the Palo Alto Medical Foundation has a service where you can make appointments and review test results online. That sounds perfect — no time on hold. They also have a nice online physician lookup service so you can find doctors who are taking new patients.
Thank you PAMF, this is customer service for the 21st century.

Tour de Menlo

So, I’m signed up for the Tour de Menlo, and I’m a little nervous about it. I’m planning to do the “tame” 30 mile route, not the 50 mile killer-hill route. Pluses:

  • Local community races are fun (have been to many 10K running races, this is the first bike race I’ve been to).
  • I know I can do the route: I biked a superset of it last weekend.

Minus:

  • Maybe I’ll be the slowest person on the course.

I ride on some popular routes in the area, and oodles of people pass me. The worst case scenario is that it’s a fun ride on a beautiful day, I get a t-shirt. Not so bad.
Update: I finished the race, climbed the biggest hill without walking (but did stop a few times), got to the rest stop and finish before they closed, and got the t-shirt.

The Box

Last post’s exploration of “the way things work” was “Infrastructure”, Brian Hayes’ photo survey of industrial infrastructure. This week’s episode of “Richard-Scarry-for-grownups” is The Box, by former Economist editor Marc Levinson, which delves into the history of container shipping.
The Box is compelling history of things and people. It dives into the details of industry structure, finance and technology and assembles an intricate picture of transformative change. And recounts the adventures of the competing entrepreneurs racing to get the system working, beat competition, and outwit regulation.
Container shipping appears inevitable from the perspective of technological determinism. Boxes, trains, trucks, motorized ships, cranes, none of the technology was dramatically new. Container systems had been tried in the railroad shipping since the 1920s. The old system, where each item needed to be loaded, unloaded, and reloaded with manual labor, was costly and slow. But, a clear view is not the same as a short distance, to quote Paul Saffo.
The incumbent industry had strong incentives to preserve the status quo. Shipping, trucking, and trains were regulated industries with centrally set prices and terms of service, established cartels, and a focus on the mechanics rather than on the service of transport. It took an innovative entrepreneur and some well-timed government handouts to break the logjam. Malcom McLean, a trucking magnate, envisioned the system in his minds eye, drove the engineering for the interlocking containers and the fast-loading cranes, put together aggressive debt financing, and benefited from the US government’s giveaway of WWII surplus transport ships. Far-sighted port agencies in New Jersey, Long Beach, and Singapore invested heavily in container ports, securing early leads. When change came, it was rapid. Levinson writes, “Three years after containerships first sailed to Europe, only two American companies were still operating breakbulk ships across the North Atlantic.”
But even the folks who saw change coming had very imperfect foresight. Many cities invested in ports, but only a few succeeded, and others invested heavily without return. After making a fortune in his first container ventures, McLean himself bet badly, on a fast, fuel-guzzling container ship that hit the market during the 1970s oil crisis, then on a huge slow ship that was introduced just in time for the 80s oil price crash. From a distance, the transition to container shipping seems orderly and logical, like water flowing downhill. Close up, it’s rapids.
And its attention to evidence shows a more complicated picture of the relationship between labor, capital, and government than would be predicted by ideology. Much economic writing in the popular press has a clear ideological slant. The free market generates the most efficient economic outcomes, while regulation, government subsidy, and labor protection reduce economic growth. Alternatively, regulations protect against excessive corporate power, subsidies protect infant industries and local economies, and unions empower workers.
Levinson’s history of the rise of container shipping uncovers a more mixed and subtle story. The early innovators in container shipping got a jumpstart from a government fire sale of surplus WWII ships. WIthout the gift of lowcost ships, the capital costs of ships would have been higher than the entrepreneurs could carry. Early on, some port cities and agencies invested heavily in the creation of container ports. The government investment paid off spectacularly well for some, and badly for others.
At the same time, the shipping, trucking,and rail industries were highly regulated. Players were attuned to manipulating the regulatory agency rather than competing. Much later on, the successful container industry helped drive deregulation. Levinson doesn’t touch the reasons that the railroads got regulated in the first place; they had been an overly powerful oligopoly that abused their market power. So, when does it make sense for government to subsidize or regulate industry? Sometimes, in the cases of early industries, very high capital investments, and to combat market power. And sometimes regulations and subsidies outlive their usefulness.
The biggest expense in shipping was not the transport itself, but the repeated loading and unloading of every item. Longshoreman’s unions arose to protect workers against an abusive contingent labor system, where workers scrambled every day for the chance to unload the days ships. The union policies provided steady work, but also created work rules that mandated more workers than were needed to do the job. The longshoreman protested containerization vehemently. In some regions, protracted labor conflicts kept the port from adapting to the new technology; by the time the union lost, the container ports had been set up elsewhere. But in the US west coast, the union negotiated a settlement where longshoremen whose jobs were made obsolete received retirement payouts. The benefit of containerization was shared with the workers.
The Box tells a story that is more complicated than an ideolog would prefer. Unions and government actions are sometimes helpful and sometimes harmful, and helpful structures can outlive their usefulness and need replacing.

Infrastructure: A field guide to systems on the verge of change

Have you ever wondered what all of those gizmos were in the local power station? Wondered how water treatment works? The benefits and drawbacks of different styles of bridges? Brian Hayes, whose day job is a senior writer at American Scientist, didn’t just wonder. He took pictures over a 15 year period, found out how things worked, and explained it to the rest of us in Infrastructure, The Book of Everything for the Industrial Landscape. As a science writer, Hayes avoids “coffee table book” syndrome, where beautiful pictures are matched with superficial text. He figures out how the system works and explains it. The pictures are fabulous, and would be even better if they were complemented by some diagrams with labels — it wasn’t always easy to figure out which bit of circuitry or process gear was which (the picture below is a set of air-blast switches with porcelain insulators at the Ravenswood power plan in Queens).

The hardback first edition was titled: “A Field Guide to the Industrial Landscape.” Hayes describes the artifacts of the industrial landscape like nature guides describe birds and mountains. While describing the artifacts and systems, Hayes also strives to explain why the industrial landscape is obscure to many of us. From Hayes’ point of view a major reason for the obscurity of industrial objects in plain sight is that industrial infrastructure has an image problem. There is a great divide between the green/populist image of “Dark Satanic Mills” and the reality of the engineered systems that our society depends on, which have a pragmatic intricacy, elegance and beauty of their own. Hayes sees a self-reinforcing gulf between the negative stereotype of the industrial landscape, and the paranoid and secretive attitude of some industrial organizations. Hayes therefore describes the industrial systems as they are, without much critique, in the hope of increasing appreciation and understanding.
Still, Hayes notices the smokestack-scrubbing, emissions-reducing, landscape-restoring, material recycling, and other environmental innovations that have modified industrial systems in recent decades. These were put into place because of valid criticism of the destruction wrought by industry. Mining companies that behead mountains in West Virginia and oil refineries that create cancer alley in the Houston area may be secretive because they don’t want to share information about the harm they cause.
Seeing the big picture of industrial systems also felt like looking at a crystal on the verge of phase change. Oil processing, roads and bridges for gas-fueled cars and trucks, centralized energy power plants and big power grids; factory farms; massive waste creation and disposal systems — all of these depend on the last century’s abundance of cheap energy, and much of it is going to change, hopefully without civilization collapsing. Renewable, decentralized energy generation, electrified transport, sustainable agriculture, cradle to cradle no-waste manufacturing or bust. I’m wanting to read “Infrastructure” as annotated by Natural Capitalism and the Journal of Industrial Ecology, showing the opportunities to reduce wasted material and energy throughout the industrial ecosystem. I hope that this book appears 50 years from now like a tour guide to Colonial Williamsburg, with descriptions of blacksmithing, barrel-making, candle-dipping, quill pen cutting, tub laundry, and other antique technologies.

Why are Facebook updates uninteresting…

except to feed the twitchy cravings of news addiction?
Facebook updates (at least the way that my network uses the service) are mostly about Facebook. So-and-so added a music application. Somebody else is playing a movie quiz. That information is super-valuable to app developers and marketers,but only somewhat interesting to me.
Twitter updates are trivia, too, but they are about the people and not the things.