Mideast Peace Drip By Drip

Sometimes It Takes Only One Man

His name Daniel Hillel. A Jew born in Los Angeles who moved to what later became Israel in 1931. The Wall Street Journal had an interview on 10/15/2012 with this soil scientist who developed micro-irrigation techniques (better known as drip irrigation) since the 1950s.

Thus, he contributed to turn Israeli’s deserts into productive agricultural farms. Israel thanks to him and others is a world leader in agricultural technologies and exporter of agricultural goods.

Helping The Arab & Muslim People

Mr. Hillel helped numerous Arab and Muslim countries to improve their agricultural output by using water more efficiently like Jordan, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan and Palestine.

Such individual contributions to peace and prosperity are more valuable than many of these foolish high level peace talks or sophisticated diplomacy that are often more photo op for politicians than anything else.

Indispensable Plastics

In the above interview, Mr. Hillel made the point that it was the plastics boom in the 1960s that made among other things low-cost weather-resistant plastics available. Without plastics, micro-irrigation would likely not have taken off.

The Future Of Hydrocarbon Fuels

Replacement Of Fossil Fuels

I cannot predict how long humans will still largely depend on hydrocarbon fuels for most of their growing energy needs, but I guess this dependency will not really be reversed for another 50-100 years.

Despite the current ongoing discovery of new recoverable oil/gas fields and improved extraction technologies, I believe, the next big thing is to be able to produce hydrocarbon fuels in large quantities using genetically modified bacteria or plants or the like. Given the current exponential pace of technological and scientific progress, I think, such a breakthrough is imminent.

So Called Renewable Energies Are More Like Dead End Roads

Most renewable energies in use today (e.g. wind, water, solar, food for fuel, geothermal) are for various reasons only sources of supplemental energy instead of becoming a substitute to current sources of energy.

Biofuels are obviously so problematic, I don’t think I have to discuss this here. They are an insult to our intelligence.

The massive return to unreliable wind energy by using modern wind mills is an idea born by Don Quixotes.

The exploitation of water energy has also run into serious limitations (environmental as well). Mankind now has thousands of years of experience with engineering water for irrigation and more recently for energy use.

If solar energy efficiency can greatly be increased, solar energy has perhaps the best chance to make significant contributions in the future since the sun is much more reliable and a fairly constant source of energy that can be tapped into with fewer negative side effects.

What would be the consequences if we were to tap into geothermal energy on a massive scale? Would it cool down our planet faster and what happens then? I would guess this is also a limited source of energy.

Other Sources Of Energy

For decades we are waiting on nuclear fusion to become a viable source of almost unlimited energy production. However, the deep seated, human confusion and superstition about nuclear weapons, radioactive radiation, and nuclear energy are tough to beat. The Fukoshima nuclear accident and what followed has been a prime object lesson of human irrationality and folly even as we enter the 21^st century.

Maybe one day we will be able to harness hydrogen power on a large scale. Presumably, this would be a fairly safe and environmentally friendly source of energy. However, too many humans still remember the Hindenburg accident of 1937, right? Had this major accident not be so extraordinary well covered by radio broadcasts and photography …

As with hydrocarbon fuels (see above), I suspect that perhaps within the next two decades we might be able to cheaply produce sufficient hydrogen through genetically modified organisms/plants or by other means.

What about photosynthesis? Photosynthesis may one day in the near future become the true form of solar energy.

Future Energy Demand At A Crossroad?

Over history, the worldwide demand for energy per capita has been rising ever since and there is a good chance that this trend will continue for at least another 100 years. The question is how fast will this demand rise?

However, world population growth may finally peak in the next few decades and there is a good chance that world population may even begin to shrink before we enter the 22^nd century thanks to declining total fertility rates, increased life expectancy and other factors.

As long as the per capita energy use is so divergent among humans on this planet, there is a huge demand waiting to be fulfilled. Thus, during the next two or three decades world energy demand will rise fast, but once per capita energy use is more homogeneous across the earth than today, we may see a significant slowdown.

There is a huge potential for energy savings or conservation like more telecommuting/teleconferencing, more energy efficient homes, self-driving cars, LED light and so on, but I am afraid this will only slow down rising energy demand.

As we go along with the exponential progress of the technology revolution that brought as computers, modern telecommunications, the Internet etc., energy consumption has increased dramatically. We are only at the beginning of this revolution. The massive built out of networks, data storage and processing etc. or whatever the future holds in store will continue.

In summary, I believe, worldwide per capita energy demand will rise significantly for the foreseeable future. Therefore, e.g. so called renewable energies are not more like a supplemental source of energy to satisfy an enormous future energy demand.

COBRA Health Insurance - A Big Government Joke

A Bit Of Background

COBRA stands for Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. As far as its health insurance portion is concerned it is a prime example of lousy big government legislation coming out of Washington, DC.

Essentially it allows an employee to keep his/her employer-sponsored health insurance if a “qualifying event” like lay off occurs as if the qualifying event did not occur. This coverage is available for a maximum of up to 18 months. Great idea, but big government is what it is incapable: monstrosities instead of designing practical, cheap, and free market solutions.

This law is also a fine example of what ails the US health care system, where big government has essentially taken over health care to an extent that it resembles national health care services like in the UK or Germany.

COBRA Health Insurance Is Very Expensive!

Having been recently laid off myself, I received the usual notice letter from my former employer about my “right to continue health care coverage” under COBRA.

The catch: It would cost me $386 for single and $829 for employee & spouse coverage per month. These premiums include the employer share as well. While I was employed, I used to pay $208 per month.

On the market of individual health insurance, I would be able to obtain health insurance with a similar coverage for significantly less than $386. My unemployment benefits here in Arizona are $240 per week (the maximum benefit). What were the legislators in Washington, DC thinking or smoking to come up with such a lousy law?

Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance Is Too Expensive

Given my example above, it is clear that at $386 the employer-sponsored coverage was way too expensive compared with what is available to the individual on the market of individual health insurance. The company, I worked for was small.

I venture to guess that my example is typical across the country irrespective of the size of the employer. Thus, I would presume that health insurance for most employees in the US is significantly overpriced thanks to this prevalent employer-sponsored group health insurance system.

Better Solutions

Apart from a fundamental, free market reform of health care insurance, which I would prefer, federal legislators have had at least two choices for a more sensible reform:

1.       Abolish the tax deductibility of health insurance for companies or

2.       Allow individuals to enjoy the same kind of tax deductibility as companies