Energy and Independent Thought

This was a really long process! I explored debunking a number of widespread beliefs/myths–environmental legislation costs jobs, people in the US pay the highest taxes, access to family planning increases abortion. The answer to most of these, was not in a single fact that was true or false, but in a framework of beliefs and approaches to viewing the world that foster the acceptance of particular arguments.

Environmental legislation and regulation: It’s complicated–but not really.

Upshot: The majority of new jobs in the energy sector domestically and internationally will be renewable energy jobs and related support services, but there will be and are “losers” (i.e., coal industry miners and related support services). Pro-environment legislation and state subsidies to businesses and private citizens in states like California have created a booming renewable energy market and spurred technological innovation. States like Ohio and West Virginia, which have actively resisted moves toward renewable energy are not well-positioned to take advantage of emerging production or related support jobs in this sector. Renewable energy and related jobs will be global economic drivers regardless of whether or not the Unites States chooses to participate. Other countries have made independent decisions regarding their energy futures and chosen to pursue renewables. Independent, publicly-funded research and policy making efforts attempt to analyze complex issues in a non-partisan manner, but the media (and research) ecosystem is pervaded by partisan think tanks, private money, and even foreign dollars. These factors undermine the credibility of sources of information and correspondingly public trust in those sources.

Why so complicated? 

1. Energy is actually complicated – Energy use and production affects individuals, businesses, corporations, and governments–each with competing and sometimes overlapping interests.

2.  Poor-quality or biased [mis]information – A decrease in publicly-funded science and non-partisan governmental organizations resulting in less transparent, less reliable sources of information. Prior to neoliberal globalization, government agencies, universities, and think tanks were much less affected by corporate interests and lobbying (see Science-Mart for a particularly in-depth treatment of the topic).

The energy sector is an appropriate case study of a phenomenon that has occurred in other previously public areas (i.e., education).

Both renewable and fossil energy lobbying groups and think tanks have a strong presence. These groups are motivated to generate research and studies supporting their economic aims. When the organization is private, the public cannot access records of financial contributions and identify donors. This undermines transparency and credibility.

Domestically, [political, social, economic] a variety of actors have invested themselves in the creation of a research and development framework that favors private, corporate interests over the public good and civic society.

The Think Tank Watch project at the University of Pennsylvania classifies and tracks think tank activity. The think tank picture is further complicated as foreign governments buy influence in American think tanks.

Think Tank Project’s Classification System               http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=think_tanks

An energy-related project, Think Tank Map, tracks think tanks that conduct climate-related research. The Buckeye Institute is a conservative, pro-fossil fuel private organization with an annual budget of 2.7 million dollars. Members of its Board of Trustees have ties to the fossil fuel and plastics industries. This organization generates reports that would fail to meet basic academic standard as objective research. There’s nothing wrong with lobbying for policy, but to do so under the guise of an “independent think tank” misrepresents the mission of the organization and undermines the work of independent, publicly-funded think tanks. Pro-renewable think tanks and lobbyists further cloud the picture with reports that lobby for their interests.

Energy policy set by Washington only influences but does not dictate the paths followed by other countries and transnational corporations. Failure by Washington to invest profitable sectors, including renewable energy, will have a long term effect on the American economy.

Taxpayers have invested in their own futures and the success of businesses by funding the underlying physical (i.e., highways) and virtual (i.e., the internet) infrastructure upon which corporations rely. Independent and transparent research and organizations are critical to the continuation of cycle of success.

All the Gossip That’s Fit to Tweet

Image

In the wake of the 2016 presidential election, US media has focused much of its scrutiny on the Trump Administration’s possible ties to the Russian government. Although mainstream media coverage of possible ties between the Trump Administration and the PRC has been sparse, China experts have paid close attention to official and unofficial signs of the dynamics of emerging US-China relations.

When would Xi visit the United States, and where was the follow up to the New York Times revelations about deals between Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and China’s Anbang Insurance Corporation?

Reporters tracked foreign investment by Chinese corporations.

New York Times Reporter, Mike Forsythe:

Anbang Stories - Pinned on January 31

Anbang Stories – Pinned on January 31

 

 

 

 

On March 2, a rumor surfaced on Twitter via a Chinese businessman visiting Mar-a-Lago. 

On March 13, the news broke that Xi would be visiting Mar-a-Lago. 

Followed almost immediately by:

Conversation ensued:

 Who does own Anbang?

But, wait, what’s happening to the data on Anbang’s website?

Mike Forsythe tweeted: 

10:07am

10:09am 

12:10pm White House Press Briefing:

But then, late on March 14, Anbang released a statement saying there was no intention to invest in the Kushner property:

Following up with Anbang

Following up with Anbang

 

What will develop next? Think this story’s over? Don’t believe a tweet of it…..

NYT Reporter tracking Anbang financials

NYT Reporter tracking Anbang financials

 

 

Anne C’s Media Diary

Image

I set up Rescue Time after our first MAS.700 class (February 8) and tracked my time through February 21. I entered offline time, trying to be especially diligent when the time was dedicated to media consumption. For example, during this time period I spent a considerable amount of time reading actual print media for another course I am taking.

I found Rescue Time to be fairly accurate, though I had to customize and clean up the data. I removed times that were idle (i.e., new browser tab, login screen).

A day-by-day comparison of top activities reveals Facebook is the top single time consuming activity.

Comparison of Media by Day

Comparison of Media by Day

When I customized the categories in Rescue Time to reflect their productivity value, the data revealed a shocking amount of time is spent on social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). Perhaps it shouldn’t be that surprising, but seeing it displayed in a bar graph, provided visual confirmation of my suspicion.

Media by Productivity Categories

Media by Productivity Categories

The visual display of my “productive activities” showed a fairly high amount of engagement spread across a variety of tasks.

Another useful visual is the output of productive versus non-productive engagement by time of day. My productive time, which includes reading, research, and writing occurs between 2:00pm and 10:00pm. There is a large spike in social media use around midnight or 1:00am, during which time no actual work occurs. Additionally, I often have some type of video streaming simultaneously at this time. This content ranges from news reports to comedy clips to TV shows.

Media Consumption by Time of Day

Media Consumption by Time of Day

This was a useful graph as it helps me understand how my schedule breaks down. I would have hypothesized that my most productive time actually began around 10:00am, but it turns out that time is spent on email and scheduling—time that is spent using gmail, google calendar, and other similar tools.

I come away from this experiment with two commitments. First, I would like to cut my communication time in the morning from two hours to one hour. My second goal will be to reduce my overall social media time, especially during the window of time before I go to sleep.

I will repeat to myself, “there’s no such thing as multitasking” and try to avoid losing efficiency by working on unrelated topics at the same time.