I have a sit on top (sot) kayak (you can find pictures of my kayak here). I use this for fishing. One of drawback of this kayak is that it is easy to get wet: water comes in over wall. Because of its surfboard like design, this problem seems unavoidable. So, I have to wear properly to stay dry.
I checked some websites and books. Their recommendations are dry suit (expensive but sure), or bib style wader + rain jacket combo (less expensive but could-be deadly in case of falling). I think these options are over kill for freshwater kayak fisherman. Instead, I tested wader boots + bib style rain pants option, and it was fine for the purpose to keep myself dry. Of course, it was more comfortable to maneuver on kayak than other outfit options. I need test it under warm weather. So far, I am happy with this outfit option.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Abstract for ISEE 2008 Nairobi conference
I submitted an abstract to International Society for Ecological Economics (ISEE) 2008 conference. This conference will be held in Nairobi, Kenya. Because Kenya is in the middle of political turmoil, I am not sure whether the conference can be held as planned or not. Also, air fare to Nairobi is incredibly expensive, over $2,000 (are u kidding me?). I am working on for funding with my advisor. Anyway, I am taking a shot.
They required a long abstract, 500-1,000 words. It sounds odd to me. Title of the abstract is "Energy substitution and economic growth: fuel mix and change of the elasticity of substitution." Currently, I am changing my research topic. This abstract is my old topic. I will study about energy and economic growth of Korean case. I will use the Structural Decomposition Analysis (SDA) for the topic. You can find the full abstract here http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddfmw3gd_8fsm3vjgm
They required a long abstract, 500-1,000 words. It sounds odd to me. Title of the abstract is "Energy substitution and economic growth: fuel mix and change of the elasticity of substitution." Currently, I am changing my research topic. This abstract is my old topic. I will study about energy and economic growth of Korean case. I will use the Structural Decomposition Analysis (SDA) for the topic. You can find the full abstract here http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddfmw3gd_8fsm3vjgm
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
GDAE program director, Dr. Frank Ackerman
Yesterday, I attended a seminar of Dr. Frank Ackerman, co-program director of Global Development and Environment Insittute (GDAE) at Tufts university. GDAE is well known in heterodox economists and ecological economists. It publishes many books and articles of new perspectives. GDAE may be one of dream job of many heterodox economists.
Dr. Ackerman's presentation title was "Can we afford global warming?" He used expression, climate economics during his presentation. He used a metaphor of insurance for climate change policy. People buy a insurance although it never pass the cost-benefit test. Climate policy should be considered as a insurance against catastrophic events which have low probability. It is all about precautaionary principle.
Makes very sense! But question is "can we buy the insurance?" He answered that the insurance is not that costly. There are already diverse and affordable solutions available, but problem is political will. He said that government should invest more in R&D for climate change. This view, tech-optimistic, is similar to Martin Hoffert. My question to Dr. Ackerman will be where we can optimally allocate the insurance money.
Dr. Ackerman's presentation title was "Can we afford global warming?" He used expression, climate economics during his presentation. He used a metaphor of insurance for climate change policy. People buy a insurance although it never pass the cost-benefit test. Climate policy should be considered as a insurance against catastrophic events which have low probability. It is all about precautaionary principle.
Makes very sense! But question is "can we buy the insurance?" He answered that the insurance is not that costly. There are already diverse and affordable solutions available, but problem is political will. He said that government should invest more in R&D for climate change. This view, tech-optimistic, is similar to Martin Hoffert. My question to Dr. Ackerman will be where we can optimally allocate the insurance money.
USSEE President elect, Dr. Sabine O'Hara
Last Friday, I met Dr. Sabne O'Hara, President elect of United States Society for Ecological Economics (USSEE). She happened to visit for another reason, and I organized a meeting with her. She is a tall and blond lady. She said that she is originaly from Germany. We talked about various topics for two hours. She was vary clear about every thing. Although there was nothing new to me in the talk, she impressed all students including myself. Here are some key words that she mentioned in her talk:
science of sustainable development, context specific, region specific, value of social diversity, 3 pilar (or dimension) approach, better understanding human behavior, problem oriented...
After the talk, I got impression that our ecological economics society would move to more policy direction. In particular, science of human behavior.
science of sustainable development, context specific, region specific, value of social diversity, 3 pilar (or dimension) approach, better understanding human behavior, problem oriented...
After the talk, I got impression that our ecological economics society would move to more policy direction. In particular, science of human behavior.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
I will teach you how to be selfish!
At the first class of John Gowdy's microeconomics, he said that an experiment showed that students in economics tended to be more selfish than other students. His point, as I remember, was that current economics education does not teach how to observe economic phenomena in themselves, rather how to be selfish in each market situation.
When I heard this, I made up my mind not to be another selfish economist. But, frankly, let me confess you that nowadays I feel like becoming another selfish ass... Whenever I make decision, I find myself calculating costs and benefits of my own without considering community or others. I find myself being reluctant to share some time for cause of community.
I came to a graduate school with dream, a dream to make difference in the world. And now I am losing the dream. Quite painful in my heart, sensing no problem in my head.
About my heart pain, I have to blame economics education; it really teaches the art of being selfish, nothing more than that. Economics is crying, human nature is originally selfish, and somehow selfish people make a world of altruism thanks to touch of the invisible hand. Therefore, be selfish without any shame! When people work hard for their own interest, it will solve every problem by increasing efficiency!
Bunch of selfish asses cannot solve the many problems on this small planet. We all know it from our experience dealing with these problems. We have to stop teaching the art of being selfish. Economics should be a science. It should not be a religion of selfishness.
When I heard this, I made up my mind not to be another selfish economist. But, frankly, let me confess you that nowadays I feel like becoming another selfish ass... Whenever I make decision, I find myself calculating costs and benefits of my own without considering community or others. I find myself being reluctant to share some time for cause of community.
I came to a graduate school with dream, a dream to make difference in the world. And now I am losing the dream. Quite painful in my heart, sensing no problem in my head.
About my heart pain, I have to blame economics education; it really teaches the art of being selfish, nothing more than that. Economics is crying, human nature is originally selfish, and somehow selfish people make a world of altruism thanks to touch of the invisible hand. Therefore, be selfish without any shame! When people work hard for their own interest, it will solve every problem by increasing efficiency!
Bunch of selfish asses cannot solve the many problems on this small planet. We all know it from our experience dealing with these problems. We have to stop teaching the art of being selfish. Economics should be a science. It should not be a religion of selfishness.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Sea Level Change Model, Dr. David Holland
I went to a talk by Dr. David Holland* from the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at NYU. Wow, it was one of the most original and informative presentations. He showed us pictures and videos which he took in arctic and antarctic research stations. It was great joy to hear from a field expert of climate change frontier. Here is the summary of the talk:
You must be familiar about Sink hole theory of ice sheet. Warmed up air melts top ice, and then melted ice digs sink holes through body of ice sheet. Water flows through the sink hole and lubricate ice sheet while facilitating total melting process.
Dr. Holland presented a bit different theory. He pointed warm sea water as a main cause of ice sheet melting. He dropped temperature probes into ice fjord and found bottom water is warmer than has been thought. Warmer ocean water is eating away ice sheet. It seemed not his experties to explain why temperature is increasing at the bottom. He pointed wind patern changs as a possible cause.
He measures the amount of sink hole melting is very small compared to meting by warmer ocean. He is still working on computer model with his theory, so didn't provide any explicit prediction. But he mentioned "it will hardly happen that whole Florida submerges under water."
Predicting the impacts of climate change will never be easy task because we have never been there.
*Dr. Holland is a member of The Center for Atmosphere Ocean Science(CAOS), an interdisciplinary research and graduate program within the Courant. His work focuses on modeling the interaction of climate, oceans,and ice shelves. His webpage: http://efdl.cims.nyu.edu/
You must be familiar about Sink hole theory of ice sheet. Warmed up air melts top ice, and then melted ice digs sink holes through body of ice sheet. Water flows through the sink hole and lubricate ice sheet while facilitating total melting process.
Dr. Holland presented a bit different theory. He pointed warm sea water as a main cause of ice sheet melting. He dropped temperature probes into ice fjord and found bottom water is warmer than has been thought. Warmer ocean water is eating away ice sheet. It seemed not his experties to explain why temperature is increasing at the bottom. He pointed wind patern changs as a possible cause.
He measures the amount of sink hole melting is very small compared to meting by warmer ocean. He is still working on computer model with his theory, so didn't provide any explicit prediction. But he mentioned "it will hardly happen that whole Florida submerges under water."
Predicting the impacts of climate change will never be easy task because we have never been there.
*Dr. Holland is a member of The Center for Atmosphere Ocean Science(CAOS), an interdisciplinary research and graduate program within the Courant. His work focuses on modeling the interaction of climate, oceans,and ice shelves. His webpage: http://efdl.cims.nyu.edu/
"We hate China:" Failure of civil diplomacy
As 2008 Beijing Olympic is reaching close, protests against China are happening in many cities. The protests was caused by China's treatment of Tibet crisis and poor condition of human right in China at surface. But what I observe is the failure of Chinese diplomacy, in particular social diplomacy.
We all know that Tibetans and civil rights group try to take advantage of this timing when China faces the biggest event, which will present China's great achievement all over the world. As usual, this kind of protests were well expected. However, China's poor civil diplomacy made things worse. Here are the bad choices that China has made. First, Chinese government expelled all foreign reporters from Tibet after the crisis. I saw that some of foreign press produced somewhat distorted views which harmed China's image. But when all the reporters were expelled, the vacuum of information was filled up not by China-friendly press, but by more unfriendly and distorting guesses. Citizens in other countries well know that in fact Chinese presses are owned and operated by the government; they don't trust Chinese press, as it is the case in many other countries. China should have opened Tibet to deliver the truth of the crisis. Now, unfortunately I can see a lot of exaggerations of the crisis.
Second, statement of Chinese chief diplomats were arrogant and failed to earn understandings of world citizens. They did not need mention about human right condition in other western countries. This sounded just like, "We didn't do anything wrong compared to you." I think they should have expressed remorse of the crisis and beg understanding of the uniqueness of the situation. We all know how hypocritical the western countries are. At least Chinese diplomats didn't need remind this fact. What they did need was to make China's image as a victim. Anyway, they failed, and now look how damaging the result is.
Third, the Chinese government has continuously underestimated Dalai Lama's civil diplomacy. After the crisis, we are clearly witnessing the triumph of his diplomacy all over the world, although he may not claim the victory. He earned mind of world citizens, while arrogant Chinese diplomacy was losing.
I worry that people would say "We hate China" after the olympic games, although the people didn't really have any anti-feeling against China before. If it becomes true, China will lose more than gain from the games. I would like to see the Chinese efforts to earn world citizen's mind.
We all know that Tibetans and civil rights group try to take advantage of this timing when China faces the biggest event, which will present China's great achievement all over the world. As usual, this kind of protests were well expected. However, China's poor civil diplomacy made things worse. Here are the bad choices that China has made. First, Chinese government expelled all foreign reporters from Tibet after the crisis. I saw that some of foreign press produced somewhat distorted views which harmed China's image. But when all the reporters were expelled, the vacuum of information was filled up not by China-friendly press, but by more unfriendly and distorting guesses. Citizens in other countries well know that in fact Chinese presses are owned and operated by the government; they don't trust Chinese press, as it is the case in many other countries. China should have opened Tibet to deliver the truth of the crisis. Now, unfortunately I can see a lot of exaggerations of the crisis.
Second, statement of Chinese chief diplomats were arrogant and failed to earn understandings of world citizens. They did not need mention about human right condition in other western countries. This sounded just like, "We didn't do anything wrong compared to you." I think they should have expressed remorse of the crisis and beg understanding of the uniqueness of the situation. We all know how hypocritical the western countries are. At least Chinese diplomats didn't need remind this fact. What they did need was to make China's image as a victim. Anyway, they failed, and now look how damaging the result is.
Third, the Chinese government has continuously underestimated Dalai Lama's civil diplomacy. After the crisis, we are clearly witnessing the triumph of his diplomacy all over the world, although he may not claim the victory. He earned mind of world citizens, while arrogant Chinese diplomacy was losing.
I worry that people would say "We hate China" after the olympic games, although the people didn't really have any anti-feeling against China before. If it becomes true, China will lose more than gain from the games. I would like to see the Chinese efforts to earn world citizen's mind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)