Monday, February 21, 2022

How poisonous mercury gets from coal-fired power plants into the fish you eat By Gabriel Filippelli 2/15/2020

People fishing along the banks of the White River as it winds through Indianapolis sometimes pass by ominous signs warning about eating the fish they catch.

One of the risks they have faced is mercury poisoning.

Mercury is a neurotoxic metal that can cause irreparable harm to human health – especially the brain development of young children. It is tied to lower IQ and results in decreased earning potential, as well as higher health costs. Lost productivity from mercury alone was calculated in 2005 to reach almost $9 billion per year.

One way mercury gets into river fish is with the gases that rise up the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants. 

 

The Environmental Protection Agency has had a rule since 2012 limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. But the Trump administration stopped enforcing it, arguing that the costs to industry outweighed the health benefit.

Now, the Biden administration is moving to reassert it.

I study mercury and its sources as a biogeochemist at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Before the EPA’s original mercury rule went into effect, my students and I launched a project to track how Indianapolis-area power plants were increasing mercury in the rivers and soil.

 Mercury bioaccumulates in the food chain

The risks from eating a fish from a river downwind from a coal-burning power plant depends on both the type of fish caught and the age and condition of the person consuming it.

Mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin, meaning that it increasingly concentrates in the flesh of organisms as it makes its way up the food chain.

 The mercury emitted from coal-burning power plants falls onto soils and washes into waterways. There, the moderately benign mercury is transformed by bacteria into a toxic organic form called methylmercury.

Each bacterium might contain only one unit of toxic methylmercury, but a worm chewing through sediment and eating 1,000 of those bacteria now contains 1,000 doses of mercury. The catfish that eats the worm then get more doses, and so on up the food chain to humans.

In this way, top-level predator fishes, such as smallmouth bass, walleye, largemouth bass, lake trout and Northern pike, typically contain the highest amounts of mercury in aquatic ecosystems. On average, one of these fish contains enough to make eating only one serving of them per month dangerous for the developing fetuses of pregnant women and for children.

 How coal plant mercury rains down

In our study, we wanted to answer a simple question: Did the local coal-burning power plants, known to be major emitters of toxic mercury, have an impact on the local environment?

The obvious answer seems to be yes, they do. But in fact, quite a bit of research – and coal industry advertising – noted that mercury is a “global pollutant” and could not necessarily be traced to a local source. A recurring argument is that mercury deposited on the landscape came from coal-burning power plants in China, so why regulate local emissions if others were still burning coal?

 That justification was based on the unique chemistry of this element. It is the only metal that is liquid at room temperature, and when heated just to a moderate level, will evaporate into mercury vapor. Thus, when coal is burned in a power plant, the mercury that is present in it is released through the smokestacks as a gas and dilutes as it travels. Low levels of mercury also occur naturally.

Although this argument was technically true, we found it obscured the bigger picture.

 People fishing along the banks of the White River as it winds through Indianapolis sometimes pass by ominous signs warning about eating the fish they catch.

One of the risks they have faced is mercury poisoning.

Mercury is a neurotoxic metal that can cause irreparable harm to human health – especially the brain development of young children. It is tied to lower IQ and results in decreased earning potential, as well as higher health costs. Lost productivity from mercury alone was calculated in 2005 to reach almost $9 billion per year.

One way mercury gets into river fish is with the gases that rise up the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.

The Environmental Protection Agency has had a rule since 2012 limiting mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. But the Trump administration stopped enforcing it, arguing that the costs to industry outweighed the health benefit.

Now, the Biden administration is moving to reassert it.

I study mercury and its sources as a biogeochemist at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. Before the EPA’s original mercury rule went into effect, my students and I launched a project to track how Indianapolis-area power plants were increasing mercury in the rivers and soil.

Mercury bioaccumulates in the food chain

The risks from eating a fish from a river downwind from a coal-burning power plant depends on both the type of fish caught and the age and condition of the person consuming it.

Mercury is a bioaccumulative toxin, meaning that it increasingly concentrates in the flesh of organisms as it makes its way up the food chain.

A person's hands old a smallmouth bass, with the fish's mouth open
Mercury accumulates as it moves up the food chain. doug4537 via Getty Images

The mercury emitted from coal-burning power plants falls onto soils and washes into waterways. There, the moderately benign mercury is transformed by bacteria into a toxic organic form called methylmercury.

Each bacterium might contain only one unit of toxic methylmercury, but a worm chewing through sediment and eating 1,000 of those bacteria now contains 1,000 doses of mercury. The catfish that eats the worm then get more doses, and so on up the food chain to humans.

In this way, top-level predator fishes, such as smallmouth bass, walleye, largemouth bass, lake trout and Northern pike, typically contain the highest amounts of mercury in aquatic ecosystems. On average, one of these fish contains enough to make eating only one serving of them per month dangerous for the developing fetuses of pregnant women and for children.

How coal plant mercury rains down

In our study, we wanted to answer a simple question: Did the local coal-burning power plants, known to be major emitters of toxic mercury, have an impact on the local environment?

The obvious answer seems to be yes, they do. But in fact, quite a bit of research – and coal industry advertising – noted that mercury is a “global pollutant” and could not necessarily be traced to a local source. A recurring argument is that mercury deposited on the landscape came from coal-burning power plants in China, so why regulate local emissions if others were still burning coal?

That justification was based on the unique chemistry of this element. It is the only metal that is liquid at room temperature, and when heated just to a moderate level, will evaporate into mercury vapor. Thus, when coal is burned in a power plant, the mercury that is present in it is released through the smokestacks as a gas and dilutes as it travels. Low levels of mercury also occur naturally.

Although this argument was technically true, we found it obscured the bigger picture.

A view of the river with a bridge and the city in the background.
People sometimes fish along the White River where it flows through Indianapolis. alexeys via Getty Images

We found the overwhelming source of mercury was within sight of the White River fishermen – a large coal-burning power plant on the edge of the city.

This power plant emitted vaporous mercury at the time, though it has since switched to natural gas. We found that much of the plant’s mercury rapidly reacted with other atmospheric constituents and water vapor to “wash out” over the city. It was raining down mercury on the landscape.

Traveling by air and water, miles from the source

Mercury emitted from the smokestacks of coal-fired power plants can fall from the atmosphere with rain, mist or chemical reactions. Several studies have shown elevated levels of mercury in soils and plants near power plants, with much of the mercury falling within about 9 miles (15 kilometers) of the smokestack.

When we surveyed hundreds of surface soils ranging from about 1 to 31 miles (2 to 50 km) from the coal-fired power plant, then the single largest emitter of mercury in central Indiana, we were shocked. We found a clear “plume” of elevated mercury in Indianapolis, with much higher values near the power plant tailing off to almost background values 31 miles downwind.

The White River flows from the northeast to the southwest through Indianapolis, opposite the wind patterns. When we sampled sediments from most of its course through central Indiana, we found that mercury levels started low well upstream of Indianapolis, but increased substantially as the river flowed through downtown, apparently accumulating deposited mercury along its flow path.

[Understand developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

We also found high levels well downstream of the city. Thus a fisherman out in the countryside, far away from the city, was still at significant risk of catching, and eating, high-mercury fish.

The region’s fish advisories still recommend sharply limiting the amount of fish eaten from the White River. In Indianapolis, for example, pregnant women are advised to avoid eating some fish from the river altogether.

Reviving the MATS rule

The EPA announced the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards rule in 2011 to deal with the exact health risk Indianapolis was facing.

The rule stipulated that mercury sources had to be sharply reduced. For coal-fired power plants, this meant either installing costly mercury-capturing filters in the smokestacks or converting to another energy source. Many converted to natural gas, which reduces the mercury risk but still contributes to health problems and global warming.

The MATS rule helped tilt the national energy playing field away from coal, until the Trump Administration attempted to weaken the rule in 2020 to try to bolster the declining U.S. coal industry. The administration rescinded a “supplemental finding” that determined it is “appropriate and necessary” to regulate mercury from power plants.

On Jan. 31, 2022, the Biden Administration moved to reaffirm that supplemental finding and effectively restore the standards.

 

Wednesday, February 16, 2022

Who is Doug Mastriano and why does his subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee matter ?by Andrew Seidman

 The latest round of subpoenas from the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack suggest the panel is deepening its probe of how allies of former President Donald Trump urged legislatures in key swing states to subvert the 2020 election.

But they also shine a spotlight on a leading contender in Pennsylvania’s Republican primary for governor: State Sen. Doug Mastriano.

In a letter to Mastriano, the committee demanded documents and testimony regarding his involvement in a plan to send a pro-Trump slate of electors to Congress from Pennsylvania, despite Joe Biden’s victory; his conversations with Trump; and his presence on Capitol grounds the day of the riot.

Here’s what to know about Mastriano.

Who is Doug Mastriano?

Mastriano, 58, is a retired Army colonel from Franklin County, in south-central Pennsylvania. He’s a relative newcomer to politics, having been first elected to the state Senate in 2019. But since then, he’s become one of the highest-profile political figures in Pennsylvania.

He started to gain a following early in the pandemic, as he held rallies outside the statehouse protesting Gov. Tom Wolf’s coronavirus restrictions. And he grew a big audience online with what he called “fireside chats” on his Facebook page, urging his followers to “walk as free people.”

 But it wasn’t until the 2020 election that he got national attention.

What is Doug Mastriano’s stance on the 2020 presidential election?

Mastriano is one of the leading election deniers in Pennsylvania. A day after state officials certified Biden’s victory in Pennsylvania, he organized a legislative meeting in Gettysburg, inviting the public to share allegations of voter fraud.

As in several other swing states Biden won, Trump lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Jenna Ellis showed up. Trump himself called in to the meeting from Washington, offering his input via speakerphone: “This election was rigged, and we can’t let that happen.”

 Shortly after, Mastriano met Trump at the White House – and was pulled out of the West Wing when the senator was told he’d tested positive for the coronavirus, the Associated Press reported.

Three days later, on Nov. 28, Mastriano tweeted incorrectly that there was “mounting evidence” Pennsylvania’s election was compromised — in which case, the senator said, the state legislature “has the sole authority to direct the manner of selecting delegates to the Electoral College.”

That statement was consistent with a widely discredited legal argument developed by Trump allies claiming Vice President Mike Pence could reject pro-Biden slates from key swing states such as Pennsylvania.

 By then, Mastriano was firmly on Trump’s radar. “Doug is the hero,” Trump said on Dec. 5, speaking to Mastriano while the senator was participating in a radio interview.

Around that time, Mastriano and another Pennsylvania Republican – U.S. Rep. Scott Perry – directly contacted Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Donoghue, urging him to investigate allegations of voter fraud, according to a report later compiled by the Democratic-led U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

Trump, during a Dec. 27 phone call with Donoghue and Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, mentioned Mastriano and Perry by name. “Just say the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen,” Trump said on the call, according to the report, which was based on interviews with Justice Department officials.

 Mastriano didn’t dispute the evidence in the report but said its allegations were “part of an ongoing, desperate attempt to distract from what progressive policies are doing to our country.”

He joined several of his Pennsylvania Senate GOP colleagues in signing a Jan. 4 letter urging Congress to delay certification of the Electoral College results.

Was Doug Mastriano in Washington during the Jan. 6 Capitol attack?

Mastriano’s campaign spent thousands of dollars on buses days before Jan. 6, and the senator posted on Facebook at the time offering bus rides to Washington that day. He has said he and his wife left the Capitol grounds before the riot ensued, but video footage appears to show them among a crowd passing through breached barricades set up by police to keep rioters at bay.

Mastriano has said he followed Capitol police directions and respected police lines as they “shifted.”

 

No footage has surfaced showing him inside the Capitol.

» READ MORE: From 20201: Mastriano says he left the Capitol area before the riot. New videos say otherwise.

Over the past year, Mastriano has continued to spread baseless claims of widespread fraud. In June, he traveled to Arizona to get a firsthand look at the widely discredited partisan election review commissioned by Republican lawmakers there.

Back in Pennsylvania, Mastriano sent letters to three counties, including Philadelphia, demanding voting equipment and virtually all election-related materials as he pursued what he called a “forensic investigation.”

The counties refused to comply, and Mastriano was later stripped of his committee chairmanship by Senate President Pro Tempore Jake Corman (R., Centre), who took control of the review and is now also running for governor.

Where does Doug Mastriano fall in the 2022 race for Pennsylvania governor?

Mastriano announced his campaign for governor last month at a rally in Gettysburg, where he was joined by Michael Flynn, the former Trump national security adviser and prominent election denier.

He has consistently won the support of about 20% of Republican voters in gubernatorial primary polls, often leading the field, according to GOP insiders who have seen internal data. A public poll released last week by Trafalgar Group showed Mastriano with 19.9%, trailing only former U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta. Corman, the next closest candidate, got 5%. More than a dozen Republicans are running.

Mastriano reported having about $550,000 in his campaign account to start the year — more than Barletta but less than several other rivals who are already spending money on TV ads.

The primary election is May 17. State Attorney General Josh Shapiro is the only established Democrat running.

Is Doug Mastriano’s subpoena a big deal?

The congressional committee demanded Mastriano turn over relevant materials by March 1 and appear for a deposition on March 10.

The senator’s spokesperson didn’t respond to a request for comment Tuesday.

It remains to be seen whether he will comply. Congress has voted to hold two people in contempt for failing to comply with the Jan. 6 committee’s subpoenas, and the Justice Department has charged one of them, Steve Bannon, with a crime. Bannon pleaded not guilty.

Given the extent to which Republican voters have wrongly come to see the 2020 election as stolen, it’s possible that being subpoenaed will only improve Mastriano’s prospects in the primary.

Published 
Feb. 16, 2022

 

Friday, February 11, 2022

Understanding Donald Trump's favorite obsession: Windmills by Chris Cillizza CNN

At a meeting with energy executives on Wednesday, President Joe Biden made what might seem like a bit of an odd comment.

"Are you getting less resistance when you start talking about wind and the windmills?" Biden asked. "I know they cause cancer. [Laughter.] Bad joke. I shouldn't kid about that. I shouldn't have kidded."
What, exactly, was Biden talking about? Well, he seemed to be referencing former President Donald Trump's obsession with windmills -- and his predecessor's false claims that they are shown to cause cancer.
The history of Trump's animosity toward windmills is long -- and deeply personal.
 
Back in the mid-2000s, Trump bought land in Aberdeen, Scotland, on which he planned to build a luxury golf course and resort. Shortly thereafter, he became aware of -- and opposed -- a plan to build 11 wind turbines off the Scottish coast.
"I am not thrilled," Trump said in 2006, according to the BBC. "I want to see the ocean, I do not want to see windmills."
And he didn't stop there. Not by a long shot.
 
And he didn't stop there. Not by a long shot.
"This is a very, very serious problem that we are addressing. In my opinion, it is one of the most serious problems that Scotland will have or has had," Trump told the Scottish Parliament in 2012 as he sought to keep the wind farm from being built.
Trump added: "I am an expert on tourism. If you dot your landscape with these horrible, horrible structures, you will do tremendous damage. ... Many countries have decided they don't want wind, because it doesn't work without massive subsidies, it kills massive amounts of birds and wildlife, and there are lots of other reasons."
In 2013, Trump tweeted about high winds damaging a turbine in Scotland and added this important message: "Any turbine in close proximity to a school must go!" That same year, Trump had this message for the Scots: "Economics behind ugly, bird killing wind turbines do not work -- will destroy Scotland's beautiful coastline."
Despite Trump's dire warnings, the wind turbines were built anyway. The UK Supreme Court ruled against his lawsuit to block the construction in 2015. The 11-turbine facility was completed in 2018. Trump was ordered to pay the Scottish government's legal bills for the wind turbine fight in 2019.
Getting elected president did nothing to change Trump's vendetta against windmills. If anything, he became even more outspoken.
"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75% in value," Trump told House Republicans when he spoke at a fundraiser in April 2019. "And they say the noise causes cancer." (Fact Check: Not true!)
And on the 2020 campaign trail, Trump worked windmills into his regular riff.
"If Hillary (Clinton) got in ... you'd be doing wind. Windmills," he said at a campaign rally in Michigan in the spring of 2019. "And if it doesn't blow, you can forget about television for that night. 'Darling, I want to watch television. I'm sorry! The wind isn't blowing.' ... I know a lot about wind."
And then there was this from an August 2019 rally in Pittsburgh:
"Unlike those big windmills that destroy everybody's property values, kill all the birds," Trump said. "One day, the environmentalists are going to tell us what's going on with that. And then all of a sudden, it stops. The wind and the televisions go off. And your wives and husbands say: 'Darling, I want to watch Donald Trump on television tonight. But the wind stopped blowing and I can't watch. There's no electricity in the house, darling.'"
And this from December 2019 speech in Florida:
"I never understood wind. You know, I know windmills very much," Trump said. "They're noisy. They kill the birds. You want to see a bird graveyard? Go under a windmill someday. You'll see more birds than you've ever seen in your life."
Donald Trump has been consistent about very few things in his life -- and political career. But he's always hated windmills.

 

Thursday, February 10, 2022

China bought none of the extra $200 billion of US exports in Trump's trade deal by Chad P. Bown (PIIE) February 8, 2022

Two years ago, President Donald Trump signed what he called a "historical trade deal" with China that committed China to purchase $200 billion of additional US exports before December 31, 2021. Today the only undisputed "historical" aspect of that agreement is its failure. One lesson is not to make deals that cannot be fulfilled when unforeseen events inevitably occur—in this case, a pandemic and a recession. Another is not to forget the complementary policies needed to give an agreement a chance to succeed.

In the end, China bought only 57 percent of the US exports it had committed to purchase under the agreement, not even enough to reach its import levels from before the trade war.[1] Put differently, China bought none of the additional $200 billion of exports Trump's deal had promised.

Trump's "phase one" agreement with his "very, very good friend" President Xi Jinping was not a total washout. The deal did halt his spiraling trade war. And several of its elements should be kept, notably China's commitments to remove technical barriers to US farm exports, respect intellectual property, and open up its financial services sector.

However, signing something that was problematic, if not unrealistic, from the start, shows some degree of bad faith on both sides. After two years of escalating tariffs and rhetoric about economic decoupling, the deal did little to reduce the uncertainty discouraging the business investment needed to restart US exports. Most of Trump's tariffs remained in effect, especially on inputs, raising costs to US companies. And by failing to negotiate the removal of China's retaliatory tariffs, the agreement may have funneled any Chinese demand for US exports away from China's private sector toward its state-owned enterprises.

The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic undermined any chance of success. Public health–related lockdowns and a short economic recession were accompanied by a temporary collapse in goods trade globally, even if China's imports were mostly spared. Restrictions on mobility also decimated US services exports like tourism and business travel.

But the pandemic was only one factor. Major American manufacturing sectors, for example, could not reverse their poor export performance in 2020–21. When confronted with trade war tariffs in 2018, some automakers moved their production out of the United States in order to maintain access to Chinese consumers. US aircraft sales plummeted in 2019, following crashes of Boeing's airplanes. In both sectors and despite the phase one agreement, US exports did not resume.

Trump set the US–China trade relationship on a new path, beginning with his trade war in 2018. Nearly four years later, the main lesson of the phase one agreement is that different terms for the trade relationship are still needed.

 China Was Never on Track to Meet Any of the Additional Purchase Commitments

The phase one agreement committed China to increases its purchases of certain US goods and services in 2020 and 2021 by at least $200 billion over 2017 levels (figure 1).[2] China agreed to buy at least $227.9 billion of US exports in 2020 and $274.5 billion in 2021, for a total of $502.4 billion over the two years.[3] The agreement also established legal commitments for a defined set of manufacturing, services, agricultural, and energy products, as examined below.

 ltimately, China bought only 57 percent of the US exports it committed to purchase over 2020–21. US exports of covered goods and services to China over the two years were $288.8 billion.[4]

The Biden administration was not to blame, as China was never on pace to meet its purchase commitments (figure 2). Trump's deal was agreed on December 13, 2019 and signed on January 15, 2020. By the end of June 2020, China's purchases were at only 54 percent of the pro-rated target; they reached 59 percent of the year-end commitment for 2020. China was never able to catch up, as the agreement was back-loaded, with additional purchase commitments for 2021 that were more than 60 percent higher than 2020.

In addition to the unrealistic $200 billion target, 18 months of trade war tariff escalation designed to decouple the two economies meant US goods exporters started from a hole. They would first have to reestablish connections with Chinese buyers to climb out of the 2019 trough—$13.6 billion lower than the agreement's 2017 baseline level—before chipping away at the additional $200 billion.

China ended up buying none of that extra $200 billion of US exports it had promised to purchase. (In Davos, only a week after it was signed, Trump boasted that the deal "could be closer to $300 billion when it finishes.") In 2020–21, China fell $13.6 billion short of reaching even the baseline level of purchases.[5]

 Manufacturing Exports Suffered in the Trade War and Did Not Recover

China purchased only 59 percent of the full commitment of US manufactured products in 2020–21 (figure 3). Manufacturing was the most economically significant part of the deal, making up 44 percent of covered US exports in 2017 (appendix table 1). Of that, autos and aircraft dominated US exports before the trade war. Both did poorly in 2020–21.[6]

 US auto exports reached only 39 percent of the target over 2020–21. The sector's suffering is a trade war cautionary tale.[7] In July 2018, Trump's tariffs on imports from China included auto parts; China's tariff retaliation hit US vehicle exports. US auto exports dropped sharply in 2018, as companies like Tesla and BMW reacted to the higher costs by moving production destined for the Chinese market out of the United States. (Ford, another major exporter, including through its Lincoln brand, complained in 2018 that Trump's separate steel and aluminum tariffs raised the cost of its US-based manufacturing by $1 billion.) Even when China lifted the retaliatory tariffs, in early 2019, US exports did not recover.

Sales of US aircraft, engines, and parts to China did even worse, reaching just 18 percent of the 2020–21 target. Though the industry was less directly impacted by trade war tariffs, US sales to China plummeted in 2019 following two crashes of the Boeing 737 MAX. Between March 2019 and late 2020, the model was grounded, with Boeing shutting down production in early 2020. China canceled orders in April 2020, and though the legal text allows credit for aircraft "orders and deliveries" (emphasis added), additional orders had not been publicly announced by the end of 2021, despite complaints by the Biden administration that Chinese policy was holding back sales. (Exports of the 737 MAX may eventually resume, as Chinese regulators instructed airlines in December 2021 to implement the changes needed to allow the model to fly again in China.)

 Not all manufactured exports performed poorly in 2020–21. Medical supplies needed to treat COVID-19 boomed. US exports of semiconductors and manufacturing equipment also accelerated—thanks to a combination of stockpiling by Chinese firms as US export controls in 2019–20 threatened to cut off companies like Huawei and SMIC as well as increased demand for chips needed for consumer electronics and data servers brought on by the pandemic shift to remote work, schooling, and leisure.

COVID-19 Devastated Exports of Services

Services were the second-largest part of the deal, comprising another 37 percent of US exports to China. When the phase one agreement was signed, in early 2020, China's services purchase commitments were arguably the most reasonable.[8] The buying ask was relatively modest. Trade war tariffs had not directly hit US services exports; their phase one starting point was therefore actually above 2017 baseline levels. Finally, China took on additional commitments in the agreement expected to benefit services exports. It promised to open its market to foreign providers of financial services (Chapter 4) and agreed to improve protection of intellectual property rights (Chapter 1) and curtail the forcible transfer of foreign technology (chapter 2), potentially benefiting US services exports recorded as "charges for intellectual property."  

Yet, US services exports to China plummeted in 2020–21, reaching only 52 percent of the commitment (figure 4).[9] Travel made up more than half of US services exports to China in the years before 2019. Both tourism and business travel fell 90 percent in 2020, as a result of the pandemic.[10] US exports of educational services—Chinese students studying at American colleges and universities—also dropped

.a's other phase one commitments affecting services exports also showed no immediate returns, although they could potentially be beneficial over the long term. Both financial services exports and charges for intellectual property, for example, declined slightly in 2020; combined, they made up 20 percent of US services exports to China in 2017.[11]

Agriculture Exports Suffered in the Trade War, Received Subsidies, and Then Recovered

To the Trump administration, agriculture was the most politically important part of the deal, despite accounting for only 14 percent of covered exports. When China's retaliatory tariffs hurt US farm exports in 2018–19, Trump awarded the sector tens of billions of dollars in federal subsidies. In the days leading up to the 2020 election, the administration released a report touting resumed farm sales to China—ignoring the continued troubles facing US manufacturing, energy, and services exports. US farm exports did get back to 2017 levels and ultimately reached 83 percent of the 2020–21 commitment

 

Soybeans made up roughly 60 percent of US agricultural exports to China in 2017. They were devastated by the trade war, falling from $12 billion to only $3 billion in 2018, when China imposed retaliatory tariffs. Though soybean exports managed to reach their pre–trade war levels over 2020–21, they still fell over 30 percent short of their target.

Products like pork, corn, wheat, and sorghum exceeded expectations, though not necessarily because of the agreement. A local outbreak of African swine fever led China to increase pork imports from the United States in 2019 before the deal was agreed. (In 2020–21, China's pigmeat imports from the rest of the world also averaged about five times 2017 levels.) Corn and wheat imports increased after China began to comply with a 2019 World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement ruling against its unfilled tariff rate quotas.[13] (Compared with 2017, China's imports from the rest of the world in 2020–21 were roughly 350 percent higher for corn and 200 percent higher for wheat, on average.) Some farm exports also benefited less from the purchase commitments but from the agreement's Chapter 3, which removed some Chinese nonscientific regulatory barriers affecting trade.

Other seafood and farm products did not rebound from the effects of the trade war. After being hit with Chinese tariffs, US lobster exports, for example, re-achieved about half of their target in 2020–21. US exports of raw hides and skins ended up at less than one-third.

Carbon-Intensive Energy Exports Had Unrealistic Targets but Grew Steadily

Historically, the United States has not been a large energy exporter to China. Trump tried to change that by establishing a large commitment for carbon-intensive energy products (figure 6). US energy exports in 2021 were more than double pre-trade war levels, even though China's purchases reached only 37 percent of the commitment over 2020–21. Coal, crude oil, and liquefied natural gas all contributed to the increase.

 A number of factors affected energy sales. Energy was one sector where failing to meet the obligations may be partially explained by (knowable) capacity constraints. According to Bloomberg, for example, in January 2020, the US industry informed the Trump administration that it lacked the capacity to fulfill the commitments.[14] (The returns to export capacity expansion may also have been uncertain, if long-term US policy involves pressuring China to decarbonize by cutting reliance on coal-fired power plants.) The fact that the commitments were written in value (dollars) and not volume (e.g., barrels of oil) terms also meant that they were not immune from price shocks. Crude oil prices briefly turned negative in April 2020, depressing the value of sales; by the fall of 2021, they had doubled from one year earlier, over-inflating the value of sales.

 Was the trade war worth it for US exporters? The answer so far is no. Suppose that in 2018–21, US goods exports to China of phase one products had grown at the same pace as China's imports of those products from the world and that US services exports to China had grown at the rate of US services exports to the world. Cumulative US goods and services exports to China in 2018–21 were about 19 percent lower with the trade war and phase one agreement 

 

These estimates suggest the United States would have avoided trade war export losses of $24 billion (16 percent) in 2018 and $30 billion (20 percent) in 2019. Exports would also have been $26 billion (18 percent) higher in 2020 and $39 billion (23 percent) higher in 2021 than under phase one. Without the export losses in 2018–19, American taxpayers would also not have needed to foot the bill for tens of billions of dollars of farm subsidies.

The trade war was also costly to the US economy through the impact of the US tariffs. Numerous economic studies have documented that the effect of the tariffs was to raise prices and hurt American consumers and companies buying imported inputs, harming American competitiveness by reducing employment and sales. [15] Some sectors and workers may have benefited from the US tariffs, but those gains were more than offset by losses by others, resulting in overall damage to the US economy.


 


 

Wednesday, February 9, 2022

Ear Wax

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com


What is earwax? – Helen E., age 8, Somerville, Massachusetts


Imagine you’re watching TV. Suddenly, your ear feels a little itchy. You stick your pinky finger in there and dig around a bit. You pull it out and stare at the little brownish blob on the tip of your finger.

That’s earwax. This kind of waxy ear booger has plagued people for centuries. Tools to remove earwax from thousands of years ago have been discovered in ancient Roman and at Viking archaeological sites. But if you could snap your fingers and suddenly wish away all the earwax in the world, it might not be as great as you imagine.

I’m a pediatric otolaryngologist – otherwise known as an ear, nose and throat doctor for children. I work at Seattle Children’s Hospital and mainly see kids who have problems with their ears. Sometimes I encounter a patient who has something in their ear that shouldn’t be there – insects, gummy worms and beautiful gemstone beads are some of my personal favorites that I’ve removed. But what I see all the time is a lot of earwax.

Your ear canal is lined with skin cells, as well as different glands that release various substances into the canal. Earwax is produced in your ear canal and is basically a mix of skin cells, sweat and fatty oils. These things mix together to form small – or sometimes rather big – globs of golden-brown gunk.

cross-section diagram of the human ear system
Earwax is found in the outer part of your ear, in the ear canal. Ace2020/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Everyone’s earwax is unique. Some is more pasty, some is dry, some is yellow, brown or black. Scientists have figured out a gene that seems to calibrate how wet or dry your wax is. So, if your wax is really pasty and stinky, it’s another thing you can blame on your parents.

While you might think it is just a nuisance, earwax actually plays some important roles. It helps keep the skin in your ear healthy and moist, and doctors think it may protect the ear canal from infections. If there were no earwax in the world, your ears would feel dry and itchy. You would probably scratch at them constantly and get ear canal infections more frequently.

But maybe you’re convinced a buildup of earwax is making your ears itch – not to mention preventing you from hearing when you’re called to dinner. In that case, is it better to get it out of there?

Many people are tempted to stick something in their ears to try to get wax out and give the ear a nice little scratch. The problem is that while you might get a little wax out, you’re probably pushing more in than you’re extracting. If you keep pushing more and more in, sooner or later your ear canal will be packed and overflowing with waxy goodness.

 




Earwax is found in the outer part of your ear, in the ear canal. Ace2020/iStock via Getty Images Plus


little girl poking her finger in her ear
Don’t be hard on your earwax – it’s actually doing an important job. kool99/E+ via Getty Images

So what is the best way to remove it? Believe it or not, on its own the ear canal naturally pushes earwax out of your ear. As skin grows in the ear canal, it forms a natural conveyor belt for the earwax. In general, it should slowly migrate to the outside of your ear canal and just fall out when you run around or bathe. When you chew, your jaw movement also seems to help wax come out of your ear.

This is a natural process and a long journey to freedom for those little ear boogers. They want to get out of your ear canal, too, so don’t push them back in by sticking a Q-tip in your ear. Some people mistakenly think lighting a candle by your ear is a great way create a vacuum and suck wax out of your ear. It isn’t – research shows that it doesn’t actually work, so please don’t light any fires next to your head.

Sometimes it can help to use different types of ear drops to soften up wax and help it come out on its own. There are some drops you can buy at the store, and some simple products like mineral oil that can also do the trick. If your ear gets too full of wax, you might need to see your doctor to have it carefully cleaned out. Don’t try this at home!



Thursday, February 3, 2022

The global supply chain is amazingly efficient. So why did it break down?

 Wall Street Journal columnist Christopher Mims says the global supply chain has become so cost effective that it can lead to surprising detours. That's the case with cod fish caught in Scotland, which are frozen and sent to China or Southeast Asia to be filleted, and then shipped back to Scotland to be sold.

"It's a journey of many thousands of miles, because transporting that cod is so much cheaper than paying domestic workers to prepare that cod," Mims says.

 Mims' new book, Arriving Today, takes a close look at the global supply chain, following a hypothetical USB charger from a Vietnamese factory where it's made to its delivery to a home in Connecticut. That journey traverses 14,000 miles and 12 times zones, and involves a complex network of barges, shipping containers, trucks, warehouses, robots and workers.

 Mims calls modern container ships "the most efficient way we've ever invented to move goods." And yet, the global supply chain is not without disruptions — especially during the pandemic. There have been price spikes and shortages of big-ticket items like cars and building materials, as well as products as common as toilet paper and cream cheese. Mims says those issues can frequently be traced back to labor shortages and increased demand.

"Basically, Americans went on a shopping spree as soon as lockdown started, and we haven't really stopped since," he says. "We are ordering so much stuff and we have transferred so much of our spending from services — like hospitality, going on vacations, eating out — to goods that it has really jammed up the works of the global supply chain. It's totally a demand issue."

 On the labor shortage contributing to supply chain disruption

Supply chains are really made out of people. As much automation as there is in there, if you don't have the people to run all of that automation and to work alongside it, you cannot move those goods quickly enough or in sufficient quantities, and their price goes up. So the labor crunch is the supply chain crisis, is the [increase] in inflation, is the sort of global macro macroeconomic problem of our time. It really all comes back to supply chains and to people.

 On the scale of container ships

Picture the Empire State Building laid on its side. It's almost exactly those dimensions. The largest of them, the very largest, you can put four soccer pitches on their deck and still have a little bit of room left over. But you're talking about a vessel that from the water line to the top is 15 stories tall. And the biggest of them can carry 10,000 40-ft. shipping containers. ... It just drives the cost down by making these ships bigger and bigger.

 On crew life on a container ship

To be a crew on a modern ship that's moving shipping containers has jokingly been compared to being in prison. But it's only sort of half joking. It's like you're living in an office building that you can never leave. You're going to see sunset and sunrise, and they might be stunning, but you're sort of confined to the bridge, especially if you're an officer, and your job is managerial and you're doing navigation. And if you're a so-called able-bodied seamen, you might be walking the ship doing repairs.

But the other joke about this is, become a sailor, travel around the world, see none of it. Because when these ships arrive in port, that whole process is so swift, so automated. These ships can be turned around in as little as 24 hours. These sailors might not even have a chance to leave the ship when they arrive in port, and yet they might be on a six-month round-trip journey halfway around the world. And so the life of a modern sailor is, I think, in some ways it's very lonely. They're not allowed to drink onboard. They're very rarely going ashore. It's strangely kind of an office job on the high seas.

At minimum, these ships need maybe a dozen people for a skeleton crew. But the size of the crews keep shrinking even as the ships keep growing.

 On there not being enough long-haul truckers willing to do the job

 We don't have so much a shortage of long-haul truck drivers in the United States as we have a burnout and retention problem. So there are three or four times as many people as are driving trucks [who] currently have the license, which should allow them to drive trucks, which just shows you how many people tried that job and said, "This isn't for me." So long haul trucking is an extremely fragmented industry. Even the biggest carriers, the ones whose names you might recognize from road trips, like Werner or Swift or whatever, even those biggest carriers, if you combine them all, there's still less than a fifth of all the capacity of long-haul truck transportation in the U.S. ...

When shipping rates drop, a lot of these small companies get wiped out. At the same time, because more and more demands are being placed on these drivers — especially throughout the pandemic, because so much more material was being shipped — it's become a lifestyle that a lot of people just find completely unsustainable.

 On the grueling physical labor of Amazon warehouses and the pressure to keep pace 

 [Amazon has] so many of these fulfillment centers, more than 100 all over the United States, and by the way, that's just the giant million-square-foot fulfillment centers, that doesn't include the hundreds of other warehouses that they use for other purposes. The challenge is they're employing so many people — more than a million and a half people now — that I'm not sure that that standard allows them to retain enough workers. They have turnover above 100 percent at these warehouses, typically, which means that 100 percent of those workers on average are going to be gone after one year. So are there enough people for them to continue hiring? That's one reason that they have instituted $18 an hour for these Amazon workers in the warehouses. That attracts a lot of people. Sometimes it even attracts people to come back seasonally. But that's been Amazon's approach, rather than changing the pace of work.

 On why this efficient system broke down during the pandemic 

 This amazingly efficient system broke down during the pandemic because it was asked to do more than it ever has. Supply chains are designed to flex on a seasonal basis. Shippers know, OK, holiday season is coming. It's September. We better requisition our shipping containers and buy all of our goods and get them starting to move to us so they can be in stores by October, November. But we needed so much material so quickly, whether that was PPE, or toilet paper or lumber, that that system was asked to move as much goods as it normally would during the peak of the holiday season, but really for months. Just starting within a couple of months after the pandemic kicked off and we were all locked down and we were all ordering things at home, every link in that supply chain, from ocean vessels to long-haul trucks to last-mile delivery, was asked to operate at its peak capacity.

 On how these supply chain issues aren't going to be fixed anytime soon

 

I think that the supply chain problems we're having now, which are at the root of current inflation, are going to persist for a long time. And part of that is because we just have more demand for goods and that seems to be persistent. And part of that is because we're just ordering more stuff online and we're ordering more stuff in different ways through e-commerce. And the other part of it is that we live in a world now where it's not just about pandemics. This news gets missed because Delta and Omicron kind of swamp it, but there have been all kinds of disasters, natural disasters, extreme weather, political issues which have shut down ports and factories all over the world.

Malaysia got shut down, and this is a key link in the global semiconductor supply chain, because of COVID. That was months ago. Well, a lot of those facilities have been shut down again because of severe flooding in Malaysia. So what happens is these single points of failure can get hit by all kinds of different disasters. And then you wake up tomorrow and unexpectedly lumber prices are really high or you can't get a new car because one microchip was missing. So I think that these intermittent outages are going to persist for a very long time. It's kind of just the nature of global supply chains now.