Why Carbon Sequestration is Probably a Bad Thing

The US Department of Energy is planning to start this week on a large-scale project for carbon sequestration in Illinois. So why is this a bad thing?

Well, let's suppose, in hypothetical candyland where government projects do what they are supposed to, without negative side effects, on-time and on-budget, that this project succeeds. Ok, good for us, we've removed CO2 from the atmosphere. I applaud your efforts DOE.

This does NOT solve the problem of rising energy needs. Rather, I believe the effect may even be in the opposite direction. Psychologically, the idea that CO2 emissions can be reduced "magically" will diminish efforts to change behavior to reduce CO2 emissions in the first place. And that IS a major problem. Fossil fuels WILL run out (or be hideously expensive) within a few decades at current rates of consumption (and growth in consumption). Running out of fossil fuels without the energy infrastructure to replace them is going to cause a major global crisis that will not be resolved easily. Not to mention, petroleum by-products (plastic) have vital uses and are even more important for a lot of products we commonly use.

Climate change is only one of the major global problems that needs to be addressed in the near future (i.e. this century). And CO2 emissions are only one facet of that problem. As reported by Arstechnica from the AAAS meeting, the numbers for replacing fossil-fuel energy production with "renewable" sources is already extremely daunting. The most economical/efficient way to address that problem is to tackle it from multiple directions: improved efficiency (less usage, less waste), increased production from "renewable" sources (e.g. solar, tidal, wind, etc.), and finally carbon-scrubbing to reduce CO2 concentrations back to pre-industrial levels (i.e. 280 ppm atmosphere, and slowly equilibrate the oceans to that level). Introducing a carbon sequestration project is putting the cart before the horse: we should be focusing on the SOURCE of the problem (energy consumption) rather than simply mitigating the aftereffects because it is the most publicly recognized facet of the problem.

But, in the end, I guess Congress is a lot better at punting the problem and buying time, than in spending preemptively to alleviate future problems. Unfortunately, I happen to be one of those young'uns who is going to end up paying for the mistakes of the past. (*cough* war on terror, social security, etc.)

DRM comments

Here is the comment I sent to the FTC for their upcoming workshop on DRM:

I share the opinion of several others that there are aspects of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) that are particularly disruptive for consumers such as myself. Specifically, making the bypassing of Digital Rights Management (DRM) illegal is restrictive towards the needs of certain users. I built my desktop computer with a high-end monitor, and surround-sound speakers. In the interest of playing blu-ray high-definition (HD) movies, I began considering the purchase of a blu-ray drive to install in my computer. However, upon further research, I realized that playing back blu-ray movies would not be so simple. Because of High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP), a form of DRM on blu-ray discs, I would need to purchase a new video card that supports HDCP, a new monitor that supports HDCP, a new sound card that supports HDCP, a new receiver, in addition to software and "upgrading" to Windows Vista. Similarly, if I were to purchase a consumer blu-ray player (such as a PS3 or other device) I would need to purchase a new monitor and receiver to view/hear HD content. Needless to say, I was disheartened. Alternatively, if I downloaded blu-ray movies from the internet, there would be no such restrictions and I would be able to play HD content without

I fully support the entertainment industry by purchasing content legally. My personal feeling is that artists, writers, producers, etc. should be rightfully rewarded for their efforts. However, I do not like being forced to purchase hardware because of these restrictions. In effect, I am being punished for trying to play HD content the ONLY legal way. In addition to downloading content (a copyright violation) I could also use software to “rip” HD content to my computer for playback without needing a new video card / monitor / sound card / etc. However, under the DMCA, this manner of bypassing DRM is illegal.

As many have pointed out and will continue to point out, DRM is ineffective: it restricts users such as myself from enjoying the full freedoms of legally purchased content that are enjoyed by those who obtain such content illegally. As noted by security experts, DRM will always be imperfect: there will always be people who will be able to hack/crack/break the encryption and make the content freely available on the internet to download. DRM only creates shackles for legitimate users.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that this issue has been present for some time. DVD's which have CSS, a form of DRM, require a player that is capable of decrypting the content. However, such players, to my knowledge, were never legally available for users who run Linux operating systems. As such, a program, DeCSS was created in 1999 that bypasses this form of DRM and is illegal under the DMCA. The Motion Picture Association of America (spec. its former president, Jack Valenti) had promised to create legal DVD player software for Linux that would enable users to view DVD's with CSS encryption. However, to my knowledge, they have failed to follow through on this: thus, users who wish to play CSS-encrypted DVD's on a Linux computer can only use illegal tools to bypass the DRM

Industry CANNOT be trusted to follow through on their "promises" to facilitate use of legally purchased content for consumers and end-users. The only option for individuals, then, is to bypass DRM illegally, download content illegally (copyright violation), or forgo such content. The primary purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals. Thus, the FTC should regulate the ability of industry to abuse DRM: creating additional exceptions to the DMCA for individuals to bypass DRM to enjoy content legally is a vital action to protect individual rights and freedoms.

LCD Monitors

I was sitting in lab the other day, staring at my monitor, wondering why it appeared so twinkly. After all, it was an Apple Cinema Display (aluminum-frame) 23", very similar to the monitor I have at home (HP L2335 23"), but for some reason, it was annoying the heck out of me.

Curious, I opened my laptop to look at its screen, and the display was not sparkly at all, although it was quite glossy, true to form. So, arriving home that day, I took to looking up LCD monitor information. I was, of course, interested in the possibility of buying a cheap second monitor for myself. Through some digging, I was not surprised to find that those large, cheap LCD screens mostly use TN panel technology, just like laptop panels. And if you've seen laptop panels at a bit of a vertical or horizontal angle, then you've seen the primary bad quality about a TN panel, which is really shitty viewing angle. Beyond that, color reproduction is also quite poor, although response time is the fastest. This wasn't anything new to me, but I was trying to figure out the panel type for Apple's LED cinema display, assuming that I will be able to get my hands on an DVI->displayport adapter or some updated Mac Mini that has a displayport output. This website, which keeps a comprehensive list of S-IPS and H-IPS monitors seems to indicate that Apple's monitors have always been S-IPS or H-IPS. Now confused about the issue of H-IPS vs. S-IPS, I found another site, which actually addressed my original question. The likely culprit is probably the anti-glare coating on the monitor that is causing the "twinkling".

Now, onto the amusing part of the whole issue, which is simply that Apple appears to have always used S-IPS and H-IPS panels, at least in their stand-alone monitors and the newer iMac's. Ironically, all the people who laugh at Apple fans who buy those products because they come with the "Apple Tax" are unaware of the display quality, esp. compared to some of the offerings by other manufacturers. (Certainly, the story of Dell pulling a bait-and switch with one of its monitors has been the source of a minor brouhaha in the past: the first rollout came with S-IPS [for reviews?] and then was switched over to S-PVA [for cheapness?].) All things considered, $800 (educational price) for a 24" LED-backlit H-IPS monitor is a pretty good deal. And for those more economically minded, the HP version without LED-backlighting is ~$600.

Oh, and HDCP, still hate its fucking guts.