Note: Every Sunday I write an op-ed article for the Huffington Post.  You can see this article in its original context here

A recent leaked report from the World Bank, stating that 75% of the increase in world food prices is due to biofuels, has served to reignite the food vs. fuel debate. In particular, many are outraged that even as food prices rise corn continues to be used for ethanol rather than tortillas. However, what is lost in all the biofuel controversy is the fact that tremendous amounts of land are devoted neither to fuel nor nutritive food, but rather to non-nutritive uses like tobacco, high fructose corn syrup and cane sugar.

Blame Meat and High Fructose Corn Syrup

The fact of the matter is that if we are really concerned about rising food prices and endemic hunger/poverty, then we’ll have to do more than question the biofuel mandates in the United States and the European Union. In truth, we’ll have to call into question much of our agricultural system. For instance, we might ask the world’s billion or so wealthy citizens to curtail meat consumption, which is not only responsible for 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but also uses tremendous amounts of land, water and food–all of which could be devoted to staple crops that the poor need to survive. Or, we might take a second look at the amount of corn that is used for high fructose corn syrup, which does little more than contribute to the American obesity epidemic.

I wrote this article for the Huffington Post.  It can be seen in its original context here.



Cycling Has An Image Problem

For the last five years the bicycle has been my sole means of transportation, and I happen to feel pretty good about that. Sure, it means my carbon footprint is smaller and I save money on gas and insurance, but what really matters to me is that cycling keeps me in shape and is fun, and I love the beauty and technology of bicycles. In fact, when I complete my masters degree and start earning more money, my hope is not to be able to afford a Mercedes, but rather a carbon fiber race bike. Unfortunately, for most people the bicycle is something you use for transportation until you are successful enough to buy a car; that the bicycle is not seen as a sexy, technologically advanced machine worth aspiring to tells me that cycling has an image problem.

This image problems crops up in numerous T.V. shows and movies. One example is The 40 Year Old Virgin, where Steve Carell, in the role of a loser, rides his bike everywhere. The message that is constantly conveyed is that not only is cycling for transportation inconvenient and dangerous, it’s also a sign of failure. It isn’t surprising, then, that people aspire to purchase a better, faster, sexier car: that’s what signifies that one is moving up in the world. What’s more, any ‘Ten Things You Can Do for the Environment’ list will invariably include cycling, which turns a simple bike ride into some sort of heroic act instead of what it is: fun and good for you. And, as I pointed out last week, people don’t want to be heroes, they want to work for a better world by having fun and using their creativity and talent to solve problems (think of a kind of Google workplace for saving the world).

Note: I wrote this article for the Huffington Post.  It can be read in its original context here

A New Model

During the twentieth century, if you wanted to save the world chances are you sought to emulate Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King or any number of tremendous individuals whose fight for justice was characterized by self-abnegation and spiritual rigor. To some extent, that was because the average person lacked the requisite tools to reach the whole world with her ideas. But with the proliferation of computers, the internet, and information technology, a new model has emerged that dramatically lowers the barriers to entry to saving the world and, to put it simply, makes doing so more fun. What’s more, not only is the old model outdated, it sets a high bar that keeps out the very creative thinkers that can solve 21st century problems.

Whom Should We Admire?

In a recent NY Times article titled ’The Moral Instinct,’ Steven Pinker posed the following question: “Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug?” He went on to point out that while most would lionize Mother Teresa, demonize Bill Gates and ask ‘Who is Norman Borlaug?’, if one looks at what each of them accomplished, the answer is quite different. Dr. Borlaug, father of the so-called Green Revolution (for which he received a nobel peace prize in 1970), is credited with having done more to abate world hunger than anyone in history. Bill Gates, through his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, is at the forefront of dealing with the world’s deadliest, yet most treatable, diseases. Mother Theresa, on the other hand, “offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.”

Note: I wrote this article for the Huffington Post.  It can be read in its original context here



It’s amazing how unaware Americans are of the extent to which our economy is dependent on oil. Amazing not only because of the consequences–geopolitical, environmental and social–of oil addiction, but also because oil prices affect every aspect of our daily lives. I was reminded of this fact the other day when I went to my local bike shop. There, the talk wasn’t about carbon fiber and chainrings, but rather about how the cost of shipping has skyrocketed over the last few months (fortunately for the bike shop, high gas prices also mean business is booming). Meanwhile, food riots in Haiti, Egypt and Mexico have made headlines, and the airline industry, hit particularly hard by fuel costs, has gone so far as to begin charging $15 per checked bag.

From high-end bike shops in Providence, Rhode Island, to the slums of Port-Au-Prince, and everywhere in between, people are directly feeling the effects of $130 a barrel oil. Yet there is still no sense of urgency in American political discourse. President Bush was recently on his hands and knees begging OPEC to pump more oil (which they declined to do), and both John McCain and Hillary Clinton have been touting a federal gas tax holiday. Some believe that once oil gets expensive enough America will be forced to truly seek out new sources of energy. But that kind of thinking belies a fundamental problem: the switch to an economy based on renewable energy won’t happen overnight, and it will require far more than a mere policy fix. Just try to think of one product you buy that can be manufactured and delivered without fossil fuels and you’ll see that the scale of the problem dwarfs our current proposed solutions.