The BBC takes a look at the impact of Enron on the city of Houston. Beyond all the corruption, fraud, sad stories and bankruptcy of the company, their report concludes with a comment of hope:
“But again, this is a city that doesn’t want to remember. They’re not introspective – they just pick themselves up and start over again. That’s what they’ve done.”
And that’s fine, unless it takes you right into the next Enron. The whole point of the Freudian revolution in psychology, I thought, was to actually deal with the issues in a frank and open manner in order to avoid repeating mistakes. I still remember when companies in California were told to completely shut down operations during rolling brown-outs, only to find out that Enron manufactured the shortages.
Not wanting to remember might make it easier to start anew, but if the US does not address energy market corruption the citizens/companies will suffer the same or even worse pain in the future. If you listen to Cheney, you might start to think that the “broken-window fallacy” could become a major policy platform for economic success:
“You’ll thank me for rebuilding your house”
— But my house is still standing
“You’ll thank me for renting you a demolition crew when you have to clear the rubble from your lot”
— What rubble? The house is still standing
“You’ll thank me for burning your house down when the police have to take it over”
— What? Why would the police take it over?
“You’ll thank me for sending the police to get rid of the problem with your neighbors”
— But there’s nothing wrong with the neighbors
“You’ll thank me for buying the properties next door and renting them out to people of my choosing”
— Wait a minute…
Success for the Cheney companies that run energy and reconstruction projects, that is. Failure for the economy.
Just read an amusing article in the Guardian about using your lawn to heat your home, based on the concept of heat pumps.
With fossil fuels becoming alarmingly expensive, this environmentally friendly and low-cost alternative to gas central heating is finally coming into its own in the UK. It is incrediblyeffective, capable of achieving 400% efficiency – giving out more energy (typically 3 to 4 kilowatts) than the householder puts in to run it (typically 1KW). By comparison, an average gas boiler works at 90% efficiency at best.
According to Professor David Reay, of Heriot-Watt University, an expert on heat pumps, little can be said against them. Variants that extract heat from outside air perform less well in cold weather, just when the heat is needed most.
I thought the close of the article was insightful:
So if heat pumps are such a great idea, why haven’t they caught on before? “Gas has been cheap, and the British are capital-averse,” sighs Tony Bowen [president of the Heat Pumps Association, the UK trade body]. “As a nation, we are bad at investing in low long-term running costs.”
It goes far beyond the nation…but it is good to see the UK seeking less dependence on oil as well as more distributed/resiliant sources of energy.
I think this is brilliant (pun intended). It reminds me of the concept of armored spaces that protect the inhabitants while retaining visual/light capabilities, but this adds in a component of also powering itself. Plain glass windows have been ok, but they clearly have drawbacks (ok, sometimes the puns just jump out). In this case the UV is blocked by walls, while a solar panel collects energy and glass fibers distribute the light. So, fiberlight (plus video) should provide a radical reduction in risks while maintaining many benefits from windows.
Wonder what Milton would have said about this fine use of talent to produce technology that might protect those who speak out in favor of a republic and against the supreme executive (e.g. he feared he “lost his light” because of writings like “the Tenure of Kings and Magistrates” and his support of Cromwell)…
When I Consider How My Light Is Spent
by John Milton (1608-1674)
When I consider how my light is spent
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest he returning chide,
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask. But Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies: "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts: who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best. His state
Is kingly; thousands at his bidding speed
And post o'er land and ocean without rest:
They also serve who only stand and wait."
Recent events in the waters off the Somali coast are probably a sign of things to come. Pirates there have been a serious problem for many years (although historically dwarfed by the waters near Indonesia or even Nigeria), and the modern Navy has tended to only intervene and respond to civilian vessels after a mayday. This means that the Pirates are essentially taking the opportunity to attack highly vulnerable and ill-prepared victims.
The main difference between pirates and terrorists seems to be that the latter is motivated by some political mission, whereas the former are just hoping to increase their wealth by force (motivated by greed). When we heard about the cruise ship that was hit with an a RPG, but managed to repel the attackers with a loud noise, we were led to believe there were just pirates afoot (and not internationally funded criminal syndicates with a political agenda).
While that’s likely, one has to wonder at what (economic) point does the market for pirates give way to the politics of terrorists? Al Qaeda, of course, has been rumored to be discussing the use of vessels, including large fuel tankers, at sea in the same fashion as they had used airplanes on 9/11. Makes sense that they would discuss any vehicle under the sun given the nature of suicide bombing and the need to rapidly and discreetly “insert” themselves into a civilian zone.
Relative spatial density of reported pirate incidents in the Gulf of Aden for 2008 Therefore, if the threat of pirates increases far enough and ships remain vulnerable, eventually terrorists will make the glaringly obvious connection. The question then becomes whether countermeasures will be able to detect and prevent sufficient numbers of attacks to catch all those that might be linked to terror motives, and whether the root cause should/can be addressed rather than the symptoms.
I picked up a morsel of news several months ago that SEALs were actively training to rescue a large ship that had been commandeered in the Indian Ocean. The shipping company decided to pay a ransom (e.g. pirate motives were satisfied) rather than have the US military take it back by force. It’s hard to say more without the full details but it seems lucky to me that all those attackers wanted was money. My guess is the Navy was thinking the same thing, and the Seals were probably extremely disappointed in having their mission cancelled, so it’s no surprise to now hear in the mainstream press that US warships have started engaging the threat more and more proactively. The AP report regarding the latest Somali case notes that:
The Churchill is part of a multinational task force patrolling the western Indian Ocean and Horn of Africa region to thwart terrorist activity and other lawlessness during the U.S.-led war in Iraq
“Thwart terrorist activity and other lawlessness” is exactly what I am talking about. Does this mean the US Navy is now set to enforce the law in International waters? And do they need to mention multinational forces and the Iraq war in order to justify enforcing the law? The article also mentions “The Navy said it captured the dhow in response to a report from the International Maritime Bureau in Kuala Lumpur on Friday…” but it remains to be seen why this pirate ship in particular was of interest to the US Navy and why this is making mainstream news.
Beyond the threats of lawlessness, we still must face the general issue of vulnerability of ships. Although I’ve seen some improvements, I have to say that things like electrified fences have serious draw-backs. Aside from falling into one yourself, it is a single control point and rather prone to failure (electricity is not plentiful or reliable at sea) as well as somewhat easy to work around (attackers might just move on to the next vessel, but if they are everywhere what would stop them from just developing insulation/shorting equipment?). While naval engineering has made great strides in making boats more seaworthy, this has not translated into innovation in private boating anti-piracy measures. When you think of the boating industry in general, do consumers want to spend money on teak fittings, extra shipping capacity, or surveillance cameras and ammunition? Thus, I think the best answer today actually is a reduction in threats, which means that (multi)national forces will have to find ways to cooperatively police the International waterways before the path of the pirates is joined by terrorists. I hate to say it, but it reminds me of the “great Naval powers”…what would Admiral Nelson do?
2019: Updated to add UNOSAT maps to replace deprecated secure-marine.com links
a blog about the poetry of information security, since 1995
I think 
