Earth Hour Observed (2009)

Just like last year, we observed Earth Hour again, this time on Saturday night (28 March, 2009). We switched off all lights and shut down the computers, then took an hour-long walk from 2030 to 2130.

Again, like last year, we noticed that many houses along the streets we saw did not turn off their lights, so it wasn't a total success.

My question remains - how much does this really do for the environment? At what point does tokenism translate to tangible impact?

Stratfor CEO George Friedman Seems Eerily Prescient

I've been reading a most fascinating book, "The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century" by George Friedman, the CEO of Stratfor (which stands for Strategic Forecasting).

Among other predictions that Friedman makes based on geopolitical considerations is a rather dramatic one about war between the United States and a Japanese-Turkish alliance in about 2050. According to him, the war will begin with a Japanese Pearl Harbour-style attack on US Battlestar satellites. The attack will be launched from Japan's lunar base, Friedman adds.

Today, I read this news item in the papers. Japan plans to sends a robot explorer to the moon by 2020, and a human astronaut by 2030.

It's 2009, and Japan has seemingly begun its baby steps towards war with the US. It was an eerie feeling to read today's newspaper, knowing what I know of Friedman's prediction.

How Can We Trust Science?

I'm all for the rationalist approach to life. I would like to have science rule my actions and my thinking. But in practice, science often leaves me feeling cheated.

Last year, a glass of red wine a day was good for me. It was rich in antioxidants, which helped to fight cancer.

This year, even two small glasses of red wine a day can cause ... cancer.

Thinking scientifically therefore, the act of pouring wine into smaller glasses seems to be what introduces carcinogens into the system.

Come back, religion and superstition, all is forgiven!

Unit Pricing Cuts Both Ways

I wrote glowingly of Woolworths's Unit Pricing scheme just days ago, and today I was pleased to see that ALDI's also has it. As an exercise, I decided to compare the unit prices of items on my grocery list, and this is the result:

Item                        ALDI's                Woolworths
----                        ------                ----------
Light milk                  $1.40/litre           $2.63/litre
Wholemeal bread             $0.28/100g            $0.59/100g
Free range eggs             $0.69/100g            $0.72/100g
Low fat yoghurt             $0.47/100g            $0.59/100g
Honey (squeezable pack)     $0.60/100g            $1.00/100g
Cranberry juice             $2.79/litre           $3.86/litre
Carrots                     $1.25/kg              $1.29/kg
Beans                       $7.00/kg              $2.98/kg
Cashews                     $1.74/100g            $1.86/100g
Kitchen towels              $0.75/roll            $0.95/roll
Vit B (Benifex/Berocca)     $0.35/unit            $0.50/unit
--- added 25/01/2009 ---
Pesto                       $1.53/100g            $2.16/100g
Toilet tissue               $0.50/roll (6 pack)   $0.41/roll (9 pack)
Green seedless grapes       $2.00/kg              $3.86/kg
Garlic                      $3.38/kg              $10.98/kg
Frozen stir-fry veges       $5.78/kg              $6.24/kg

I always knew that Woolworths was more expensive than ALDI's, but this was a real eye-opener. ALDI's has fewer brands, but they're cheaper than even the most inexpensive brands at Woolworths. Green beans are probably the only exception. It'd be very hard for me to justify a trip to Woolworths when ALDI's is open. Sorry, Woolworths.

I'll add to this list as I compare more items.

Woolworths's New Unit Pricing Scheme is Great News for Consumers

In a development that seems to have largely gone unnoticed, Woolworths has introduced a new feature on their shelves that is a great boon to customers flummoxed by the various sizes of goods from competing manufacturers.

When faced with a choice between 110 grams of a product from vendor A selling at $5.60 and 130 grams of a competing product from vendor B selling at $6.10, which one represents better value for money? Not all of us have calculators in our heads, nor do we want to waste time punching in numbers even if we had calculators in our hands, so here's where Woolworths pitches in helpfully.

Along with the price of the item and the weight (or volume, or number of units as the case may be), Woolworths also provides the price per 100 grams that it represents (or the price per 100 ml, or the price per unit, as the case may be).

Now the customer can tell at a glance whether the product from vendor A or vendor B represents better value for money, other things being equal, of course. (In the above example, the two products cost $5.09 and $4.69 per 100 grams, so vendor B's product represents better value for money.) Unit pricing cuts through the clutter and lets you compare apples to apples, sometimes literally.

I've filled in a feedback form and handed it in at the service counter at my local Woolworths outlet. I've said:

I very much like the new unit pricing scheme introduced by Woolworths. It enables me to make smarter buying decisions. Please don't discontinue this scheme even if you come under pressure from your suppliers. This is a pro-consumer step.

I think everyone interested in strengthening the hands of consumers should submit similar feedback to Woolworths management. If other retailers like Coles also do the same, then the petty marketing tricks of manufacturers to shake a few more cents from customers can be thwarted.

The Geopolitics of India

Of all the articles and opinion pieces about India and Pakistan that I have been devouring in recent times, this one from Stratfor is the most fascinating. It provides a strategic geopolitical basis for understanding the nature of India, its fundamental drivers and its relationship with its neighbours.

I've come away with a deeper insight in one or two areas. One, I have always believed that Pakistan has nothing to fear from India, but according to this article, it appears that notwithstanding the benign worldview of the Indian government of the day, there are fundamental geopolitical reasons why India poses an existential threat to Pakistan. (According to another Stratfor article supporting this view, "geography dictates that Pakistan either be absorbed into India or fight a losing battle against Indian influence.")

Another interesting insight is that in spite of the fact that Indians often speak of the Chinese threat as being potentially greater than the one from Pakistan, the article asserts that India and China are virtually on different planets and pose no geostrategic threats to each other.

In all other respects, it confirms the commonly held Indian view that "we threaten no one and are not interested in anyone else's affairs, nor are we fundamentally affected by others".

It's a pretty compelling line of reasoning and a highly recommended read.

An Audacious Suggestion to the President of Pakistan

Pakistan is in a bind.

It seemingly faces threats from every direction. Stratfor lists four major operational demands on the Pakistani army:

• 
  

Defend the border with India, being prepared for possible conventional Indian military aggression.

Combat the home-grown Taliban insurgency raging across the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the Pashtun districts of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP).

Combat a much lower-intensity — but nonetheless very real — mounting insurgency in the southwestern province of Baluchistan.

Provide heightened military security in Islamabad and other major urban centers in order to defend against an uptick in radical Islamist suicide bombings domestically.

• 
  

Stratfor adds that Pakistan maintains 6 of its 9 Corps formations on the Indian border.

To an Indian, something in all this information sticks out like a sore thumb. The "threat" against which Pakistan has deployed the bulk of its army is ironically the one that is not a threat at all!

You see, if India blinks and leaves its border unguarded for a moment, either Pakistani troops or irregulars would move in in an instant and dig themselves in, as happened in Kargil in 1999.

But if Pakistan leaves the same border unguarded, India is highly unlikely to take similar advantage. Frankly, India has far bigger fish to fry than to try and occupy measly Pakistani territory. Indians know this because we're not obsessed with Pakistan and Pakistani territory the way "elements in Pakistan" are obsessed with "grabbing back" "their" territory in India.

So here's my suggestion to President Zardari (who I must say appears to be one of the most sensible leaders of that country in recent times):

Quickly sign a border agreement with India, formalising the line of control as the international border. This has been talked about in India for decades, and the Indian leadership is likely to jump at the offer.

Once the agreement is signed, you can pull your divisions from the Indian border secure in the knowledge that you won't be attacked. You can redeploy your troops where they're really needed instead of wasting them in guarding against a non-existent bogeyman. Heck, in time you can even reduce the strength of your army and use the money for development. It's an excessive military budget for a small poor country, you know.

The cost? You give up territory that you don't have and will likely never get, so it's really getting something for nothing.

It's a deal too good to pass up.

Do you have the guts, Mr. President?