Another Message Board
Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
I’ve moved my irregular email news from Mailchimp to Substack. You can read it here. You can also follow me on Mastodon here
I’m also trying out Substack as a blogging platform. For the moment, I’ll post both at this blog and on Substack.
John Quiggin 
The neo-Nazi group calling itself “European Australian Movement” has distributed recruiting leaflets in the inner southern suburbs of Brisbane over the weekend. It can reasonably be inferred from the leaflet that this movement expects its members to participate in outdoors physical training of an unspecified nature as part of their political commitment.
I have been advised that anyone who has received a copy of this leaflet should notify the police. I have also drawn this to the attention of my Local, State and Federal representatives and the White Rose Society, as well people in as my other networks.
COP-28: carbon removal heats up
I gave you all a week’s rest from CDR, but stuff keeps happening.
News item. Even simpler basalt rock weathering: take mud ground up by glaciers in Greenland, billions of tonnes of it sitting around and needing no work beyond transport to fields somewhere else warmer, which is everywhere but Antarctica. The research paper, based on a careful small field trial in Denmark, gives no cost data and offers no estimates for use at scale. The Smith report gives a cost range at scale for enhanced weathering of $50-200 per tonne of CO2 sequestered. It seems reasonable to think that cutting out the energy-intensive rock quarrying and grinding would put Greenland rock flour towards the bottom end of this range – but we do need to find out. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/30/rock-flour-greenland-capture-significant-co2-study
I can’t figure out the size of the trial field, but it was very small: “The experiment installed in 2019 was arranged as a randomized block design with 4 replicates laid out in a North–South orientation. Plots (3 × 25 m gross plot size) covered 4 rows of plants at a row distance of 750 mm, where the two outer rows and 3.9 m at each end served as a buffer area, resulting in a net plot size of 26 m2.“ Before we jump to billions, such trials really have to be repeated at serious commercial scales of thousands of tonnes and hectares at a time. For instance, the methods of application and soil measurement have to be usable by ordinary farmers, without teams of agronomists looking over their shoulders.
**********************************************************************
Say what you like about carbon removal, a lot of people have been doing exactly that. As a field of policy analysis, it’s been growing like kudzu. The UN climate bureaucracy released an unreadable but sceptical 96-page “information note” on CDR: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/a64-sb005-aa-a09.pdf The nascent industry, now with trade groups, academic pundits, and apparently a specialised journal, is horrified and has written back: https://www.carbonbusinesscouncil.org/news/unfccc
Carbon removal will clearly be on the agenda of the next climate treaty summit (COP28) at Doha in December. https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/world-not-ready-yet-switch-off-fossil-fuels-cop28-host-uae-says-2023-05-09/ The hosts are, God help us, the petrostate autocracy UAE, which has made the head of the national oil company the chief organiser. The hosts of mega-conferences like this don’t control the outcomes, but they have considerable leverage over the agenda. They want the COP to talk about carbon capture, so it will. Ignoring the issue is not an option for everybody else. What is likely to come of it?
The worst case is endorsement of CCS, the partial capture of CO2 and other GHGs emitted by fossil fuel electric generators and other point sources like cement works and steel mills, coupled with a dangerous message that such fixes can allow them to keep operating longer. The EU and hopefully the USA will fight this, and to block the reactionary move will try to reconstitute their alliance with much of the Third World that allowed the 2015 Paris accord. It’s a good sign that China has IIRC shown little interest in the CCS boondoggle, which if successful would cut into the booming markets for Chinese solar panels, wind turbines and batteries.
The best case? JQ’s ideal policy seems to be “let’s forget about carbon removal, set a phaseout date for fossil fuels, and put all our efforts into renewables, storage and electric transport”. Whatever the merits of this line, there is no chance whatever that COP28 will endorse it. The petrostates are still strong enough to block any such proposal. There may be a chance for a compromise endorsing the sort of policies I have suggested here: greater national support for research on a broad spectrum of CDR options, with no favouritism for CCS methods tied to fossil fuel combustion; transparent large-scale field trials of promising options; joint creation of a robust and credible methodology for accounting for carbon removal, learning from the failure of Kyoto on carbon offsets; and starting a dialogue over funding.
Prospects for this do not at present look good. There are two rays of hope. One is that once carbon capture is on the agenda, the hosts will not be able to prevent the discussion from widening to other methods of CDR not linked to fuel combustion, like afforestation, biochar and enhanced weathering. Advocates of the calibre and status of Lamy, King and Tubiana will get their entrées to put the case, and will make the best of a bad situation.
The other is that the long-term interests of petrostates like the UAE are not identical to those of their national oil and gas companies. For the latter, the energy transition is an existential threat and they will continue to fight dirty to stave it off as long as possible. The case is somewhat different for the states that own them. They are for the moment dependent on fossil fuel income to maintain their place in the world. But at some level their ruling classes know that this can’t last, and they will have to transition out of oil willy-nilly. The UAE has indeed been diversifying, with some success: it runs a successful premium airline and major hub airports, operates as a financial and media centre, and so on. The oldest in the ruling families can remember a time before oil when Dubai thrived on smuggling gold. Besides, they are the low-cost producers, and will rake in the profits as the likes of Venezuela and Russia, and debt-ridden American frackers, are forced out of the declining market first.
Of course, horse-race commentary like the above has no bearing on the actual merits of the different policies in play. I may be quite right on the scenario and completely wrong on the substance. However, I do have a good chance of being much less disappointed by the results of COP28 than everybody else here. I’ll gladly take a few billion wasted on CCS if that’s the price for getting real support for broad-spectrum CDR research. On the mitigation side, the energy transition now has tremendous inertia and will carry on, and probably speed up, regardless of local political successes by delayists. Australia is a case in point. The coal power stations are closing whoever is in power in Canberra and Brisbane, or in Washington for that matter.
Previous discussion here:
me https://johnquiggin.com/2023/05/22/monday-message-board-600/#comment-260823 ,
JQ https://johnquiggin.com/2023/05/22/monday-message-board-600/#comment-260837 ,
me again https://johnquiggin.com/2023/05/22/monday-message-board-600/#comment-260852 .
.
I don’t say “forget about carbon removal”. More like “let’s kill off talk about CCS, which just obstructs decarbonization. After that we can talk about other methods we might want to use in a decade or two”
Another reason to get flu vaccines and other vaccinations?
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/flu-vaccine-linked-to-a-40-reduction-in-risk-of-alzheimers-disease/
Of course, researchers need to find a biochemical mechanism or mechanisms for this protection to be able to prove empirically that it is occurring. Theories which rest on statistical correlations remain just that, theories. Confounding variables abound in the real world compared to models of the world.
I wonder that mention is not made of the education, social and economic status of the people who self-select to get flu vaccines. Perhaps these classes get less alzheimers anyway because their many advantages protect them?
“Belonging to a given social class has been found to change a person’s cognitive health outcomes in advanced age in multiple ways. First, individuals in more advantaged social classes have better access to education [10–12], creative and cognitively demanding occupations [10,13,14] and cognitively complex leisure activities such as going to the theatre, opera and museums [15,16]. Exposure to lifelong cognitive stimulation of this sort enables the development of so-called cognitive/brain reserve, delaying the clinical manifestation of existing dementia-type brain changes [17–20]. Second, these individuals endure less chronic background stress associated with, for example, insecure housing, work and bill payments [21,22]. These lower levels of stress contribute to better cardiovascular [23] and cognitive health [24], both of which also contribute to a lower risk of dementia [25,26]. Third, people in more advantageous social classes have more confidence in institutions [27] and consequently are more prone to rely on formal support to fulfil their health needs [28,29]. As such, they have a higher probability of receiving timely medical and social care [28,30] – another factor associated with better health outcomes. Finally, people of higher social classes are exposed to a lesser extent to environmental factors linked to dementia risk, such as air and noise pollution, limited greenness and poor walkability of the place [31,32]. Inversely, disadvantaged groups and individuals belonging to lower social classes are more exposed to risk factors and environmental conditions associated with much higher health risks. This phenomenon, called ‘double jeopardy’ [33], has been previously explored in the field of cognitive health of older people.” – Social class and the risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prospective longitudinal studies Yuliya Bodryzlova. Alexie Kim and Grégory Moullec.
It is clearly sensible to get a flu shot if you fall into any risk group and have no contra-indications. It would also be clearly sensible to reduce poverty and inequality across our society instead of further increasing it as we are currently doing. Clearly, our neoliberal society is not sensible (or humane).
Ikonocalst makes some very good points. Having worked in a medical centre in a Sydney suburb, I have seen people demand flu vaccinations and seen people refuse flu vaccinations. In any city suburb the analysis given by the website given above, is right on the money. Socio-demographic factors are determinants.
But once you get out of cities and into regional areas far from capital cities, a new dynamic develops. The power of peer influence takes over in some isolated regional areas. It has already been established that many of these areas have no medical practitioners living in that area. This diminishes the impact of the messaging about getting any vaccinations. It has less to do with educational levels and more to do with self-educational opportunities. I have spent time in a few regional areas and notice this absence of opportunities to obtain first hand experiences of vaccination positive environments.
The importance of this analysis was highlighted on the following web site:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-18/what-we-know-about-the-2023-flu-season/102113242
This is tied in with the debate about vaccination fatigue that is been noticed by some medical researchers.
Prof Eliot Jacobson tweeted today (Jun 6):
Leon Simons tweeted today:
Published by Cambridge Independent on 29 May 2023 was an article by Mike Scialom headlined Current climate path will lead to collapse of life on Earth, say climate scientists. It began with:
https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/life-on-earth-will-be-unsupportable-if-we-continue-current-p-9314798/
Prof Rockstrom told delegates: “1.5C is not a target. I call it a physical limit.“
Ian Verrender has an article about real estate and inflation, and points to the way rent(al) increases are feeding into inflation, and house prices are on the rise again, as sellers withdrew from the market (for the time being). He noted the massive rise in builders going bankrupt—inflation and fixed price contracts being serious issues for them, and finally, he got to the Big Australia mass immigration rate far exceeding new housing supply. It’ll be “interesting” to see if the interest rate is lifted today.
As I’ve said for ages now, we should have a lower immigration rate, a higher rate of accepting refugees from all over the world. The housing supply issue doesn’t seem to have any immediate solution, for you need builders to build, and there is an upper limit on builders available to build. For every thousand people (per day) that immigrate to Australia, we need 250 to 500 new dwellings, give or take, *per* day! Combine that with the fact that housing stock mightn’t be where we really need people for essential work, like GPs in country areas, or nurses, police, etc., and even if we were building enough new dwellings to cater for the stupendously large immigration rate, there could still be a shortage in the regions that matter. If there is one lever the government should focus on pulling now, it is the one controlling the immigration rate. At least a significant slow down for the time being, if nothing else.
Don, maybe slow immigration and focus on refugees, yet we actually have enough housing. Just not distributed socially or geographically appropriately for our population or local needs.
At your stated rates “For every thousand people (per day) that immigrate to Australia, we need 250 to 500 new dwellings, give or take, *per* day!”…
Taking 500/day, with Australia’s “1,043,776 unoccupied dwellings on Census Night.” / 500 =
2,087.6 days or
5.7 years of worth of immigration / refugee (homeless) absorbing dwellings.
Perhaps we may just tell the 1% to build appropriately, instead of just maximising portfolio returns.
“A quarter of Australia’s property investments held by 1% of taxpayers, data reveals
“Exclusive: Taxation office figures also show a clear majority of those investors are over the age of 50″
Sun 4 Jun 2023
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jun/04/a-quarter-of-australias-property-investments-held-by-1-of-taxpayers-data-reveals
2.
Australian Bureau of Statistics
“Housing
27 April 2023
Release date and time
28 June 2022
Housing: Census
“There were 10,852,208 private dwellings counted in the 2021 Census.
– 70 per cent were separate houses,
– 13 per cent were townhouses and 16 per cent were apartments.
● There were 1,043,776 unoccupied dwellings on Census Night.
Reference period
2021
https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/housing
*
I cannot understand why we do not make a “Snowy Hydro” scheme for NEW housing. Separate dedicated building workforce WITH supply, & government funds for as long as it takes to catch up housing, relative to needs and location.
Because housing starts rate may rise, but completions never have kept pace.
JQ: ” After that we can talk about other methods [of carbon removal] we might want to use in a decade or two”. OK – as long as “talking about” includes “spending serious
money now to find out what works” and excludes “something will turn up”.
We are running out of time on this, as on every other aspect of the climate crisis. Suppose, generously, we can put off the big-CDR decision to 2040. That’s 17 years from now. Cast your mind back the same span to 2006. By then, the world had developed almost all of the technology portfolio on which we now rely for the energy transition – electrification, wind, PV solar, pumped storage, batteries, HVDC and efficiency – and discarded a good number of also-rans like concentrating solar and OTEC. (Hydrogen steelmaking did arrive more recently, along with a wave of hydrogen hype). We are nowhere near a comparable level today on carbon removal. We know planting trees works, and also that this can’t be done at a scale sufficient to meet the likely need. Not building the knowledge base guarantees failure and risks disaster.
Neoliberalism = Elite Profits before Ordinary People.
I predict CDR will prove to be as much a boondoggle as CCS, BECCS and the broader hydrogen economy proposals. These are all boondoggles whose sole purpose is to wrangle indefinite extension of the license to burn fossil fuels without hindrance. Solar and wind power seem to be working. We need to enhance and extend them and progressively ban fossil fuels starting with coal and then oil and gas. There may be niche applications for hydrogen. It is an energy carrier, not an energy source on earth where natural free hydrogen is virtually non-existent.
The energy costs of a lot of CDR projects don’t and won’t add up. CDR that does work will be a niche within a niche: minuscule in other words. Reafforestation can work to an extent but it has real pitfalls too. As the world heats more and has more extreme weather, forests will burn down at a more rapid rate. It may be hard to sustain forests at all in that scenario.
The only answer is to stop burning *all* fossil fuels completely and to do so very, very soon, say by 2035. If we can’t do that, the whole “game” is over. We will have to consume less, a lot less, of all high energy products. As an example, most people will have to ride bicycles, not drive EVs. Most people will have to eat low meat diets and no junk food. The list goes on. Maintaining a high energy, high consumption lifestyle for 8 billion will be totally unsustainable and will destroy the world.
James – good points. Not a fan of CDR myself. Until we deal with emission sources chasing CDR/CCS/Offsets to deal with CO2 AFTER emissions works too much like avoiding, evading and delaying… in order to NOT deal with the sources of emissions. Most dismayingly, with lots of ongoing LibNatLab triopoly support. The Labor support is especially dismaying.
I think our climate future is (and may always have been) at the mercy of how far and fast clean energy technology can out-compete the dirty – with all the advantages of incumbency and influence the dirty has – although if CDR is above $50 per tonne (and each ton of coal makes 2.5 tons of CO2 and gas and oil makes 3 tons) and is included IN the costs of our energy choices rather than non-plicitly, external to the pricing and profits of those doing fossil fuels ie out of taxpayer funding (that those companies assiduously avoid and public can be relied on to want to vote against on their own account too), that can make a major incentive for clean energy.
But it needs governments that really mean it and/or courts willing to make clear rulings about corporate climate accountability rather than persistently evading making them and tossing it back to legislators. Currently we aren’t getting the best out of governments or courts and the fiction that climate accounting based on end use makes suppliers (exporters) unaccountable manages to persist.
I’m with James W – “We are nowhere near a comparable level today on carbon removal.”
Therefore – research funded now.
Hansen et al in “”Global warming in the pipeline” (current: “revised 23 May 2023”) ends with why AGW won’t be fixed being due to – “current geopolitical approach” -and then invokes hopium – “but current political crises present an opportunity for reset, especially if young people can grasp their situation.”
“If young people can grasp their situation” doesn’t provide me with any security of AGW below 53,714 MtCO2e
> 4.78% Global Emissions
> $1,110 Cumulative reparations 2025–2050 (Billion US$, current)
> $42.7 Average annual reparations 2025–2050 (Billion US$, current)
“ExxonMobil, USA
23,119
2.06%
$478
$18.4
“Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages”
Marco Grasso
Richard Heede
MAY 19, 2023
…
“This article proposes morally based reparations for oil, gas, and coal producers, presents a methodological approach for their implementation, and quantifies reparations for the top twenty-one fossil fuel companies.”
…
“Based on a survey of 738 economists with demonstrated expertise in climate16 and using a 2025–2075 growth model, we calculate that the 2025–2050 cumulative cost of climate damages attributed to all anthropogenic sources based on a model of loss of GDP under a 3°C scenario is $99 trillion, of which $70 trillion is attributed to fossil fuels (see Note S1). We further argue that greenhouse gas emissions are the result of the behaviors of three groups of agents:
– those who provide the global economy with the products whose combustion generates fossil fuel emissions (producers);
– those who use their carbon fuels as intended (emitters); and
– those who, under the weight of scientific evidence and international agreements, should (or fail to) act to reduce emissions (political authorities).
“There is no objective basis to disentangle the different weight of these three groups and for the sake of simplicity we propose that producers, emitters, and political authorities have equal one-third shares of responsibility, and thus an equal quota of climate damages of $23.2 trillion.
“Each of the companies in the top twenty-one of the Carbon Majors 2023 Dataset17 is then allocated a share of this $23.2 trillion sum—payable over 2025–2050—based on its operational and product-related emissions as a percent of global emissions from fossil fuels from 1988 to 2022.”
…
Cell VOLUME 6, ISSUE 5, P459-463,
MAY 19, 2023
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2023.04.012
*
The House of Saud & Saudi Aramco are able it seems, to write a cheque today, for $1.11Trillion, to fully pay the reparations calculated in above paper.
The House of Saud has to be worth $1+trillion. CNCC says $1.4T.
Saudi Aramco
– Revenue US$535.188 billion
– Operating income US$305.087 billion
– Net income US$161.068 billion
– Total assets US$664.780 billion
– Total equity US$444.306 billion
Wikipedia
A money reservation problem, not a supply problem.
*
Trees need to be old to provide the carbon service.
David Lindenmayer tells us; “… just 1.16% of forest being unburned and unlogged.” Further, old growth acts as fire suppression which does not happen until trees 80-100 yrs old. New plantings act as a negative feedback during fires intensifying fires and further destroying forest.
“Interacting Factors Driving a Major Loss of Large Trees with Cavities in a Forest Ecosystem
Authors:
David Lindenmayer et al
…”These latter factors have resulted in all landscapes being dominated by stands ≤72 years and just 1.16% of forest being unburned and unlogged. We discuss how the features that make Mountain Ash forests vulnerable to a decline in large tree abundance are shared with many forest types worldwide.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232257116_Interacting_Factors_Driving_a_Major_Loss_of_Large_Trees_with_Cavities_in_a_Forest_Ecosystem
James Wimberley: – “We are running out of time on this, as on every other aspect of the climate crisis.”
Indeed! The windows of opportunity are rapidly closing.
Leon Simons tweeted yesterday (Jun 6):
“There is a very big risk that we will just end our civilisation” – Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020-06-08/collapse-of-civilisation-is-the-most-likely-outcome-top-climate-scientists/
Cooling the planet is now absolutely vital to avoid a cascade of more system ‘tipping points’ activating to drive the Earth System into a state incompatible for complex civilisation and the suffering of billions of people (and other lifeforms).
Barring multiple nuclear weapons airbursts, major volcanic eruptions, and/or major meteor surface impact event(s) here on Earth, I would not be at all surprised to see:
* A temporary overshoot of the +1.3 °C global mean surface temperature threshold for this calendar year (2023);
* A temporary overshoot of the +1.4 °C global mean surface temperature threshold for the next calendar year (2024).
Will we temporarily overshoot +1.5 °C next year? We’ll know soon enough!
Yet Labor won’t block new fossil fuel projects.
Iko and JQ: a question. Are you comfortable with the current global GHG concentrations, and the current and prospective climate and weather they imply? If not, it seems to me you have to give conditional support to CDR as a matter of logic. Zero emissions will not and cannot reduce current GHG levels. I take it that tinkering with aerosols is ruled out as partial and far too risky.
I see two loopholes in this lemma. One is the limiting case in which no CDR technology has any chance at all of succeeding, defined as reliably working at scale and at a reasonably certain cost. This position strikes me as simply absurd. The second is the view that the CCS boondoggle, promoted in bad faith as a pretext for BAU emissions, is so odious that stopping it is the right thing to do even if this blocks support for other less questionable CDR options. Sorry, but to me this is magical taboo thinking. Global investment in CCS was $2.3bn in 2021, against investment in renewables of over $500 bn, a ratio of over 200 to 1 (Bloomberg, Irena). If CCS is draining money from renewables, the effect is still completely trivial. Given the people doing it, it seems more likely that any diversion is from oil and gas. Nature-based CDR gets no serious money at all.
In any case, one of two things will happen in CCS. Either the promoters get it to work, in which case we have a valuable option for climate repair with fraught Scylla-and-Charybdis politics; or they continue to fail and sooner or later give up, after a pile of money wasted, as on other dead ends before it.
BTW, I spoke too soon on Chinese disinterest in CCS. Steve Hanley at CleanTechnica reports on two large schemes in China – again, tiny compared to investment in wind and solar. https://cleantechnica.com/2023/06/06/china-pushes-ahead-with-carbon-capture-while-ipcc-warns-against-it/
James W,
You mention investment in renewables of $500 bn. The IEA “Fossil Fuels Consumption Subsidies 2022” report says:
“This report provides our first estimates for 2022, which show that global fossil fuel consumption subsidies doubled from the previous year to an all-time high of USD 1 trillion.”
So *subsidies* alone for fossil fuels are double the entire investment on renewables, on your and their numbers, even at this late stage. The investments estimates look better in this IEA Report than your figure. These show $1,740 billion investments for renewables for 2022 and $1,050 billion for fossil fuels. Not sure why your figure is lower than this. Which is correct I wonder?
This investment in renewables looks relatively healthy. Yet against this, the estimated $1 trillion of global subsidies for fossil fuels is truly shocking. If this is correct, fossil fuels are still being bolstered more than the renewables transition.
By all means there should be some research into CDR. I mean state funded research where all the intellectual property and profits accruing (if any) from such ventures should accrue to the state. The boondoggles arise when private enterprise (oligarchs and corporations in the current neoliberal rigged market model) get all the subsidies, all the IP and all the profits. They are focused on the money alone, not on the real outcomes. The current economic system is not geared to save the world or its people or life on earth in general. It is geared to funnel all money (capital) to the oligarchs and corporations. That is its sole purpose and function. How can they be so myopic? I assume they think they can insulate themselves from the impending catastrophe or else they simply don’t believe it will happen.
James said: “CCS boondoggle, promoted in bad faith as a pretext for BAU emissions, is so odious that stopping it is the right thing to do”
It seems both sides agree…
“The Great Carbon Capture Scam
“The CCS agenda is full of hot air.
…
“Everywhere, CCS is a massive scam.”
…
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-great-carbon-capture-scam/
Via nakedcapitalism
Leon Simons tweeted on Mar 28:
Look familiar?
Per NOAA, El Niño has officially arrived!
Per the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), the ENSO outlook switched from “El Niño Watch” to “El Niño Alert” on 24 May 2023.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/#tabs=ENSO-Outlook-history
It looks like the BoM’s next update is scheduled for 20 Jun 2023.
Meanwhile, the smoke/particulates from the Canadian wildfires are producing extremely hazardous air in NE USA & SE Canada.
London-based meteorologist Scott Duncan (@ScottDuncanWX) tweeted on Jun 8:
We are experiencing almost unprecedented rapid CO₂ and temperature changes in the Earth’s 4.5 billion year history.
And yet social media trolls & bots are blaming the Canadian wildfires on arsonists. Look familiar?
Very slight correction on Frigidaire in WWII. The existing refrigerator plant was switched to making propellers and other items. The machine-gun plant was a new factory with new machines. It went from the initial phone call (!) to the Pentagon in June 1940 – after Dunkirk but before Pearl Harbor – to first production deliveries 12 months later. Variants of the venerable Browning design of the 1920s are not only still in use in NATO armies and air forces, but in production. The calibre was chosen by General Pershing during WWI. Sadly, this is what humans are good at. https://usautoindustryworldwartwo.com/General%20Motors/frigidaire.htm