Yesterday I was at Marion Bay, Tasmania ... site of one of the most haunting (and, unusually, non-violent) first contact episodes from the colonial era:
Abel Tasman's crew came ashore here on Dec. 1, 1642, the first anchorage they'd been able to find after struggling round the storm-racked south coast of the island.
They found evidence of people and what may have been Tasmanian tigers, but didn't *see* anyone in the open forest.
They saw a fireplace in a hollowed tree and climbing notches carved into a treetrunk to raid birds' eggs.
They concluded from the 5ft distance between the notches that the people must be giants.
They saw no one, but saw smoke from distant fires and heard the sound of a gong.
They saw geese and gulls and ducks, and found a type of samphire growing. That's still the case today.
They thought the land was "not cultivated, but growing naturally by the will of God", while unwittingly contradicting themselves by noting the land is "covered with trees standing so far apart that they allow a passage everywhere and a lookout to a great distance".
That open forest is the result of the fire agriculture they noticed sending billows of smoke into the air. These days, the bush is almost impenetrable.
There's nothing there to mark what happened. And ro be honest I don't know why I find this passage so haunting. There's a Marie Celeste quality to the fact that they didn't see anyone (but were, surely, seen). Even the Tasmanian tiger is present only as footprints and excrement.
There's no shortage of horrible first encounters from this era, and of course Tasmania's later history is among the most brutal of the colonial era. But there's an odd, fairy-tale quality to this passage that's stuck with me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One quick lesson that Joe Biden's infrastructure plan can learn from China?
Unleash the power of capitalism to make worthwhile investments more attractive to local governments: bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
A quirk of America's infrastructure set-up is that it's unusually difficult for government planners to *invest* in improving their region's infrastructure.
Instead they have to treat it almost as a charity project.
That's because it's unusually difficult for them to capture the increase in land values that come when you build new infrastructure.
Beyond a few almost experimental projects and the very indirect benefits of property taxes, transport mostly has to pay for itself in user fees.
Here's how America could solve a toxic waste crisis in Florida and reduce its dependence on Chinese rare earths and uranium from the former USSR with one weird trick:
Residents around Tampa Bay in Florida are facing evacuation orders and a state of emergency after a dam holding radioactive fertilizer waste started leaking, threatening a breach and a 20ft wall of water: nytimes.com/2021/04/04/us/…
Florida and other parts of the southeastern U.S. have for decades been just one big rainstorm away from this sort of environmental crisis, because of more than a billion tons of phosphogypsum stacked up as waste material from the fertilizer industry.
My spiciest infrastructure bill take is that the "clean energy R&D" funding is basically a subsidy for annoying nuclear obsessives on Twitter.
Nuclear has historically sucked up the lion's share of energy R&D (and still gets the biggest slice today) because it's very complex and basic science-y, done by white lab coats not blue collars etc.
The generous funding for nuclear research combined with its fairly fundamental economic weaknesses means that it's a top-heavy field, with huge expertise in "paper reactors" even while real-world technology is basically updated 1960s reactor designs.
One yardstick for measuring the White House's $3 trillion-over-10-years infrastructure plan and Congressional Democrats' $10tr counter-offer is that China issues about $500 billion in infrastructure debt each year.
To be clear, those are figures for local government bonds in aggregate — but almost all of that goes on infrastructure, which receives non-local government financing in addition.
It sounds like the various U.S. infra plans will include some social-ish spending, too.