Barbie

Revenge of the Nerds: How Barbie Got Her Geek On
Computer Engineers Hijack Vote on Career for Doll; Little Girls Wanted Anchorwoman

Serious career aspirations aren't the first thing most people associate with Barbie, the impossibly thin, high-heel-loving fashion doll.
Still, Barbie's maker, Mattel Inc., thought it would be interesting to ask young girls who visited the Barbie.com Web site to vote on what the doll's next career should be. Mattel gave them a choice of architect, anchorwoman, computer engineer, environmentalist and surgeon. All told, more than 600,000 votes were cast during a four-week period this past winter.
Girls the world over overwhelmingly cast their ballot for anchorwoman Barbie—"not a surprise, as girls see Katie Couric and a lot of other female anchors," says Stephanie Cota, senior vice president of marketing for the Barbie brand.
But what happened next, she says, "blew us away."
The voting was open to anyone, and nobody could vote more than once. But by the end of the first week, a growing flood of adult votes for computer engineer Barbie trumped the popular choice. Female computer engineers who learned about the election launched a viral campaign on the Internet to get out the vote and ensure Barbie would join their ranks.
"Please help us in getting Barbie to get her Geek on!" came the appeal from the blog GeekGirlCamp.com.
As Mattel puts it: Computer engineer Barbie "won the popular vote" and anchorwoman won the girls' vote.
Barbie landed her first gig as a teenage fashion model in 1959. Since then she's been an astronaut, a surgeon and a presidential candidate. Her latest career choice? Computer engineer.
The result is a ponytailed doll in black leggings and a top decorated in binary code that spells Barbie, and lots of pink accessories—geek-chic glasses, Bluetooth headset and shoes.
Why grown women felt so strongly about having themselves represented by a doll—especially one that feminists have always loathed—speaks volumes both about the power of the iconic Barbie doll and the current state of women who work in computer and information sciences. Their ranks have declined in the past two decades. In 2008, women received only 18% of computer science degrees, down from 37% in 1985, according to the National Center for Women & Information Technology.
Barbie was designed to be a teenager and was an instant sensation when she was created in 1959, tapping into children's desire to emulate older girls. She remains the No.1-selling doll in the world, with annual sales of the doll and related merchandise of more than $1.3 billion.
In Mattel's "I Can Be…" line of Barbie dolls, the first career was teenage fashion model. But Barbie went on to have 124 other professions, frequently mirroring or even anticipating societal change. She was an astronaut in 1965, four years before a man walked on the moon and more than a decade before Sally Ride became the first American woman in space.

Mattel got into hot water in the early 1990s when it unveiled a talking Barbie doll that uttered the line, "Math class is tough." After the American Association of University Women attacked the math comment in a report on how schools shortchange girls, Mattel promptly apologized and deleted the phrase.
Regardless, Barbie remains enduringly popular among young girls. In 2000, Marie Wilson, president and founder of the White House Project, a nonprofit group that seeks to increase women's leadership roles, teamed up with Mattel to create a President Barbie, much to the consternation of many of her colleagues. Ms. Wilson admits she had reservations about using Barbie, because of "her body shape" and the design of her feet, which allows her to wear only towering high heels.
"But if you really want to change things, you have to go where the people are—the little people," she argues.
On Jan. 7, Mattel launched a month-long voting campaign for Barbie's next career on Barbie.com, Barbie's Twitter and Facebook pages, plus a bus and billboard campaign in New York.
After several popular technology Web sites wrote about the election, female computer engineers began encouraging colleagues to cast their ballot. During January, a total of 1,840 tweets discussed it.
Alice Merner Agogino, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of California, Berkeley, got several emails urging her to vote from members of different organizations that encourage girls to enter the field.
After learning about the election from the National Academy of Engineers, Erin Fitzgerald, a science and technology fellow in the U.S. Department of Defense, helped get out the vote. "There is a perception that an interest in math, science and computers means being socially awkward and boring and sacrificing the opportunity to be creative and fun," she says. The Society of Women Engineers, based in Chicago, alerted its 20,000 members in a weekly email newsletter. Nora Lin, its president, said she hoped the doll would inspire girls to become engineers.
By the end of January, computer Barbie was clearly the frontrunner and Mattel began soliciting input on her design from groups of computer scientists. " 'Make us look cool and hip.' 'Don't put us in lab coats.' 'Don't make us look like nerds,' " says Nathan Kahl, a spokesman for the National Academy of Engineering, recounting the comments from women members that he submitted to Mattel.
Mattel announced the winner and displayed a prototype of computer engineer Barbie at the International Toy Fair in New York Feb. 11.
Veronica Belmont, a San Francisco resident who has an online-technology video show and who says she snubbed Barbie as a girl in favor of toys she could take apart and reassemble, thought Barbie's sparkly leggings and pink accessories "were over the top."
"I found the pink condescending," Ms. Belmont says, "but if it will get little girls' attention and get them to play with computers, it's a good start."
Computer engineer Barbie will hit stores in the fall. So, will an anchorwoman Barbie. Mattel thought that was only fair.
Write to Ann Zimmerman at ann.zimmerman@wsj.com
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575171791681002592.html?mod=WSJ_hp_us_mostpop_read)

ethanol wel ethisch

Van Chris Watling , 31 maart 2010
The use of biofuels has grown rapidly in the US (by almost 30% p.a. over the last 7 years). As such the US consumes almost half of the world’s biofuels market. That equates to 4% of the US gasoline market (NB after adjusting biofuels for their lower energy content). In this section we examine the viability of the major type of biofuel (i.e. ethanol).
Ethanol accounts for almost all the biofuels used in the US (i.e. currently 95%). It is a substitute for gasoline and it is mostly derived from corn (1). Its consumption has grown rapidly in recent years (by 21% CAGR in the last 10 years). Despite that, the government is aiming to cap ethanol use (from corn) at a maximum of 15 billion gallons. It expects to reach this level by 2015 (NB 9.6 billion gallons of cornethanol were consumed in 2008).
This reflects two key reasons: First, the environmental benefits from corn-ethanol are contentious. Corn-ethanol only delivers a 19% reduction in greenhouse gasses
(GHGs) on average (compared to those emitted by gasoline). Other biofuels, though, can deliver up to an 86% reduction in GHGs. Furthermore, many highlight the effect of larger crops and more fertiliser on marine life – and argue that fertilisers create greenhouse gasses which are worse than carbon.
Second, there are concerns that corn-ethanol is not sufficiently scalable (without affecting the supply and price of both food and animal feed). Indeed, 33% of the US corn market is used to produce ethanol – up from 11% in 2004 (fig 2). Not surprisingly, ethanol has therefore been blamed for the corn price rise of 2007 & 2008 (albeit this price rise has now reversed). The US congressional budget office, for example, estimate that as much as half of the ‘07 to ‘08 rise in corn prices can be accounted for by the use of corn for ethanol (2).

Instead, the US is targeting the use of ‘advanced’ ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is the key example. It is made from plant leaves and stems which come from a broad mix of crop types (3). As such, competition between food and fuel can be avoided. Furthermore, the reduction in GHGs compared to gasoline is significant (86% on average). The US target, therefore, is for almost all the growth in the biofuel market to come from this source (fig 3). Currently though, cellulosic ethanol is only a small component of the biofuels market. For the year 2010, for example, the government is targeting the use of 6.5 million cellulosic ethanol-equivalent gallons (4). This is just 0.07% of the US biofuels market. Importantly, that target was recently revised down from a less realistic 100 million gallons (in February 2010). The target by 2020, though, is also ambitious (i.e. 10.5 billion gallons). For both the 2010 and 2020 targets to be met, the use of cellulosic ethanol will have to grow by 110% every year for 10 years. Currently this is unlikely. Indeed, only 72 million gallons of annual capacity is about to come on stream in the next 3 years (with another 225 million gallons of capacity for which no production start date has been given) – according to a recent study by the Renewable Fuels Association.

(1) While corn is the key source of ethanol in the US, this differs by country. Sugar cane, for example is used in
Brazil while sugar beets is used in Europe.
(2) See http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10057/04-08-Ethanol.pdf
(3) These crop types include switchgrass, agricultural residues, and hybrid poplar trees.
(4) See http://epa.gov/otaq/renewablefuels/420f10007.htm#2

Biofuels conclusion: The major sources of ethanol in the US (both current and targeted) have key limitations. Our best case scenario, therefore, anticipates biofuels consumption, by 2020, which is in line with government targets. This would deliver a saving of 1.2 mbpd and account for 5% of the US oil market by 2020. Our central and worst case scenarios assume that targets for cellulosic (& other
advanced) biofuels are not reached (and reduce oil demand by between 3 – 4%). See appendix for detail.
Interestingly, the White House recognises the challenge of its own targets. In particular, they admit that they are not on a trajectory to reach current goals; that infrastructure for fuel distribution is challenging and that, while projects have been funded, they have not been actively managed to achieve targets (5).
Interestingly the IEA have forecast US biofuels consumption (by 2020) to be approx. 30% below government targets.