China goes green - what's your excuse now, Mr Bush? 08 March 05

I know there are various alternative energy/energy conservation projects in India. Some have electric cars (which seem to have been totally taken off the markey here in the U.S., except for EV clubs remaking I.C.E. old cars into EV, & a couple of high priced tiny EV companies).

I know one thing, Indians have always preferred 40 watt tube lights over incandescents (unlike us profligate Americans), assuming their village has electricity in the first place. The only problem is the current is often cut or very low voltage “brown out.” In those situations, people need kerosene lamps & incandescents.

Cooking is another issue. People need to eat, & they burn wood, cow dung, & kerosene to cook, which I recently read contributes more to GW than their driving vehicles. Solar ovens I think might work, and they need help in getting gas stoves (which are very expensive for poor people), because gas is cheaper than kerosene.

One solution is SALADS – eat as many things raw as possible. It’s very good for health & the enzymes not destroyed in cooking can even prevent & cure some cancers (except for people with certain conditions that require cooking).

Indians per capital emit only 1/20 or 1/50 of the GHGs that Americans do, but they deserve to live & be cooled by AC, especially from the GW caused by rich nations. I think they are willing to develop in a “green” way (which is also the economic way). I think Australia is also more into going green than the U.S.

Maybe the whole world can join together and teach the U.S. some manners.

really going green or not. Talk is cheap, going green takes will and money. China may just be talking and that was why no media outlets picked up the story. I read it last week on a China news website. But they might just be doing some world PR.

Is there a correlation between Europe’s rising unemployment (France-10%, Germany 12%) and the Kyoto GHG constraints?

Is something happening in the winds of change that will force us to do the right thing?

Our destiny may not be in our own hands anymore. So be it! It may be time for others to lead us.

How will our government survive when China has all those bonds to cash in? Where will our government get their money? We may not have enough money to be taxed to support our own government at some point.

As an American, I would like to see it differently but I think I have already felt that breeze. It is a windy day here after all!

In the end game, what will the world look like? I still see a positive outcome and even if we are not the lead players, I believe we still will be better off. But then again, what will the transition be like? I still live here.

It is sad for me to think we would not “want” to be leaders in renewable technology when we are so capable of doing that and much more!

Dan

Found this in my files. Downloaded it not that long ago and it fits with my understanding that China has produced (and will produce?) a lot of of old-generation cars and therefore not very eco cars.

“China’s thirst for oil gets into top gear.” By Rupert Wingfield-Hayes BBC correspondent in Beijing.

“China is not the biggest oil consumer in the world, that prize goes to America, nor is it the biggest importer – which is also the USA. What China outdoes the rest of the world at is the growth of its appetite. Ten years ago China imported no oil at all. Last year it overtook Japan to become the world’s second biggest importer. Its thirst continues to grow. Imports are expected to rise another 40% this year. For the international oil market it has all come as something of a shock.

Car mania. The reasons are not hard to find. The BBC Beijing bureau overlooks the city’s second ring road. Ten years ago, the road was devoid of traffic, the odd bus, a few taxis, and lots and lots of bicycles. Today it is gridlock. At five in the afternoon it is more like a six lane parking lot. In the last few year, the Chinese have taken to cars with alacrity. Beijing now has more than two million private cars. Many are small hatchbacks, but there are a growing number of hulking gas guzzling sports utility vehicles. Even the Hummer has made it to the streets of Beijing.

Reserves. Then there is the problem of supply. In the 1950s, China discovered massive oil reserves in the far north of the country near the border with Siberia. China is importing as much oil as it possibly can. For 40 years the Da Qing oil field has kept China self sufficient. But just as China’s demand for oil is surging, the pumps on the Da Qing oil field are starting to splutter. The search for oil has become frantic. In the deserts of China’s far west, teams of oil men have been searching for more than a decade, but so far nothing.

Further afield. In the South China Sea, exploration rigs have been test drilling for even longer. They have found quite a lot of gas, but so far no big new finds. China has tried to buy up oil fields in central Asia with mixed results. It is trying to persuade the Russians to build a pipeline from Siberia to keep the Da Qing oil refineries pumping, but the Japanese are also competing for that pipeline deal. The result is that China is facing an energy shortage. Even its massive coal supplies cannot keep up with demand.

Outage. In the factories of east China this summer the lights have been going out. In one Taiwanese owned factory they say they lose their power supply for at least two days a week, and every night. The factory has installed four huge diesel generators to keep production going, but the generators need fuel too. The only people who seem happy are China’s shipbuilders. On the slipways of Shanghai and Guangzhou, armies of welders are assembling a fleet of new ships to bring energy and materials to China, iron ore and natural gas from Australia, and oil from anywhere China can get it. China is negotiating with Sudan and Nigeria, Russia and Iran. Only one thing seems certain, China’s appetite for oil shows no sign of slowing.

Today China has 10 million private cars – by 2020 that number will be 120 million.”

Hope I haven’t infringed any copyright rules in posting this.

Douglas Coker

If our leaders & media in the U.S. could simply talk & tell the people about global warming, its current & predicted harms & risks (including the possibility of an extinction level event), and inform people about the many ways they can address this issue cost-effectively & SAVE MONEY while saving the world, that would be really wonderful. That would put us on a very good road.

I have no doubt at all about the abilities of Americans. We’re not namby-pambies. We are a nation of great doers & inventors. Imagine what we’d come up with if we put our minds & hearts into it. Right now with off-the-shelf technology we can reduce energy by 3/4 without lowering productivity. Imagine how much more we could reduce if we put American ingenuity into it. Imagine a beautiful world where people cared enough about themselves, their progeny, & others to reduce global warming.

they need to follow Amory Lovins’s “soft path” in developing – do it smart, do it efficiently. Already their pollution is causing enormous health problems, aside from any GW considerations.

I’ve understood for some time it would come to this: the dirt poor of the world want the amenities that the rich have—cars, refrigerators, ACs, home heaters, TVs, lights so their children can study & go to college, etc. Some businessmen figured out they could make products cheaper by employing the really poor at cheap wages, and now the poor have a bit of money to buy things that (afterall) the rich already have (cars, refrigerators, TVs).

It doesn’t make me happy when I think of global warming, but it does make me focus a bit on how much more the rich need to reduce, with STEP ONE being to do whatever is possible with given technology & money available to reduce cost-effectively without lowering our comfort or living standards – which puts us at about 3/4 reduction. For the obstinate among us who refuse to take STEP TWO, I suppose they could put STEP TWO off onto their children or grandchildren, since they don’t seem to mind putting GW harms onto them.

Hi Jim,

France and Germany’s unemployment levels are more a function of their labour market regulations, the comparatively low GDP growth, (but high yields to those who hold equities/stocks) the recent enlargement of the EU by the inclusion of former Eastern Block countries with large skilled work forces who will work for much lower wages, the ongoing costs of Germany’s re-unification even after 15 years, the strains of keeping all the economic balances in place following the introduction of the Euro…..

In Bavaria, creation of a large renewable energy sector (wood biomass, solar, wind, small hydro) has created about 15,000 well paid, skilled technical jobs that are completely sustainable. The Navarre region of Spain is just about to cross the 100% electricity generating threshold for its renewables and start exporting power.

A lot of development in the RE sector is still in its early days and is quite crude; as you have noted before, as the technology gets established, unit costs drop. But there is so much waste and inefficiency in our centralised manufacturing, energy, agricultural and transport systems, that if we just worked a bit smarter, we could create more jobs, and reduce resource usage by 75% almost without trying.

We are just waiting for unemployment to start rising again in the UK, but that will be more to do with rising oil prices, the slide in house values that’s gathering pace and our personal debt burden.

all the best

Colin

Just saw Susan Watt’s Newsnight report on coal usage in China. Scary stuff; lots of shots of deserts, car jammed streets, air con units tacked onto buildings etc. Shanghai is built on a swamp and is sinking and susceptible to rising sea levels. Google “Shanghai sinking for more”. Go to the BBC website to see the programme. They say it will be available for 24 hours.

Douglas Coker

Absolutely Lynn. See my post below under the “Eat Organic” heading where I comment on the “Natural Capitalism” theme. I think there is a need to dedicate a thread to exploring this along with the UK govt sustainable development policy announced today. The link Colin posted http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/delivery/latestnews.htm has lots of links to interesting looking papers. For example “Carrot, sticks and sermons: .... ” which is about changing behaviour through policy making. I hope it’s not all window dressing and/or green washing.

Douglas Coker

Easy one: he will say that China may TALK a green game, but…

Then he’ll parrot off all the environmental wrongs in that country, which nobody can deny.

THEN he’ll say, well, we’ll watch them over time and see if they put their money and efforts where their mouths are. (Bush LOVES the “over time” approach-he uses it in explaining why we don’t do more about GW/CC-we don’t have enough data/proof/certainty about it…so we need to do more research—which takes TIME…)

Anything and everything to put off what needs to be done, so that his oil & gas buddies can do business as usual….

Winston Churchill is credited with saying that the Americans will always do what’s right—after they’ve exhausted all the other possibilities. Smart dude, Winnie….

Why bash Bush? He didn’t start the problem and he won’t solve it. Under Clinton’s watch the GHG production in the US also went up and he was considered eco-friendly. Bush is using other means besides mandated levels under binding treaties!

American Companies are also talking about how to save money by working more efficiently and use less fuel (lower GHG’s)

GHG Reduction Partners http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/goals.html

GHG Goal Setting by Partner Companies http://www.epa.gov/climateleaders/goalfactsheet.html

One interesting fact is how efficient the US has been in production as a factor of KwH (energy) used. Using the table cited below> and using the countries GDP at US levels how many KwH would the country use to get the a 7 trillion dollar annual GDP?

GDP by population and energy used http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/table7.cfm

The most energy efficient country by KwH use is Germany. See below:

Country   Bill. KwH used to reach a 7 tril. GDP

1. Germany 1989 2. UK 2157, 8.4% increase over Germany usage 3. Japan 2159, 8.5% increase over Germany usage 4. USA^ 3603, 181% increase over Germany usage 5. India* 5745, 288% increase over Germany usage 6. China* 9450, 475% increase over Germany usage 7. Russia* 15100, 759% increase over Germany usage *Kyoto Exempt or no GHG decrease goals ^opted out of Kyoto but has GHG reduction goals

In light of comparing other countries to the US when equalizing the countries output and energy usage based on that output the US is not doing to badly. And Bush doesn’t deserve all the blame for decades of the world’s GHG production.

I use energy as an example b/c according to GHG production numbers the major source of GHG is fossil fuel combustion. http://www.climate.montana.edu/pdf/USAGHG.pdf

Using the same chart the US and Japan are the most productive per person (both avg. 26,000), China and India are least productive per person.

I think the US is moving in the right direction and lowering GHG will take time. It didn’t happen in a decade (or by one country) and won’t get better in a decade.

My question is: What if every country lowers the GHG by Kyoto’s goals and the air temps are still increasing? What then? What if it’s just part of the Earth’s natural cycle? Wasn’t there once an iceage? (before all the hideous GHG producing industiralists)

Something to think about…

Yes there are some good people in the States. Yes there are some interesting things happening. Yes Clinton was brillant at presentation but short of the mark otherwise. Yes other countries are “guilty”. But, and it’s a big but, Bush gets bashed because he’s the leader of the US which is world dominant in so many ways. Therefore Bush and the US need to give a lead and not drag their feet. They are well placed to do this and could have a dramatic effect if they so desired.

Douglas Coker

You’re right Jim, Global warming is a world-wide problem, lots of countries are responsible, and politicians only respond to what voters and consumers like you and I think and do.

So there are personal decisions to be made. Do I like spending more money on heating my house, to live in less comfort than I could if I did it differently? No. If I decide to invest in improvements, bit by bit over a few months/years with a target of improving comfort and reducing costs by 50-75% or better can I be bothered? Yes.

Do I enjoy sitting in my car for an extra 20 minutes in a jam on the way to work every day? No. Do I have a choice that leaves me more personal time, wastes less money on fuel and makes me less stressed? Yes.

We can all do better and end up getting more satisfaction out of our short lives. This is not a blame game and bashing the US makes no sense. In the industrialised, democratic nations at least we have a much better range of choices than most on this planet and we could all have much better lifestyle with far, far less consumption.

Ask the questions that relate to your life ( Natural Capitalism expresses these ideas in a very thought-provoking way, even if it is a bit over-optimistic) and make the changes that will benefit you. The politicians will follow when they see there’s votes in it and the big corporates will provide the new products & services if enough people start demanding them.

all the best

Colin

Clinton agred to Kyoto (albeit after much wrangling), Bush opposed it. Clinton tried to engage the world on the issue, Bush has arrogantly refused to deal with the world on GW. Clinton increased environment spending, Bush has reduced it.

I dont see how you can use statistics to somehow pretend the USA is doing OK on energy efficiency. It is not right to measure GHG emissions against GDP, GDP is irrelevant, they should be compared to population. Under such measurement, the US is the worst GHG emitter, and SHOULD feel honour bound to start doing something about it.

I agree Bush is not responible for historic emissions, but GW has only been a political issue for 15 or so years. His Dad did something, Clinton did something, and now when the evidence is overwelming, and time is running out, he (Dubya) does nothing. Why?

This has nothing to do with the US though, the US is where the environment movement started, it is where most of the innovation is conceptualised and tested (eg emissions trading schemes), if the US had a real leader, one who actually put his peoples interests first, then I am sure the GW issue would be dealt effectively not just in the US but globally. If only Kerry had won…...lets not go there again!

Ah, leadership and who may they be?

Great posts by everyone! It brings me joy to see this high level of intellectual thought. We are brainstorming, learning, and building on each other. Mark has provided great topics. Many have provided useful links plus insightful books like Natural Capitalism. I think everyone deserves credit for participating on such a high level. In fact, I feel the need to do more reading and personal research so I can better participate.

Leadership? I can make a case against both Bush and Kerry and in particular to most of our politicians. Bottom Line: We should not be in this much debt and creating more while fighting a war and when we have not done enough to improve our infrastructure for our sustainable future and this is especially true with energy resources and how we use them.

With regard to the last election, I have a rational theory about some of the swing voters in why they choose Bush over Kerry. This is not my personal view but simply an explanation from how I see some of these voters so it is more my analysis than my personal opinion.

First Kerry supported Bush by voting for Bush to have the power to go to Iraq as did many Democrats. It took billions in fuel costs just to transport people and equipment, so why would anyone think our troops would be brought back? That was simply not politically feasible. Were the Democrats that naï? In fact, were some member countries on the Security Council that naï? Maybe many believed in WMD so that may be unfair to suggest. I initially bought into the concept of WMD not knowing any way to disprove it.

The point here is that Bush was supported in many ways by many people who later opposed him passionately. Some may use the word cherry picking like Norbert would cherry pick data to make his case. I think this aspect caused some of the polarization.

Now, I may sound like a Bush supporter to both Kerry People and Bush people but that is not the case so I have to make my disqualifier as some have misinterpreted past posts of mine. Please do not do this if you have passions and loyalty to specific political parties. I assure you I have none. I am only giving a partial explanation of why some swing voters ended up voting for Bush. I am leading up to something more relevant.

Now, Kerry’s exit strategy for Iraq was basically the same as our current president and even copied some of Bush’s rhetoric. I could not help but notice that in the debates here. Since Iraq was a polarizing issue in the USA, some people were simply not sure where they stood. I suspect many swing-voters felt this. In the end, many of these swing-voters felt Kerry was an untested unknown with respect to Iraq and Iraq elections were around the corner. These people then opted for consistency and went with the incumbent.

Now with that said, again, I am not suggesting these are my personal views. Mine are much more complex than that and involve many more issues other than Iraq. I did not support Bush but I was upset with Kerry on his inconsistency on issues important to me.

Considering issues relevant to Mark’s site, I was upset in particular when Kerry suggested to pump more oil out of our strategic oil reserve to lower gas prices and blamed Bush for high gas prices by not doing so.

In my mind, Bush is responsible for lower gas prices because of his connections with Saudi Arabia so that I found very confusing.

Furthermore, the economic dynamics of oil supply, refining, etc. suggested that Kerry was either trying to score points with the public lending support to the view that Americans like lower gas prices and this would be good to say to get their vote. Either it was that or Kerry simply lacked understanding of basic energy issues.

Ideas more consistent from our past elections include Perot’s proposed gas tax while lowering other taxes and Al Gore’s proposed Btu tax on energy consumption.

Kerry’s point in lowering gas prices was inconsistent with developing an efficient energy infrastructure. In fact, I would expand the strategic reserve buying oil to put away for future use for simple pragmatic reasons instead of depleting it to lower current prices.

So, my disillusionment is based on many other aspects as well but this one is relevant to Mark’s site. It was not consistent with other statements on energy independence Kerry made and it seemed evident to me that the Democrats did not have a comprehensive plan. They said they had a plan to have a plan if I remember correctly.

Many who voted for Kerry were simply voting against Bush. Now,I hope my statements do not create a political debate but simply add clarity to something more relevant which I say I am leading up to.

I think many who post on this site and including Americans on Mark’s site are definitely ahead of the game with respect to America’s mainstream on many topics.

Now, to the Americans on Mark’s site, may I suggest that we are smarter than our leadership is be it Bush or Kerry? May I suggest that most of the people who post on Mark’s site are ahead not only of mainstream America but certainly most of its politicians?

May I suggest that maybe it is time that we detach from nationalistic loyalties or political parties to the extent that we may be evolving to a higher order of thinking? Not to suggest that we do not favor one party over another. Bush is supporting sequestration technologies at least. I support that.

But more importantly, maybe are own thoughts and ideas are advancing even further from the mainstream. I suggest that we just don’t buy the standard lines and to simply think more for ourselves since we may have better ideas and invent better ways.

With all that said, my title was “Ah, leadership and who may they be?”

At the rate many of us are developing by our own efforts from sharing on Mark’s site and since most of us already know our world is not sustainable, then we also know that our world must be reinvented.

This requires people who keep thinking outside the box and to keep evolving to higher levels of thinking. We are doing just that! Keep it up!

If you do not buy that, then maybe these 2 quotes below from the great physicist Albert Einstein might help:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution.”

And my favorite:

“The significant problems we face cannot be solved at he same level of thinking we were at when we created them.”

Albert Einstein

Now, I suspect your imagination has already answered the question in my title.

I even made up a quick little poem inspired by the opening Kansas lyric from their song “Hold On”.

Look in the mirror and tell me what do you see? Have you now learned who that Leadership now just might be? Changes surely happen as they always do! Behind all those changes, now just might be you!

Take Care, Dan

Jim,

I posted in the past per capita emission rates by industrialized country and made some very relevant points and I noticed that you do not think they had merit since you never use them as a basis for your analytical comparisons. I have to ask you why?

One point I think you may be missing is that the issues surrounding the GW/CC debate have to do with reducing carbon emissions to prevent GW from creating an intractable problem which will be messy and costly to say the least. It may be disastrous if we do not act. Mark and others suggest similar climate events in the past have actually led to mass extinctions.

With that said, success at reducing emissions is an important part of dealing with GW/CC. The only progress that matters in the end is reducing emissions. Even sequestration efforts must include reduction strategies.

I, like others, believe that we actually have to reduce to a point which does not add to the buildup and we may even have to sequester the past carbon buildup from the air to be ultimately be successful.

Bush’s focus on sequestration research is a big plus there. However, it is still a partial solution in my mind. It is easier to sequester when we have less to sequester from effective emission reduction strategies.

Now, when we compare emissions averaged per person on an equal basis, then the USA should do better since our rates are way too high in comparison with other countries.

If we were to reduce our emission rates to be at par with the EU, Britain, Japan, Germany, etc then and only then can we actually claim we did our part.

Now, if you do not buy into this, then you would have to believe that GW/CC does not exist. I hope you don’t believe this because we just went through an ordeal with cherry-picking skeptics not long ago who decided to leave Mark’s site since they could not make their case convincingly.

BTW, you read my post on the Sun warming the oceans and posted a comment which was a false assumption on what I said. I said nothing to suggest that GW/CC did not exist. I cannot write a book here and I was just trying to help someone understand basic methods of climate heat transfer. What were you thinking?

And, based on that misconception, I want to share with anyone who read my response to Mark’s glacier post. I seem to have been preoccupied with sea-level rise and posted a tech solution concept. However, I did have a line that I may have needed to expand on and I wish I did since it was a more important point.

In that previous glacier post, I did do a rough energy calculation to test my assumption of that tech fix on the glacier. I did that simply by comparing the summer solar input at a comparable latitude with the heat influx suggested by the glacier mass imbalance noted by the scientists in Mark’s reference site.

For me, the comparison indicated a rather high heat influx comparable to a double digit percentage increase in summer solar input. This heat influx actually corresponds to a surface area many thousands of times greater than the glacier surface areas I was focused on. This simply means there is a great amount of heat transfer already taking place to melt that ice.

As I said in that post, knowing how much ice has melted can easily lead to the heat required and so I do not doubt the ability of the scientists to calculate that.

Now, some people read to learn. I do and need to do more reading but I also learn by doing the math for myself. It helps me to know better these issues especially when any controversy arises. Based on my simple calculation on the glaciers, I can visualize in my mind clearly how this all works and it suggests to me that the predictions maybe more on track than not.

Like I said before, the earth has tremendous thermal inertia. Even with a high influx of heat, it takes a long time for the earth’s surfaces to absorb that heat. We are in a transient state and until we take away the mechanisms responsible for the heat influx, the earth will continue to warm.

To illustrate my point, imagine you have a pot and fill it with water and ice. Turn on the heat and see how long it takes for the ice to melt and once it melts, the water goes up in temperature much faster. It takes more time and energy to thaw something than to simply heat it up? If vast quantities of ice melt, then there must be lots of heat to do that!

OK, I hope all this helps. I thought I needed to elaborate on that glacier post just in case you or someone else may have misinterpreted that post since I did not elaborate enough and now I did.

Later, Dan

in relation to energy use it has a lot to do with GHG’s. The US produces the most GHG because it has the largest GDP! GDP and GHG production have a positive correlation. Production of something takes power. Power in the US is mainly through burning fossil fuel. Also people drive to go to work to produce a product and this again takes fuel. I thought to use the GDP number to equalize all the countries to a level platform for comparing how much GHG would they output to get the same GDP level as the US (since the US has the biggest GDP). My table did not turn out on the comments page well but showed that “bang for the buck” Germany was most “efficient” in it GDP efforts (all else equal). The US was fourth. I then used Germany’s KwH number to compare all other countries to see how far behind they were.

My argument is simply, whether for the sake of GW, or the sake of more efficient capitalistic production the US should move to work use the energy it has in the most efficient way. This would be a win-win for business and the environment….

As far as Bush, he’s getting a raw deal and I think unfair blame. He’s being realistic and saying we are moving in the right direction from the pollution standpoint but not trying to artifically stimy (sp) economic growth for the sake of meeting an arbitrary GHG number. I am curious to see how many Kyoto countries will meet the goals they agreed to. So far I’ve found several articles showing Canada has no hope of making it’s goal. Why? Because of it’s economic growth. I’ll be curious to see if the other countries reach there goals as well…

Hi Jimbo,

I do realise the energy equation can not be ignored, but my approach is perhaps more from a level of human justice than pure (and perhaps more pragmatic) economics.

I dont see why just because the US dollar is worth alot more than the Chinese Yuan for example, that the value of US production should then allow the US to pollute the planet more than other countries. I think that such attitudes will prevent international agreements as they tilt the analysis in favour of rich nations: poor ones just wont sign up.

I have done research into economic measures to control GHG emissions, and agree with your basic rationale though. Energy efficiency is important, and the US is not too bad (but should be alot better considering its wealth and expertise). My issue is still with the leadership vacuum created by Bush. Research, evidence all points to a destabilised climate, but he, with all his options to get involved and lead, chooses to sit on the sidelines. UNFORGIVABLE!!!!

I appreciate your response and will read with more interest your basis of analysis. I am glad you shared your thoughts along those lines and I want to understand those thoughts better because your clarification indicated a special focus and insight.

Yet, somewhere there may be a greater understanding from both our unique perspectives. Somewhere we may need to integrate them both in some special way.

Your points about the ability of a country to comply with Kyoto are very relevant. Simply signing an agreement and not complying with it does no one any good and maybe these economic factors play into it more then I realize or yet understand.

And, thanks for clarifying your points. I think that you are an asset to Mark’s site because we make more progress when we expand our thinking outside our own models, disciplines, and preconceived notions.

I may add that Germany which is your “star example” also has less than half our per capita emissions.

If we reduced to Germany’s per capita emission level, then that would be equivalent to double what Kyoto would have asked the USA to do! Just a point as to why we may need to combine perspectives because I am still confused by that fact.

With all that said, I relish the constructive dialogue and it involves something much greater than just making our points. It is in developing something that no one yet has thought of and this is the creative process in its highest form.

I would also like to thank Colin and other people from the UK who have demonstrated such good will in raising the standards of Mark’s blog site so high. Colin, you and others make me feel so welcome and Jim plus Lynn and other Americans and I appreciate that very much especially when our collective emissions may offset UK Kyoto initiatives.

No matter where we are in our understanding or whatever our views may be, I do notice the kindness shown by those in the UK towards Americans. And Lynn has mentioned Natural Capitalism quite often and I meant to buy it but became distracted and that happens to all of us. However, Colin, you bought it and then expressed your enthusiasm reading it and now it seems everyone will buy it including me plus books others have mentioned here on Mark’s site.

For the UK in general, both I and Jim have each indicated our admiration for the British. I have grown much from getting to know people through what they write on Mark’s site and I am very grateful to Mark for creating such a great place to have this forum.

And again, thanks to you Jim. I am glad you have become a regular contributor to Mark’s site. There are a lot of smart people here so the bar is set very high for us but this only makes it more interesting and more fun. For me, it is simply an honor to participate.

Best Regards, Dan

Brendon,

It has been my observation of humans that prosperity can blind our ability to think rationally at times.

I have observed that caring about other people can decrease with wealth. In contrast, quite often when we are most hungry is when we become most creative and most caring.

I have observed these traits in the same people and the only thing that changed was their relative status or prosperity.

I share this because I agree with you and fully understand what you said and know you will understand what I am not saying directly.

I do this in order to be more subliminal, stealth, and diplomatic to other people who may not yet be able to fully understand your main point! ;-)

Best Regards, Dan

GHG production was invariably linked with a higher GDP (a higher producing countries economy). The two are related.

I would guide you the the US EPA website for seeing what Bush is or is not doing related to the environment. He has proposed a bill “clear skys” which reduces pollution but is currently snagged in congress from being passed. I wouldn’t call that sitting on the sidelines.

www.epa.gov for info on what guidleines are out for US companies and power production.

It was interesting you brought up the Chinese Yuan as being less valuable than the dollar. The US has been protesting the artificial Yuan valuation constraints that the Chinese government has held in place for it’s currency. This also artificially makes the Chinese goods cheaper to other countries therby increasing Chinese exports. Economists in the US and other places agree the Yuan is very devalued and needs to be set up on a floating basis as other currencies are.

WORLD HUNGER As the food aid arm of the United Nations, the World Food Program (WFP) is Food for Peace’s biggest emergency response partner. Together the organizations have done remarkable work in recent crises from Afghanistan to Iraq, Sudan, Ethiopia, and southern African countries. Eighty-three countries contributed to WFP in either 2002 or 2003, but U.S contributions outweighed all 82 others combined. Without U.S. food assistance, WFP’s ability to address international food crises would be cut by almost 60 percent, likely leading to millions of deaths, instability, and malnutrition in many developing countries.

source- Food for Peace Program http://www.dec.org/pdf_docs/PDABZ818.pdf

HIV/AIDS The U.S. government is the world leader in responding to the global pandemic of AIDS. This year, with a budget of $795 million, USAID will assist more than 50 countries with HIV/AIDS programs, with 25 of these countries considered high priority.

source- http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/

NATURAL DISASTERS- From October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003, USAID/OFDA responded to 61 declared disasters.* Total funding for these world wide disasters in 2003 exceeded $350 million dollars.

source- http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/publications/annual_reports/pdf/AR2003.pdf

OVERALL FOREIGN FUNDING

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) 9 Feb 2005– Guyana is among 15 “focus” countries that would benefit from the U.S. Global HIV/AIDS Initiative whose funds would rise to $1.97 billion from $1.37 billion, under President Bush’s proposed budget released on Monday.

Under the budget, U.S. foreign aid would rise 10.7 per cent with more money to fight AIDS and help countries that reform economically and politically.

The effort seeks to help the most severely afflicted countries around the world combat the disease through improved prevention, care and treatment programmes. The other countries listed with Guyana are, Botswana, Ethiopia, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mozambique, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia.

A senior State Department official who briefed reporters on the foreign affairs budget said the main recipients of U.S. aid overall - Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Colombia - would each get roughly the same amount of money as last year.

State Department figures showed the U.S. foreign operations budget, which funds everything from child health care programmes and aid to refugees to foreign military sales and debt relief, would rise to $22.82 billion in the fiscal 2006 year that begins on Oct. 1 from an estimated $19.71 billion.

source- http://www.sidsnet.org/latestarc/other-newswire/msg00078.html

2002 Foreign Operations budget was 15.2 Billion Dollars! http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/3954.pdf

No, I mean it, I’m not being sarcastic. When you see this kind of direct action quantified it shows just what a tremendous force for good the US economic base can be: we do not hear enough of these kind of stats. The only stories that make the press are the allegations of corruption when some large construction company or other is caught handing out bribes to win an aid-funded contract, or there is an arms deal done behind closed doors out of sight of the TV crews filming the food hand-outs.

One of the main concerns, and this is , I think I’m right in saying, the main conceptual sticking point with Bjorn Lomborg’s priorities, is that by focussing on addressing immediate need: food, medicines, debt relief; we are adressing only part of the problem. If the aid programmes are expended in ways which further degrade local environments, focus solely on switching food production from feeding local people to exports to pay of international debt, or create a dependency on imported technology, then any benefits in aid tend to get cancelled out. Most large NGO’s involved in third world development are only too well aware aware of this and use sustainable techniques that enable local people to rebuild their lives and land steadily using renewable resources to hand; but not all aid goes via NGO’s.

The issue of good governance: not necessarily a US/UK style democracy, but good institutions; independent judiciary, a free press and an administration that bears down hard on corruption, are being recognised as the cornerstone of stabilising a country in need. Where weak and corrupt government exist, not only do people suffer, but the vitally important environment (like Indonesia’s rain forests) is often ravaged as well, leaving nothing but wasteland to try to rebuild from. And environmental damage on this scale has profound global effects.

If the US admimistration were to provide leadership with an integrated approach to aid that addressed poverty, economics, good governance and environmental resource protection equally, it would have a far greater impact and probably gain wider recognition.

The same criticism could be applied to the UK Govt aid programmes as well of course, although the need for joined-up-thinking-and-action is currently to the fore during our current chairing of the G8 and presidency of the EU, but as you ably pointed out, we don’t have resources on the same scale that you do, so a change of emphasis by the US would have a proportionally larger and more immediate effect.

kind regards

Colin

unfortunately things like the ineffective UN or currupt governments get in the way. An example, Bush pledged 15 billion in the coming years to Africa to help with aids. But the problem is the money is not reaching those who need it!! The US administration is refusing to release money to these governments until they can show it is being spent on those who need it! Many of the African governments currently cannot show the money IS being spent properly. He’s trying to help the people but the governments are getting in the way… sad really.

I agree that the good that the US does is not said enough. I’m sure the statistics would have been really impressive to consider over the past decades what has been spent around the world by the US. But, it’s easier to blame the US for problems around the world. I can’t believe I was reading that the recent tsunami disaster was being blamed on Bush… ridiculous… sadly the uneducated with actually believe this anti-US propoganda….

as a percentage of gdp the US lags woefully behind many developed nations. So while in volume terms it is giving more, in terms of what it should and could give, its is behind and needs to address this.

I do not want any US readers to think this is criticsm, the US does alot to help other nations, merely it could do more, and complacency is the enemy of progress.

best regards