Global Zeitgeist

EESI Briefing on Green Jobs

2009-05-05T02:32:00.005-04:00

I'm putting up anther video on green jobs. This one was an Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) briefing on Capitol Hill in October 2008 -- yes, I know, this is like a pre-historic post in Internet time terms, but I feel it's still useful. I was one of four panelists, speaking about the report we wrote for UNEP. (Bracken Hendricks of CAP was another panelist, plus we had speakers from the US Conference of Mayors and from Johnson Controls).

The Power of Symbolism

2009-05-05T01:37:00.003-04:00

UN at Geneva_Broken Chair-08
Originally uploaded by mgrenner57

Symbolism is important. In front of UN headquarters in Geneva, a gigantic "broken chair" calls attention to the world's landmines and cluster bombs. It was initially installed in 1997 and intended as a temporary display, but the failure of some major powers to sign the landmine convention led to the chair becoming a more permanent fixture.

In light of the fact that so-called "small arms" cause much of the killings and maimings in today's violent conflicts, this seems a more appropriate sculpture than the twisted anti-aircraft gun barrel that's on the opposite end of the same square.

But the extent of militarism in this world demands far more symbolic statements. As just one suggestion, it would be telling to create a sculpture with two piles of money, one representing military spending, the other for instance spending to reduce poverty, or address climate change, etc. You can imagine that the first pile is huge, the second barely visible in comparison.

Flickr

2009-05-05T00:58:00.001-04:00

This is a test post from , a fancy photo sharing thing.

Interview on Green Jobs

2009-04-30T16:44:00.005-04:00

See my interview with E&E News' Monica Trauzzi, at http://www.eenews.net/tv/2008/10/23/.

This is from late last year, but still relevant.

Global Policy in Brief: Who are the Real Pirates?

2009-04-17T08:05:00.002-04:00

I posted the following item on the new "Global Policy in Brief" blog (check it out!):

The three movies that have so far been released in the “Pirates of the Caribbean” series have grossed about $2.7 billion in worldwide ticket sales and another $615 million in DVD sales in the United States alone. The antics of Johnny Depp’s character have also spawned Disney theme park rides, spinoff novels and video games, and countless other adaptations and promotions. This celebration of outlaws has delighted millions of movie-goers and generated handsome profits for the (Western) world’s entertainment complex since 2003.

But no such amusement was triggered by modern-day, real-life pirates some 8,000 miles away, off Somalia. After a U.S. captain was captured and held for ransom, a media frenzy ensued. Celebrity columnist Tom Friedman bemoaned that we live“In the Age of Pirates.” Calls for stepped-up military intervention to confront the rising threat of piracy grew more insistent. In fact, a militarized response has been in the making for some time. In August 2008, Combined Task Force 150—a multinational force set up under the aegis of the “war on terror”—was tasked with patrolling the Gulf of Aden. The UN Security Council adopted French-drafted Resolution 1838, endorsing air and naval attacks against acts of piracy.

Western commentators express bewilderment at the fact that instead of being suppressed, piracy seems to be spreading, with more daring ship takeovers farther from the Somali coast. Not only is there an unwarranted faith in military solutions, but much of the media coverage also conveniently sidesteps the broader context. Outside intervention has long succeeded in creating greater misery for ordinary Somalis:

Under dictator Mohamed Siad Barre (who held power from 1969 to 1991), large amounts of weapons were supplied first by the Soviet Union and, after Somalia and its rival Ethiopia switched superpower patrons in the late 1970s, by the United States.After the dictator’s fall, U.S. weapons were captured by ruthless warlords. The ensuing anarchy helped lead to an ill-fated U.S./UN intervention in the early 1990s.

In late 2006, the Bush administration encouraged Ethiopia to invade Somalia in order to overthrow the Islamic Courts Union, even though the ICU had finally re-established a degree of calm and order. And as analyst Bill Hartung noted in January 2007, “the U.S. has been a central player in the Somali civil war” by backing anti-ICU warlords, providing arms and intelligence to Ethiopian forces, and trying to kill ICU leaders with AC-130 gunships.

Part of the rationale of foreign intervention off Somalia is to protect fishing boats from piracy. Arguably, however, foreign (mostly European and Asian) fishing fleets there are essentially illegal (since there is no functioning government that can regulate activity in Somali waters). Growing numbers of local fishermen have been impoverished. The value of the poached fish is perhaps three times as much as pirates garner in ransom payments.

There is also evidence that toxic and nuclear wastes have been dumped off the Somali coast by European companies as far back as the early 1990s. Johann Hari explains that “Somalian fishermen took speedboats to try to dissuade the dumpers and trawlers, or at least levy a "tax" on them. […] No, this doesn't make hostage-taking justifiable, and yes, some are clearly just gangsters – especially those who have held up World Food Programme supplies.” Hari quotes one of the pirate leaders, Sugule Ali: “We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits [to be] those who illegally fish and dump in our seas.”

Confronted by the naval might of the world’s leading powers, Somalia’s pirates have shown themselves to be resourceful and cunning. But they are no match for the industrialized world’s media and entertainment complex that one moment glorifies celluloid make-believe pirates and another takes great care to gloss over the reasons for very real modern-day piracy in one of the world’s most destitute areas.

The End of Empire?

2009-01-20T16:31:00.004-05:00

What a relief: the nightmare of the last 8 years is over, even though the legacies of these years will still be with us for quite some time, irrespective of what Barack Obama does. But what a contrast we saw on display today. Obama - Bush: scholar v. frat boy, skilled orator v. mangler of language, multilateralist v. unilateralist, unifier v. divider.

It is almost a trademark of Obama's that he delivers speeches extremely well, and today was no different. There was much to be liked about his speech, but I felt that there were aspects that left something to be desired. First listening to the speech, then reading it, I struggled to pin down what left me less than happy about it.

I finally concluded that, for my taste, Obama was too eager to sound the notes that one typically hears in Washington, DC. Reclaiming world leadership when the first order is for the U.S. to catch up, regain some standing by demonstrating sincere engagement, a willingness for true give-and-take. During the last 8 years, the world has not stood still, and while many will be happy to have a more cooperative United States, this is no longer a unipolar world. The United Sates does not so much need to lead as to show a willingness to play along in a complex world.

The range of issues where collaboration rather than a simple claiming of the mantle of leadership is needed is awe-inspiring: the Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Israel-Palestine), Afghanistan-Pakistan, the world financial and economic crisis (the need for a global new deal), the climate crisis -- to cite just some of the most pressing topics.

In many of these areas, there is a desperate need for a decisive break with a militarism that, while elevated under George Bush, has been deeply-ingrained in the United States for a much longer period of time. The United States may possess overwhelming firepower, but this cannot and will not resolve the world's manifold problems and crises. Empire needs to be repudiated, not just because it is unworkable and is rejected by the world's majority, but also because it threatens to undermine all of Obama's goals. He needs to be mindful of LBJ's experience, who saw his "Great Society" dreams founder by the deepening Vietnam quagmire.

Obama's cabinet nominations beg the question whether the new President is prepared to challenge militarism and Empire. We will see whether it is his him or his key advisors--Hilary Clinton, Robert Gates, etc.--who effectively call the shots. We will see just how much Obama is his own man, and whether the neocons, the chicken hawks, the media armchair strategists manage to drag him in a more centrist or even conservative direction.

Many people, especially young people, were mobilized in unprecedented ways by the Obama campaign. Ultimately, it will take bottom-up pressure to ensure that Obama stays true to his promise.

5 Things I'd Like Obama to Say

2009-01-20T11:34:00.003-05:00

Here's what I'd like to hear Obama say during the inauguration (or do soon after):

1. If Robert Gates tries to talk me into continuing W.'s Iraq misadventure, I'll fire him on the spot.

2. I won't be suckered into an Afghan adventure, no matter what the pundit chicken hawks say.

3. I will work for true Israeli-Palestinian peace, one that both sides can live with.

4. I will ensure that there is full accountability for the Bush administration's crimes and misdeeds.

5. I'll provide true climate change leadership, and put up the investments needed to create the 5 million green jobs I promised during the campaign (many more dollars than I indicated then).

The imperial capital?

2009-01-20T11:24:00.006-05:00

I'm watching the Washington Post live feed of the inauguration. Amid the pomp and all, I can't help but feel that Washington, DC still comes across as an imperial capital. I'm hoping (...) that the Obama policies will say a goodbye to all the imperial nonsense.

I love the moment the Obama daughters walk out, bringing a bit of relief to the parading around of presidents past. But then Laura Bush and Lynne Cheney follow, and grim thoughts are back...

A few moments later, W., in black coat, comes up, and reminds me of Darth Vader.

Obama and Afghanistan

2009-01-20T00:19:00.004-05:00

As the hours tick away toward Obama's inauguration, I feel contradictory tugs. On one hand--of course!--a sense of enormous relief that the Bush era is finally over, that someone with a brain, articulate, intellectual, open to the world will reside in the White House instead of the moron-in-chief that we were saddled with for these long last eight years.

While I was tempted to be in DC for the inauguration, and while many of my friends and colleagues will be there, I think I'll put celebratory feelings on hold. Many of Obama's key nominations--especially in foreign and security policy and in economic policy, have given me pause because they seem to reinforce a Washington centrism that is rather different than what the "audacity of hope" rhetoric suggested.

Many expect that Obama's economic policy will be key to whether he will eventually be regarded as a successful president or not. Others look to his leadership on the climate challenge. Actually, it may well require a combination of the two--as the notion of a green stimulus or, more audacious, a green new deal. I am one of those who believe that charting a new course and decisively bringing together environment and economy will be a key task.

But there is a danger that Obama's security policy choices will upend whatever he may do, and accomplish in other areas. If the new president follows his campaign rhetoric and expands the Afghan war, then he may reap not only continued high military expenditures and even greater difficulties in steadying the economy and financing his programs. He will also face a growing quagmire and ill-will in the region and likely beyond. For he will be seen as swapping one war (Iraq) for another (Afghanistan). Even setting aside questions of legitimacy, neither war can be won militarily. Efforts in this direction will simply cement in the world's eyes what the United States has become under George W. Bush: an imperial bully.

Obama will be well-advised to carefully think through the consequences. Advice from his Bush-holdover Pentagon chief may run in the opposite direction, and grassroots pressure will be all the more important.

The Scale of Gaza's Suffering

2009-01-19T19:33:00.004-05:00

UN News had this to say today about Gaza after three weeks of the Israeli onslaught:

"According to Palestinian figures that the UN has called credible, the casualty toll from the thee week offensive, which Israel said it launched to stop Hamas rocket attacks against it from Gaza, now stands at 1,340 dead, 460 of the children and 106 women, and 5,320 wounded, 1,855 of them children and 795 women, with a large proportion of the injuries severe, including burns and amputations. Thirteen Israeli were reported killed, including four from rocket fire. [...] ... infrastructure repairs had allowed 100,000 more people to receive water, although 400,000 were still without it, but sewage was still flooding the streets of some towns in the north. Some 50 UN facilities were damaged."

This, in the briefest of summaries, conveys the scale of the state terrorism that has been inflicted on an essentially defenseless population. For what purpose? Is anyone feeling safer? Quite the contrary.

The number of dead, relative to the population of 1.5 million, is close to one in 1,000. Translated to the size of the U.S. population, that would come to about 270,000 -- about 90 "9/11"s.

In future years, if and when one of the Gazans decides to take his or her rage out on the citizens of the countries that enabled these attacks (by providing aid, furnishing weapons, giving diplomatic and political cover, etc.), will we once again hear the plaintive "why do they hate us?" This is not an endorsement of (more) violence, but rather a plea for understanding cycles of retribution and hatred.

Fear Factor: Clinton does a McCain

2008-03-05T09:39:00.002-05:00

While I'm not sure that I'm too enamored of Obama's vague hope & change message (I'd love a Democratic candidate who hammers the Repulicans for all their horrible misdeeds since 2001 and is dedicated to an absolute U-turn), I feel worse about Hilary Clinton. Her use of fear (see my previous post) is repugnant.

And as the owner of the "War in Context" site explains (http://warincontext.org/2008/03/05/how-did-mcclinton-do-it/), it's also self-defeating. While Hilary may love to posture as a tough natural security figure, this plays right into McCain's ("Mr.-let's-stay-in-Iraq-for-100-years") hands and may well set up the Democrats for defeat in November.

To pin all blame on Clinton would be unfair, though. It has to be said that a substantial portion of the U.S. electorate is nothing but gullible and terribly uninformed when it comes to "security" measures. You'd think that after nearly 8 years of Bush's unique combination of abuse, arrogance, and incompetence, enough people would wake up to repudiate the Republican party and send them to a historic defeat from which it will take them a couple of decades to recover.

Well, I must be dreaming...

The Politics of Fear, Reloaded?

2008-02-29T17:41:00.004-05:00

The politics of fear worked so well for George W. that apparently Hilary Clinton thinks it just might work for her, too. As the "inevitable nominee" faces knockout by upstart Barack Obama, this is all the Clinton campaign can think of? Is she really this desperate?

And, given Hilary's voting record on Iraq and Iran, I for one have real doubts whether she should be the one picking up that red phone in the middle of the night. (An even more nightmarish thought: having John McCain be the one...)

We need to get away from this kind of politics. IF Obama does begin to bring that kind of change, then there really is some hope.

Remember the Fall of the Berlin Wall?

2008-01-23T14:11:00.000-05:00

Remember the fall of the Berlin wall? Well, here is a news item that should remind people of that seminal event:

The New York Times reports: "Thousands of Palestinians streamed over the Rafah border crossing from the Gaza Strip into Egypt on Wednesday, after a border fence was toppled, and went on a spree of buying fuel and other supplies that have been cut off from their territory by Israel. They used donkeys, carts and motorcycles to cross the border, and streamed back over the fallen fence laden with goods they had been unable to buy in Gaza. The scene at the border was one of a great bazaar. The streets were packed, and people were bringing into Gaza everything from soap and cigarettes to goats, chickens, medicine, mattresses and car paint."

Predictably, the Israeli government puts it all down to terrorism: Arye Mekel, a spokesman for the Israeli Foreign Ministry, commented: “The danger is that Hamas and other terror organizations will take advantage of the situation to smuggle in weapons and men and make a bad situation in Gaza worse.”

But let's face it. The population of Gaza is living in an open-air prison, vulnerable to the whims of the Israeli government which controls everything that goes in and out of Gaza. Those whims include bombardments, incursions and, recently, a cutoff of all supplies, damn the consequences. Such actions, patently illegal under international law, will never end Palestinian hostility toward Israel. Palestinians will try to get access to indispensable supplies. And some will be even more motivated to use violence. Ultimately, you can't starve a population into submission.

When the Berlin Wall tumbled down, it irreversibly changed the course of recent history in Europe. This opening of the Gaza wall, sadly, is unlikely to weigh so heavily on the course of human events. But it is to be hoped that more people wake up to the ongoing human tragedy on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Congo and the "Responsibility to Protect"

2008-01-22T16:50:00.000-05:00

You've heard about Iraq and the hundreds of thousands of civilians that perished there since the 2003 invasion (well, the mainstream media give far more space to entirely spurious claims of a "successful" surge than to serious reporting about the humanitarian disaster triggered by Bush's war). You have heard about Darfur (in fact, you may have marched and organized to protest the mass killings and expulsions there). But do you know what's going on in Congo--to be precise, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)?

This vast country (and principally its eastern swathes) has seen recurring violence for most of the past decade. Killings, hunger, and disease have imposed a heavy toll on this region. Sadly, such ravages are hardly unknown to this part of Africa (called Zaire under kleptocrat-king Mobutu) since the time when Belgium and its King Leopold came to colonize and brutally exploit it late in the 19th century.

Another in a series of assessments has now been published by the International Recue Committe and the Burnet Institute. Titled "Mortality in the DRC. An Ongoing Crisis," the study explains that:

"Although a formal peace accord was signed in December 2002, the war has since given way to several smaller conflicts in the five eastern provinces that have continued to exact an enormous toll on the lives and livelihoods of local populations. Since 2000, the International Rescue Committee (IRC) has documented the humanitarian impact of war and conflict in DR Congo through a series of five mortality surveys. The first four studies, conducted between 2000 and 2004, estimated that 3.9 million people had died since 1998, arguably making DR Congo the world’s deadliest crisis since World War II. Less than 10 percent of all deaths were due to violence, with most attributed to easily preventable and treatable conditions such as malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia and malnutrition."

Pause here for a moment. 3.9 million dead in the space of seven years! In contemporary U.S. terms, that's more than a thousand 9/11's--that event that supposedly unlike any other changed "everything."

The latest IRC/Burnet study updates the numbers, and they're even more horrible. The researchers conclude that "5.4 million excess deaths have occurred between August 1998 and April 2007." Thanks in part to peacekeeping efforts, there have been some recent improvements in the eastern provinces. But the mortality rate is still 85 percent higher than the sub-Saharan average (!) and these small improvements are now threatened by a new escalation in violence in North Kivu province.

For all the discussion about a "responsibility to protect" (civilians victimized in conflict zones), this is just so much hot air. In principle, it makes sense for human societies to come to each other's help in an hour of extreme need, but the reality is that major powers are only intervening when it suits their interests. And very often, such self-interested acts end up making things much, much worse.

Sadly, R2P seems destined to remain an idea that won't stop the kinds of atrocities and suffering we see in DRC, Darfur, Iraq, and other places. Meanwhile, perhaps it's cynical to suggest that R2P will nicely allow a bevy of consultants, diplomats, and others to keep publishing reports and organize conferences.

Speak Truth to Power: The Hilarious Way

2008-01-22T13:03:00.000-05:00

Sometimes you need a somewhat over-the-top approach to speaking truth to power. This little video fares quite well in that regard...

About those incubators ...

2008-01-22T02:57:00.000-05:00

Watch this clip to begin to understand what is happening now to the civilian population of Gaza. A blockade of supplies by Israel means real suffering--and de facto collective punishment, which is a war crime.

But sure, depriving people of electricity and medicines will stop the firing of rockets into Israel! And, hey, it's all the Gazans' fault, they're all terrorists! Just like anyone showing any sort of sympathy for them. (Yes, these are the typical arguments...very sad.)

Now, without doubt, the firing of rockets into Israel needs to stop as well. Like on the Palestinian side, those being victimized are civilians. These tactics will not resolve the conflict or secure the Palestinians a state.

What particularly caught my attention in the clip is the question which life-saving machines doctors at hospitals may have to switch off first, if fuel supplies aren't restored soon: kidney dialysis machines or incubators?

The mention of incubators in particular reminded me of the propaganda that was spread around in the run-up to the 1991 Gulf War, when it was claimed that Iraqi soldiers occupying Kuwait were ripping babies out of incubators. That was later proven to be a lie--but it played extremely well in the Western media. Let's see whether Palestinian babies and incubators make it through the veil of Western media preoccupations!

More on the Nano story .. at OneWorld.net

2008-01-18T10:15:00.000-05:00

The Nano story is getting lots of attention in a range of places, as it touches a raw nerve with regard to the politics of climate change and issues of global inequity. My analysis has now also been picked up, via hyperlink, at OneWorld.net.

Nano on 'Comment is Free'

2008-01-17T15:19:00.000-05:00

My take on the Tata Nano is now online at The Guardian's 'Comment is Free' site. See it and commentary from readers at http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_renner/2008/01/road_rage.html.

"Nano Hypocrisy" -- blogosphere pick-up

2008-01-16T22:51:00.000-05:00

I'm feeling flattered. My "Nano hypocrisy" piece (the version written for Worldwatch, not the version posted here) has been picked up in a number of places in the blogosphere. A Swedish blogger calls it "the most read-worthy analysis so far." The Climate Change Action blog praises it as a "superb article." And I'm feeling honored that Sanjay Khanna over at Worldchanging judges it to be an interesting analysis (and I must say his own pieces and the comments on his piece are very insightful). Meanwhile, Environment News Network republished the entire piece.

17 January update: A great site where real experts exchange views on transportation issues can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/. I particularly like the article "World's Cheapest Car Environmentally Costly," by Praful Bidwai, at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sustran-discuss/message/4636. It presents very nuanced points, including the question whether the Nano's claimed air emissions will actually hold up over time. Tata's extreme focus on holding costs down may well mean that critical parts of the car are not designed, engineered, and manufactured in such a manner as to yield reliable results over time. Well, time will tell...

A Nano Hypocrisy

2008-01-16T14:48:00.000-05:00

There's been quite a stir over the unveiling of Indian conglomerate Tata's new Nano--dubbed the "people's car" and apparently the cheapest car ever sold on earth. Western media commentaries and environmentalists shriek in horror at the prospect of millions and millions of Nanos proliferating on the roads of developing countries and, by implication, wrecking the planet's climate system.

But, as I commented on Grist and also on the Worldwatch Web site, these denunciations ring rather hollow. (For a similar take, see the analysis here.)

Why is it that Americans, Europeans, and Japanese think they have a god-given right to plunder the earth's resources and drive us toward the environmental abyss, but scold Indians and others when they follow in our footsteps?

Yes, we need to do all we can to limit and reduce carbon emissions. But Western countries are a more appropriate place to focus on. Let's review some basics:

1. The Nano is said to have a fuel economy rating of 54 miles per gallon. This is roughly double the current U.S. CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) level.

2. Indians on average drive one-fourth the distance that Americans drive in a year.

3. The Nano seats five and Indian motor vehicles are typically used to full capacity, and then some. The average number of occupants per car in the US is something like 1.4.

Combine these facts and you end up with a factor of about 29--the average US car is likely to consume 29 times the energy of a Nano over a given period of time.

Yes, Indian cities hardly need more vehicles on their roads, given the existing traffic chaos and massive air pollution problems. But these are matters for Indians to address themselves. As Westerners, we ought to focus our energies on changing our own massively destructive car habits before pointing a finger at Indians.

In the name of security ...

2008-01-02T22:42:00.000-05:00

Privacy International has published an international survey assessing privacy and state surveillance around the world. Forty-eight countries are ranked according to 14 criteria including constitutional protection, ID cards, data-sharing, communication interception, workplace monitoring, border issues, and others.

Eight countries are highlighted as having the worst practices overall. They are Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

There are three particularly disquieting aspects to PI's findings:

The first is that the United States is now squarely among those deemed "endemic surveillance societies." In other words, it's not a question of one or the other questionable policy, or some "bad apples" or "rogue elements" acting on their own. Under George Bush, fear is used by the government to justify both domestic and international policies that are diametrically opposite the freedom and democracy rhetoric that Bush is so fond of mouthing.

Second, the situation in many countries is worsening. Privacy International grades the situation in 14 countries as "deteriorating" or "decaying," compared with the previous year. Only one, Slovenia, is judged to be "improving."

The assessment establishes seven categories, ranging from "endemic surveillance societies" at the bottom to "consistently upholds human rights standards." Here's the depressing point: no countries are ranked in that or the second-best category ("significant protections and safeguards"). Only one country--Greece--makes it into the third-best category ("adequate safeguards against abuse"). A skeptic might argue that the assessment doesn't cover all the countries in the world, and so a fuller picture might be more encouraging. But a look at PI's map shows that countries not represented are primarily from Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia--not areas known for their civil liberties.

So it's a brave new world out there. In the name of security and the "war on terror," increasingly our every move is being watched and recorded. The realm of unadulterated civil liberties and human rights is shrinking. It's worth to remember Benjamin Franklin's warning: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Personal Virtue + Sound Policy = Energy Action

2007-12-30T15:49:00.000-05:00

Remember when Dick Cheney,back in 2001 (pre-9/11), grumbled that “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy”? Well, perhaps as conservatives always like to say, people need to take more personal responsibility (nothing wrong with re-assessing your consumption patterns and lifestyle choices or, for that matter, with putting grassroots pressure on “leaders”). But if you’re inclined to count on purely personal decision-making, all else equal, as what will get us out of the climate change conundrum, then good luck!

I recently leased a new car (and, on that occasion, figured that perhaps it’s time to move back to an area where public transit and walking and bicycling are real options instead of faint desires). I thought I would opt for a Prius, the most efficient passenger vehicle currently available in the US.

The local Toyota dealer kept pushing the latest Camry model. I marched over to the display, placed enticingly in a prime showroom spot. The EPA fuel economy sticker in the side window read: City 19 mpg, highway 28 mpg. I stumbled backwards, shocked at the low numbers.

I soon enough found out why the dealer kept mentioning the Camry despite my insistence that fuel efficiency was the most important criterion for me. He gently explained that the financing offered by Toyota made the Camry a real steal, while the Prius would cost me about TWICE as much in monthly lease payments, pricing it way out of reach for someone with a family of four and ballooning costs for housing, health care, and the kids’ college education.

So, while Toyota parades around as a green car company (it certainly does much better than the infamous Big Three out of Detroit), its day-to-day policy suggests a more complicated picture. It’s not just that Toyota also manufactures a monster truck like the Tundra or a line of Lexus cars on horsepower steroids, or sided with other carmakers in opposing higher U.S. mileage standards. Financing of car purchases is where the rubber hits the road, so-to-speak.

Clearly, Toyota and other automobile manufacturers will continue to put profits above planetary interests. So, let’s make a little alteration to Cheney’s dictum: “Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it needs to be accompanied by a sound, comprehensive energy policy.”

The recently passed energy legislation that stipulates that car manufacturers increase the average mileage of new cars and light trucks to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 may seem like the right step. Compared with the absurdly out-of-date current CAFE standards, that’s certainly true. But as the International Council on Clean Transportation points out, in international comparison the United States lags badly behind Japan and Europe.

Another personal virtue—acting to press lawmakers to do the right thing—is another key ingredient in putting together a meaningful energy policy.

Third Anniversary of the Tsunami--Accomplishments and Problems

2007-12-30T12:16:00.000-05:00

Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur... The world's hotspots are many, and it's all too easy to be swept along by the latest in the never-ending maelstrom of crises. So who has time to pause and consider what, in terms of the short-attention news cycle, is an ancient event. December 26 marked the third anniversary of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Much has happened since the catastrophe of three years ago, both good and bad. Rebuilding has progressed in fits and starts. Indonesia's Aceh province, ground zero, was able to use the post-disaster goodwill to terminate a long-running armed conflict. Sri Lanka, by contrast, lapsed back into fighting between the Sinhala majority and Tamil minority, even though some had hoped that an Aceh-style peace initiative might be possible.

Quoted by IRIN News, Sri Lanka's Information Minister Anura Priyadharshana Yapa extolled his country's accomplishments: "In contrast to other tsunami devastated countries, the Sri Lanka government has performed a tremendous job in its relief, rehabilitation and resettlement process with an overall 80 percent success.” But, as IRIN notes, it's a success shared by most, but not all. Some survivors continue to languish in welfare shelters, and others contend with new settlements that lack basic facilities, including access roads, water and sanitation, and electricity. An ILO study also found substantial problems relating to lack of public safety, infrastructure, and limited income generating opportunities.

Traveling along the country's southern coast in January 2007, I remember seeing many shacks in areas quite close to the capital Colombo (see the image above left, from my Flickr album). Some rebuilding projects have resulted in impressive new settlements. I visited one such village near Kalutara, an hour south of Colombo. Houses for 55 families of tsunami survivors were built by Sarvodaya Shramadana Society on a plot of land the government made available, about 4 kilometers from the coast. The houses are simple, but sport solar panels on the roof, rainwater harvesting, recycling. (See image at top on right.) Drinking water provision remains a problem, as does the lack of transportation to the coast--many of the inhabitants once made a living as fishermen.

The south is a region that, compared especially with the areas affected by the resumed civil war, has fared quite well. Sri Lanka’s north and east sustained 60 percent of the damage wrought by the tsunami. But about a year after the tsunami struck, in December 2005, reconstruction in the north and the east was already beginning to show signs of slowing and lagging behind--principally because there was a lack of land on which to build permanent housing for tsunami survivors. The resumption of violence between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tiger rebels in 2006 added massive problems. The northeast, already saddled with weak public services and poor infrastructure, is increasingly difficult to access. Essentially reconstruction in the northeast came to a standstill.

According to the government's Reconstruction and Development Agency (RADA), by March 2007 more than 76,000 permanent houses had been built, with another 34,000 in progress. The southern districts of Galle, Matara, and Kalutara have fared very well, and in Hambantota (where President Rajapakse hails from), the number of houses constructed is far in excess of the estimated requirement. But districts in the east (with 59 percent of housing needed completed) and in the north (with just 28 percent) lag far behind.

RADA figures for December 2007, cited by IRIN News, indicate that almost 100,000 houses countrywide had been provided out of the initial requirement of 117,372 units in the 13 affected districts. The national average of 85 percent housing reconstruction is far higher than the 39 percent in the north, as of October.

Sri Lanka's post-tsunami reconstruction gap is as big a problem as its ongoing political-ethnic confrontation, and both issues are tightly related to one another.

Climate Change -- Beyond "the-market-will-fix-it" approaches

2007-12-29T19:38:00.000-05:00

It's fashionable these days to replace sound government policy with "market-based tools." This is particularly true for the conundrum of our time--how to avert full-blown climate change. Sure, it appears more simple and workable to get people to act on their narrow self-interest than to engage in the difficult process of public policy formation. So, the argument usually goes, just impose a carbon tax or establish a "cap-and-trade" system, and voila, the market solves the problem in an efficient and elegant manner.

Well, not so fast! Experience with cap and trade suggests that we still need intelligent public policy after all--otherwise, the whole thing either doesn't work or ends up enriching those who know how to play the carbon markets. Carbon taxes are needed to ensure that environmental costs are properly accounted for in prices. But they also need to be accompanied by other measures, otherwise the whole exercise is one of Environmental Darwinism. If you are rich or reasonably well off, you can afford to buy goods and services no matter how pricey they become, but if you barely make ends meet, then you'll have to tighten the belt...

Another problem is highlighted by a recent Washington Post article ("Small-Scale Businesses Forestall a Green India") . The article explains how many such businesses cannot afford the steep upfront costs of more efficient production equipment.

A carbon tax wouldn't make the situation any easier, it would just simply kill off these businesses. So, other policies are needed. They might include assistance in having several businesses pool their investments. They might subsidize the purchase of more efficient equipment. Clearly the specifics of such policies depend strongly on the particular circumstances of different industries, companies, countries, and regions. But let's not fool ourselves that "the market" will resolve these problems. The challenge of climate change requires more (and more intelligent) government action, not less.

Blast from the Past

2005-04-06T03:50:00.000-04:00

Second post, second strike against the New York Times. Really, what were the editors thinking when they committed ink and precious space to Ginger Thompson's "Old Foe of U.S. Trying for a Comeback in Nicaragua"?

The article is a hatchet job against former Nicaraguan president and Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, who is again running for office, and cavalierly disregards ongoing U.S. meddling in Nicaragua. As FAIR points out, the piece is "one-sided and inaccurate." That's putting it politely.

When I read the article this morning, I suddenly felt transported back to the unpleasant old days when Ronald Reagan said with a straight face that the Sandinistas were a threat to Harlingen, Texas, and that he had no choice but to arm the Nicaraguan Contra "freedom fighters" (make that terrorists in post-9/11 parlance). It's like the elephant warning that it is about to be crushed by a mouse.

(For those too young to have lived through the era, Reagan--just like "W" today--loved to babble endlessly about freedom while engaging in policies such as the mining of Nicaraguan harbors, then telling the International Court of Justice to get lost when it agreed that such actions were patently illegal.)

The Times article makes the Sandinista government of the 1980s out to have been little more than a front for world communism. It parrots feverish neocon chatter of Al Qaeda recruiters operating in Latin America and a "new axis of evil" of Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba emerging.

So obsessed is the article with Ortega's terrible machinations that the reader looks in vain for even a hint of the real issues confronting Nicaragua, still a desperately poor country. It might be expected that Faux News presents such gibberish, but the New York Times? Is this a blast from the past, or a taste of things to come?

Insufficient Explosive Force?

2005-04-04T02:09:00.000-04:00

In this inaugural post, I thought I'd briefly comment on an article that demonstrates the madness we continue to live with, more than a decade after the end of the Cold War. (The Cold War may have ended, but the associated mindset seems disturbingly well and alive.)

In a front-page article in the New York Times of April 3, 2005 ("Aging Warheads Ignite a Debate Among Scientists"), William J. Broad breathlessly alerts readers that a design flaw in hundreds of U.S. nuclear warheads carried aboard submarines "could cause them to explode with far less force than intended," a force "so reduced as to compromise its effectiveness."

The article explains that these warheads, known as W-76, are thermonuclear weapons, in which a "small atom bomb" ignites hydrogen fuel to produce a far bigger "bang." But the supposed design flaw might mean that there's "only" the initial nuclear explosion, not the larger thermonuclear blast.

Imagine! The White House threatens to destroy some rogue state ten times over, and it turns out it can only destroy it once. Of course, this is completely unacceptable. But the Times informs us that relief is on the way, in the form of an "overhaul program" to the tune of $2 billion plus.

Under the guise of the "Reliable Replacement Warhead Program," Washington will have yet another avenue to pursue the design of new generations of nuclear weapons. "If possible," Broad writes, "the effort is to proceed without nuclear testing." And if not? Well, then we'll just have to kill international efforts to ban such tests. No problem there; the administration is well practiced in casting aside international treaties it doesn't like.

The Times devotes much space to the arcane technical disagreements among nuclear weapons scientists. It doesn't see fit to comment that efforts to prolong the life of the U.S. arsenal fly in the face of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which commits the U.S. and the other nuclear weapons states to work toward disarmament. This at a time when the Bush administration is adamant that Iran respect the rules of that very same treaty.

It's an open secret that the Bush administration is an avid believer in U.S. exceptionalism -- one set of rules for the rest ofthe world, another for Washington. But one of the reasons the White House can get away with such blatant double-standards is that the media, by and large, fail so fundamentally to hold the political leadership to account.

Insufficient explosive force? The problem seems to be insufficient willingness to confront mad policies undertaken in the name of "national security."