- The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology just released their first report on global climate change. Their conclusion: it exists and it is being caused by human activity. China is also the second-biggest producer of greenhouse gases (A gold star for anyone who can guess who Numero Uno is). China is expected to take the top spot sometime in the next twenty years. They signed the Kyoto Protocols in 2002, but their status as a "developing country" means they are not required to reduce emissions immediately. Is this report a sign that the Chinese leadership is preparing to take some serious steps in the green direction? At least their leaders admit that global warming is taking place.
- One major problem that the world faces is the dilemma between producing energy cleanly and producing energy cheaply. The high prices of oil and gas exacerbate this dilemma; because more money has to be spent to buy these resources, less can be spent on finding cleaner alternatives. A major problem in the energy market is that demand is inelastic - slow to respond to price changes, especially increases. At the same time, the politics of producer nations and the position of oil and gas resources in volatile areas causes the prices to change rapidly. The clean versus cheap dilemma can only be solved through a broad coalition of producer and consumer nations. What we need is a new Kyoto, or at the very least for everyone to sign onto the old one.
- President Putin signed an order putting all arms exports under the control of one state-owned company, Rosoboroneksport. The CEO of this company is, surprise, surprise, another ex-KGB officer who served with Putin in Dresden during the Cold War. This is another example of Putin bringing all major enterprises under state control, his version of "de-privatization". Russia is a major arms exporter to Africa and Latin America. To tie this in with other recent events, the CEO of Rosoboroneksport, while head of a different arms exporter, supplied the Ethiopian military with the planes and helicopters that they used to take over Somalia this past week.
IN THE US OF A...
- We have a shifty Director of National Intelligence. John "Case Closed" Negroponte, former ambassador to the UN and to Iraq, is reportedly leaving his top intelligence post to become Deputy Secretary of State. That position was vacated in July by Robert "Cool 'Stache" Zoellick, who left to work for Goldman Sachs. This has been another in a long line of shifts and resignations in the Bush Administration since the occupation of Iraq began -- not to mention the indictment of Scooter Libby. The only question is: who's next? I would put 2-1 on Tony "I Don't Know" Snow (courtesy of WaPo's Dana Milbank), and 4-1 on Condoleezza Rice.
- And we have a shy Secretary of State. She has been asked in several interviews why the US will not talk to Iran, and has given the same lame excuses. She says that going to the table with Iran would be no more than pleading for help. Is she implying that we have no leverage over the Iranians? When given the Soviet Union analogy for negotiating with enemies, she says that "I don't ever remember sitting down and talking to the Soviet Union about how they could help us secure stability in Western Europe". Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think she's comparing Western Europe during the Cold War to Iraq in the present day. Funny because I don't remember the West Germans attacking our troops stationed there with mortars and roadside bombs. And I seem to recall that there were functioning, democratic governments in Western Europe. I hope this comparison doesn't really reflect how Secretary Rice sees Iraq. But back to Iran: why not talk to them? In the interest of humor, I've prepared a hypothetical instant messaging conversation to represent the situation as accurately as possible:
theMerkelator: hey
doctorleeza81: hows things?
theMerkelator: fine
theMerkelator: OMG, i have to tell u something
doctorleeza81: OMG what is it?
theMerkelator: you remember that guy i was talking to at lunch yesterday?
doctorleeza81: u mean the qt with the beard?
theMerkelator: yeah, his name is Ali Larijani. he totally asked me about you
theMerkelator: he wants to talk to you condi
doctorleeza81: what did u say?
theMerkelator: i gave him ur number
doctorleeza81: but what about george? hell kill me if he finds out
theMerkelator: you totally deserve better than george
theMerkelator: remember when he tried to give me a back rub? what a creep
doctorleeza81: i dont know. ive heard a lot of bad stuff about that Ali guy
doctorleeza81: Ehud told me hes friends with that weirdo Mahmoud
theMerkelator: no way they just have homeroom together
theMerkelator: condi u should just talk to him, it cant hurt
doctorleeza81: maybe
doctorleeza81: sorry gtg george is calling me. bye angie!
theMerkelator: c u lata!
And readers, c u lata 2!
Peace (if everything else fails)
2 comments:
Are you sure about the energy economics thing? It seems to me that as energy prices rise (esp. if that is a clear trend), more capital would be invested in alternatives UNLESS energy companies are suppressing investment in alternatives in order to squeeze maximum profit out of oil and gas before they release the alternatives so they can squeeze maximum profit out of them. That is, this is a highly deformed capital investment market, based on oligopolistically enforced scarcity.
I think you have different dynamics in different countries. In the developed capitalist countries you have a situation like you described -- basically the major energy companies only care about the bottom line and if they can keep making huge profits with high oil and gas prices, there's no reason for them to seek alternatives. But that is more a function of, as you say, oligopolistically enforced scarcity, than international market forces. There something of a Catch-22 here: If the big companies continue to make profit, they have no reason to invest significantly in alternatives. But if the peak oil theory proponents are correct, then there will come a time when their profits will drop so sharply that they won't have to money to invest in alternatives. Right now they seem content to spend millions trying to convince people global warming is not real. If that is their long-term strategy, we are in trouble.
However in the developing countries the dynamic I described is more important. Most of their energy utilities are state-run, and so the state must come up with the money to buy oil and gas at these higher prices. Their resources are limited as it is, and so even if they wanted to cleaner energy they couldn't afford it.
Another thing to note is that alternatives to oil and gas are not necessarily cleaner -- coal, for example.
Post a Comment