In China, Yu Xiaogang is helping locals fight back against dams

China has spent decades trying to harness its powerful river systems with dams. Enormous hydroelectric projects, most notably the Three...

Anne Kajir combats the greed of Papua New Guinea’s timber barons

The highlands of Papua New Guinea cradle some of the most remote places in the world, and are home to...

Craig Williams took on the Pentagon to stop chemical-waste burning

“We’re a little outnumbered, and a little outspent,” says Craig Williams, “but we’ve turned around decisions by the biggest bureaucracy...

Silas Siakor put his life on the line to save Liberia’s forests

The forests of the West African nation of Liberia cover almost 12 million acres, and are home to nearly half...

Russia attempts to use energy supplies as political tool; fails

Some folks -- take, for instance, me -- have argued that the whole hubbub over "foreign oil" is a bit of a red herring. Generally speaking, energy commodities are fungible, sold on the world market. If one producer (say, Saudi Arabia) suddenly refuses to sell to us, they'll just sell to someone else, and we can buy from that someone else. If we've got the money, eventually we'll get the oil.

(The world's declining oil and natural gas reserves are, of course, a problem, but there's no need to add the sheen of xenophobia, however satisfying.)

Others -- for instance, Bart in comments -- argue that as energy reserves decline, those who have oil and natural gas will start using them as political weapons. In effect, their political value will exceed their economic value. (And since the U.S. has much domestic demand and little domestic supply, we'll be screwed.)

Right now the discussion is mostly theoretical, but in the past week we've had a bit of a test case. As you may have heard, Russia cut off natural gas supplies to the Ukraine. Supposedly, the move was a response to Ukraine's refusal to sign a new contract and pay much higher, Western-Europe-style prices. (Ukraine wants a three-month phase in of new prices.)

But the subtext is political: Russia is ticked off about the Orange Revolution and Ukraine's desire to join the E.U. and NATO. While Ukraine is being asked to suddenly pay $230/cubic meter (up from $50), the more Russia-friend Belarus pays just $47/cubic meter.

The U.S. State Department said this:

The shrinking-population scare is mostly hype

Demographers are projecting that population in some parts of the globe -- Russia, the Ukraine, Japan, much of Western Europe -- are set to decline over the next 50 years or so. Of course, talk of a shrinking population seems to send some people into a panic, which is why you occasionally see stories decrying the new "population crisis" -- not too many people, but too few.

The Economist has this to say about the doomsayers:

People love to worry -- maybe it's a symptom of ageing populations -- but the gloom surrounding population declines misses the main point. The new demographics that are causing populations to age and to shrink are something to celebrate. Humanity was once caught in the trap of high fertility and high mortality. Now it has escaped into the freedom of low fertility and low mortality. Women's control over the number of children they have is an unqualified good -- as is the average person's enjoyment, in rich countries, of ten more years of life than they had in 1960. (Emphasis added.)

That seems just right to me. And the article makes some other worthwhile points too -- including that economic output per capita is a far better measure of the health of an economy than total output. Measured by total output, a place with a shrinking population might seem to be in economic decline, even if the average person is getting wealthier.

(Of course, even better than total output per capita would be a measure that looks at how the poor and middle class are faring. Still, policymakers should keep in mind that per-capita measures of economic health are more significant than total output.)

Is too few people the new “population problem”?

Alston wants your women. All’s quiet on the Alston front. Photo: www.visitcumbria.com. And not just any old hags, either —...

Glow Figure

Health fallout from Chernobyl less severe than expected The 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power-plant accident has yielded much less harm to...

Vote for grassroots efforts around the globe

This morning we received an email from the Nguna-Pele Marine Protected Area in Vanuatu. Apparently, Vanuatu is a tiny Pacific island that runs on batteries (all praise the Energizer Bunny!). The problem is that many people dump their used batteries into the ocean, which among other things damages coral reefs. This is where the Nguna-Pele Marine Protected Area comes in, by encouraging villagers to use rechargeable batteries.

And their campaign has made them a finalist in the The World Challenge, which is brought to you by BBC World & Newsweek, in association with Shell. From The World Challenge website:

It is a competition aimed at finding individuals or groups from around the world who have shown enterprise and innovation at a grass roots level. This competition is all about finding entrepreneurs whose projects are making a difference to communities.

Voting is open until October 16th, and the Nguna-Pele Marine Protected Area obviously wants you to vote for them. But, before you do, you may want to review the other efforts taking place around the world, which include: