international politics

From that new French dude

I want to send word to our American friends to tell them they can count on our friendship, which has been forged by the tragedies of history that we have confronted together. I want to tell them that France will always be at their side when they need her. But I also want to tell […]

Spring summit underway

From an article in the Guardian:

Divisions over nuclear power and renewable energy threatened to derail the EU's campaign to assume a global leadership role in the fight against climate change at the bloc's spring summit which began last night. [...]

But France, backed by several east European countries, insisted carbon-free nuclear power be included within the EU energy mix and rejected [German Chancellor] Angela Merkel's proposal to make a 20 percent target for renewable energy binding on all 27 members.

At his swansong summit, the outgoing French president Jacques Chirac insisted that he would only agree to binding energy targets if nuclear power were included and proposed that 45 percent of the mix come from non-fossil fuel sources. France gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear power plants.

Poor countries can’t afford to tackle climate change

I know, I know, this is a false choice that skeptics use to stall action on climate change. Or is it?

Check out this article from Reason. It makes some interesting points. Here's a quick summary:

Leaders agree to share technology; carbon-trading system a possibility, not a done deal

The AP overstated the extent of the climate agreement announced today between British PM Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (and thus Daily Grist overstated it too). Now that the deal's been officially unveiled, a few clarifications:

The two didn't agree to launch a new trans-Atlantic carbon-trading market, though they will look into the possibility. Rather, they said the U.K. and California would cooperate on research into cleaner fuels and technologies. Writes the San Francisco Chronicle, "aspects of the agreement include jointly studying the economic impacts of global climate change, collaborating on technology research -- including studying the effects of California's effort to create a 'hydrogen highway' touted by Schwarzenegger -- and establishing regular exchanges between scientists in both places." Not so bold, but a nice symbolic gesture at least.

A geo-green third party?

Thomas Friedman -- la moustache de la sagesse -- has a column up (NYT $elect; reprinted in full here) suggesting that his "geo-green" shtick would be a good basis for a third party presidential candidacy. God love The Mustache for bringing energy issues to a broad audience, but this column is dopey.

Let's start with this:

What might a Geo-Green third party platform look like?

Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called "The Patriot Tax," which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.

Putting aside the rather paltry size of the tax and the difficulty of determining "unusual driving needs," this seems sensible enough, though a broad carbon tax would be preferable. But:

The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.

What a bizarre list. Social Security is fine. If it's deficit-killing expenditures you're after, why not start with healthcare? And I'm all for mass transit, but is it more important than getting alternate sources of energy online? If reducing the deficit is so important, why does Friedman -- and virtually every other pundit -- insist that a gas tax be revenue neutral?

This, however, may be the most extravagant claim:

New scheme for OPEC would make Venezuela’s oil reserves world’s largest

There's some big stuff happening in Venezuela these days. In an interview with the BBC, President Hugo Chavez announced a bid that could change the entire world oil situation. He wants OPEC to set its long-term oil target price at $50/barrel. Why? At $50, large portions of Venezuela's copious heavy crude in the Orinoco Tar Sands become economically viable, and Venezuela's official oil reserves automatically skyrocket to 312 billion barrels -- surpassing Saudi Arabia's 262 billion, currently the world's largest.

This would raise OPEC's production quotas, bring in a bucketload of new revenue to the Venezuelan government (which just renegotiated more favorable terms with several oil companies, and seized oil fields from two companies that refused to cooperate), and dramatically increase the country's influence and Chavez's stature.

The best summary I've seen is this one from Motley Fool:

Everything you ever wanted to know about … everything

So much material. So little time. So many complicated issues. So little expertise.

How about a big fat linky post!

Treehugger has a fantastic interview with Hunter Lovins, long-time champion of sustainability, now president of Natural Capitalism Solutions, Inc. She talks about her current international work, focusing on Afghanistan. I particularly like this exchange, which is relevant to our discussion of poverty earlier:

Do you believe that economic development can go hand in hand with sustainable development?

Yes, and this is a critical point. We know how to meet people's needs for energy, for water, for housing, for sanitation, and for transportation, with much more sustainable technologies than are traditionally brought by development agencies.

Most of what is called development around the world is really donor nation dollars hiring donor nation contractors to deliver last century's technologies, in such a way that the jobs and the economic benefit go right back to the originating donor country.

And when the dollars, the contractors, and the programs leave, the people in Afghanistan, or Africa, or wherever the so-called "development" is being done, are no better off than they were. If anything, they're worse off: perhaps building a massive coal plant for which they've taken foreign debt; or put in some piece of infrastructure that they don't really know how to run, that isn't creating local jobs, and isn't meeting local needs. And, everybody's wasted a lot of money and time. We can do a lot better than that.

Word.

See also Grist's interview with Lovins, and this survey about your rug preferences (really), which Lovins would very much like you to fill out.

-----

Speaking of fantastic interviews with Lovinses, don't miss Discover's short but action-packed interview with Amory Lovins. Just about everything the dude says is quote-worthy, but I think this is my favorite:

If I could do just one thing to solve our energy problems, I would allow energy to compete fairly at honest prices regardless of which kind it is, what technology it uses, how big it is, or who owns it. If we did that, we wouldn't have an oil problem, a climate problem, or a nuclear proliferation problem. Those are all artifacts of public policies that have distorted the market into buying things it wouldn't otherwise have bought because they were turkeys.

So much wisdom in so few words.

Plan the rockingest party ever to celebrate Kyoto’s first birthday

It seems like just yesterday that the Kyoto Protocol came into force, only to languish in toothless uncertainty as major powers including the U.S., Australia, Canada, and the U.K. sought to tank it in various ways. But it’s been a whole year! Can you believe it? Party like Bush signed on. Photo: stock.xchng. Yes, today […]

Why we need a World Environment Organization

With climate change manifesting itself in the melting of Arctic glaciers and the drowning of small Pacific islands, in widespread species extinction, forest loss, desertification, and impending water shortages, the scope of environmental problems has changed. Long-term alteration of the earth’s climate is moving us into terra incognita that’s difficult or impossible to reverse. Recently, […]