The U.S. should be doing more to prepare for changes in the climate that are already inevitable. As many folks have pointed out, even if we completely stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, the gases already in the atmosphere will yield climate weirdness 30 to 40 years from now.
Adaptation -- the term of art for these sorts of adjustments -- is necessary. And it probably doesn't get the attention it should in policy discussions.
Nevertheless, I'm leery about discussing it too much. Why? Because there's more to policy discussions than policy discussions. There's also the political and cultural context in which such discussions take place. Focusing purely on policy details without taking the larger context into account is not a virtue, as some would have it. It's irresponsible.
Kevin Drum recently made this argument with regard to another subject, namely Iran. Should progressives spend more time criticizing Iran's repressive, authoritarian regime? Well ...
Sure. It's a repressive, misogynistic, theocratic, terrorist-sponsoring state that stands for everything I stand against. Of course I should speak out against them.
And yet, I know perfectly well that criticism of Iran is not just criticism of Iran. Whether I want it to or not, it also provides support for the Bush administration's determined and deliberate effort to whip up enthusiasm for a military strike. Only a naif would view criticism of Iran in a vacuum, without also seeing the way it will be used by an administration that has demonstrated time and again that it can't be trusted to act wisely.
So what to do? For the most part, I end up saying very little. And [Peter] Beinart is right: there's a sense in which that betrays my own liberal ideals. But he's also wrong, because like it or not, my words -- and those of other liberals -- would end up being used to advance George Bush's distinctly illiberal ends. And I'm simply not willing to be a pawn in the Bush administration's latest marketing campaign.
Kevin expresses some mixed feelings and regret about the situation, but Matt Yglesias doesn't:
My thinking on this has really become totally unmixed. I worry about the fates of the populations of, say, Iran and Venezuela. But realistically the most helpful thing I can do for Iranians and Venezuelans is use my platform as a pundit to discourage the United States from launching a war with the former country or mounting a coup in the latter country. Extravagant denunciations of the Iranian regime do much more to increase the odds of a war with Iran (bad for Iranians) than to boost the fortunes of Iranian democracy. Enhancing my own sense of self-righteousness is not a real value.
This argument transfers straightforwardly to the mitigation vs. adaptation question. Advocating that adaptation play a larger role in U.S. policy, in the current political context, does not increase the odds of sensible, balanced climate policy. It simply, if inadvertently, helps the corporatist right cloud the debate and avoid the difficult steps required to cut GHG emissions.
And whatever else we do, that task is paramount.
In an ideal, abstract policy debate, sure, I'd say we should boost our attention to adaptation. But in the current political situation, I don't want to provide any ammunition for the moral cretins who are squirming frantically to avoid policies that might impact their corporate donors. Until they're gone from the scene -- until we have an administration serious about addressing this problem -- I'm going to focus on cutting emissions.
U.S. is starting to make a down payment on funding international climate change efforts
Climate-news poem: apocalypse edition
Gaia proponent Lovelock says it’s time to adapt to inevitable global heating
Comments View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 10:44 am
04 Jun 2006
curious analogy
In early 2003, a good number of liberals were in favor of the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam; and subsequently they have repented, in one form or another. Of course all of us were deceived regarding WMDs (to the disgrace of the journalists, Michael Massing has taught us). And of course lots of people believed that Saddam and the 9/11 hijackers were somehow connected (to the disgrace of -- who?, the Bushies who know they can get away with lies?; all their thoughtless supporters, who think going to war is great sport?).
But in the case of "adaptationism," there is not quite the same succumbing to the deceipt/arrogance/ignorance/self-interestedness of the Bushies. Those who accept the consensus on global warming are by no means following the pronouncements, such as they are, which come out of the White House. There is no way that the Bush White House can deceive anyone with any environmental sensibility.
Also, David, as you pointed out elsewhere, adaptationist activities would more often than not function as mitigationist as well. It seems overmuch worrying, to suggest that being "adaptationist" would amount to condoning the miserable leadership of the Bush administration.
For similar reasons, I do not think the Iran analogy works well either. But I understand what you are saying.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:26 pm
04 Jun 2006
Ahem, about those WMD's
Not everyone was deceived by the lies of the Bush Administration. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D) Oakland, showed courage when NO ONE ELSE in the US Congress did.
And only those who know nothing about the world or the middle east every bought into the Saddam Hussein / Al Queda tie myth. It was ridiculous.
Many of us were demonstrating in the streets at that time trying to stop the madness, and feeling betraye by the cowards we had sent to Washington DC.
Which is why some us of have not faith that they will ever stand up to the corporate money and do soemthing to stop Global Warming, certainly not without some loud and angry protests demanding it.
(Imagine sit-ins in the lobby of oil company headquarters, picketing of executives whereever they go to hide, national days of "peaceful green rage").
The only counter to money and corruption is an activated public. The activation of the American public will require mass organizing (actually talking to people face to face).
We have NGO's. We have environmental groups (though the MEM is ineffective, too in love with lobbying, and too white male). We have studies, and information. We have lots of ideas.
What we don't do is reach the masses of people. We keep waiting for the nice folks who own the media to wake up and decide that truth is more important than oil and automobile money.
David is correct, FIRST we need to stop making the situation worse, THEN we can take stock and see about "adaptation" strategies.
The analogies are good ones. Of course the polluters want to change the subject.
If you ever do door to door campaign work, you will eventually meet someone who wants to talk to you all afternoon, and who seems almost ready to be convinced. What they are really doing is wasting your time and preventing you from organizing. They often change the subject, and try to bring up different issues.
What needs to be done is to communicate with and organize the people of America. (Enough at least).
When we hurt their pocketbooks (politicians and companies), we will get their attention.
How about picket lines in front of SUV dealers?
There are many things we can do, relying on so-called "liberals" isn't one of them.
Patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:45 pm
04 Jun 2006
you're right, "all" is wrong
Right, Patrick, I was giving Hillary's line about the WMDs. Back in the days when Judith Miller was a top-drawer pundit. For myself, I did not know what to think. But I have always thought highly of Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei and the other inspectors, and strongly wanted them to continue in Iraq until they were satisfied. And conversely I was furious with Dick Cheney and the other Bushies for doing all they could to discredit the inspectors.
On Iran: The attitude of Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias, on refraining from criticizing the Iranian government in very loud tones, if at all, in order not to encourage war, is more and more widespread. I recently read the words of a rabbi, writing on a peace-activist Jewish site, asking that reports of anti-Semitism in Iran not be published. As he rightly fears, any such condemnation of the Iranian government would be seized on by the Bush administration and presented as yet another justification for an invasion.
Anyway, I still do not see that the analogy with "mitigation vs. adaptation" is all that straightforward. Clearly there are similarities, but the situations are not quite the same. Obviously, cutting emissions is the way to go. And picketing SUV dealerships is a lovely suggestion, along with other forms of striking at capitalist industrialist anti-regulation wealth. Nevertheless, adaptationist thoughts need to be thought, by responsible people. Such thinking need not be done yet right up front, but it can indeed be carried on in the background. David wrote, "... I'm going to focus on cutting emissions." Excellent. But note that that does not exclude out-of-focus background thinking.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:43 am
05 Jun 2006
Peace
The emerging issue is adaptation to mitigation, i.e. adapting to the shut-down of coal power plants. Make friends by converting enemies, join the Republicans. Show your new friends the profits and politics of making money in this new business and political environment. The losers will be those who do not adapt, those who do not exploit these new opportunities. The fight is over. It is time to build a new society in this new frontier.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:03 am
07 Jun 2006
Analogies
Dear Caniscandida,
Ah, I misunderstood the quote. I am too far away to follow Hillary completely. (I should note, that her autobiography is a BIG hit here (Beijing), and she is very popular, especially among young women, but among many young men as well (college students)).
In terms of Iran, I would love to see the US recognize the government and open relations. There are many interesting trends going on in the country, and helping to end it's isolation seems to me the most useful thing we can do. (Which is not a call for "cultural imperialism"!)
In terms of the anti-semitism, it is disturbing and disgusting. But do we really thing that some of the Saudi leaders are any better? Or how about the Souther Baptists? Yet we maintain relationships with both.
Sunflower,
The struggle is not over. If we have reached the "tipping point" and must learn to adapt, we still can control how bad it's going to get.
Imagine you are going to a sauna. Yes, you want to adapt by wearing appropriate clothing, and bringing water with you.
But you still care about how high we set the temperature setting.
Global warming is the same way, yes bring water, but if we can lower the thermometer a bit, we will all be better off.
As far as "losers" are concerned, many of them may be poor people who have no resources to adapt. What do you suggest for them?
patrick
Permalink
ffletcher Posted 10:29 am
07 Jun 2006
Action Includes Adaptation
I think that the climate change response must include adaptation. We must reduce the adverse impacts that climate change is going have on the United States. People expect leaders to act to save the country. Fiddling around with debates on science or comparing climate change to political issues in Iraq is not the stuff of leadership. Let's begin now to by taking the actions to reduce emissions and prepare for the impacts that we will not be able to avoid.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:26 pm
07 Jun 2006
Adapting to mitigation
I consider failure of mitigation not an option. Global warming adaptation is a local issue, like securing future water supply with use restrictions, and prohibiting building construction below 35 feet above sea level. Global warming mitigation is a global issue, like decommissioning coal power plants everywhere.
I have been researching the economics of mitigation for decades. The economic models included China, India, Northern Africa, US Indian reservations, and urban centers. The question was: What will the poor and displaced do for heat, hot water, water pumping, food processing, transportation, and so on, after or instead of burning fossil fuels? (I am not worried about the wealthy.) The path is a choice between sending money out of the community for distant high-cost fossil energy or self reliance with local low-cost materials. In this case, local adaptation to distant global warming mitigation becomes the issue. The opportunities for the poor include local self reliance, jobs, and new business.
Because mitigation failure is not an option I will not gamble on political and moral persuasion. (There are very few carbon-neutral environmentalists.)
Global supply of energy less expensive than coal is a low risk method to reach people not willing or able to hear the mitigation message. I believe the lowest risk strategy is to rely on the psychology of enlighten self interest, profit motive, individual and community self reliance, instinct for survival (and sex appeal). The strategy is to put coal power, coal heat, and coal oil out of business with less expensive and more reliable local energy.
Local energy opportunities are varied, such as human, animal, firewood, crop waste, industrial waste heat, geothermal, hydro power, waves, tides, ocean thermal gradients, wind, poop, solar, and so on.
Solar is a very large resource that can be tapped with new construction, attached greenhouses on existing homes, roof mounted collectors, city retrofits with district heating and district cooling, solar industrial process heat, solar desalination, solar water pumping, concentrator photovoltaic power systems, solar driven fuels and chemicals, and solar power for electric transportation.
There are some amazing developments in the solar pipeline, like nanoparticles power (quantum dots), nanoparticles capacitor storage, solar dishes, and full spectrum photovoltaic cells with theoretical efficiency of 73% (50% in the field).
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-full-spectrum-solar-cell.html
Global fossil fuel must be reduced by 60% to 80%. Our survival depends on this reduction. Economics is the key, especially for the poor. The opportunity is jobs for everyone.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:18 pm
07 Jun 2006
Update sunflower!
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rH-__vqOZpYJ:www.cctec.cornell.edu/RSL%2520Solar%2520Cell%2520Pr ess%2520Release%2520Final.pdf+full+spectrum+solar+cell&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3
Looks like production maybe moving forward. 55% efficiency without comcentration!
With even 10 suns, who knows? 70%?
And collecting any waste heat would put the total efficiency in a range that might power the world from our rooftops and over our parking lots.
Will this be suppressed or mass produced?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:00 am
08 Jun 2006
The cost of alternatives to the poor
China has been somewhat successful at getting farmers to use passive solar for hot water, and even cooking. I am not clear about the current status of the programs, but of course, for developing countries, funds are always an issue.
To say "The opportunities for the poor include local self reliance, jobs, and new business." sounds very lovely. If it were that simple, there would be no poor!!! Frankly, unless money comes with these suggestions, they are meaningless.
The problem with solar for electricity is cost. While the cost is may be competitive, the initial capital outlay is beyond the means of the poor. Who will provide the capital, how will it be distributed and what forms will it take?
There are no large scale programs to provide capital to the poor for solar that I know of (and would love to be wrong!).
To say "Local energy opportunities are varied, such as human, animal, firewood, crop waste, industrial waste heat, geothermal, hydro power, waves, tides, ocean thermal gradients, wind, poop, solar, and so on." sounds lovely too, but not very realistic.
The problem is that some of these (firewood and crop waste) will also contribute to global warming, and firewood is not a good choice for many poor people given that it leads to deforestation.
Human? Animal? To produce electricity? Yes, it can be done, but who will pay for it? This is also true about most of these other ideas. They sound nice for the wealthy, but to throw them at the poor without throwing money was well is meaningless.
If people have "less expensive and more reliable local energy", they are using it. The reason coal is still in business (for the near future at least) is that they don't.
There is always a gap between what is possible and what is affordable. For the poor, that gap is even larger. The growing gap between the well off and the poor (as wealth becomes more concentrated in every country in the world) means that the poor are becoming LESS able to seek mitigation.
It's not that they don't understand, it's that it is beyond their economic grasp.
patrick
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:28 am
08 Jun 2006
marsh tanks
Some 65% of the world's population have never used a phone. Most do not have electricity and do not need it, except in trace amounts for reading after sunset and cooling pharmaceuticals. Only the industrial world uses electricity and oil fired transportation. This is the cause of global warming, not firewood and biomass (carbon-neutral). Human and animal energy refers to walking and farming, not making electricity.
When I was visited by the chairman of thermal energy from Beijing he showed me films and documents that showed 90% of consumer energy was biomass, 60% of that was straw. A typical family only cooked rice once a week. The revolution he was so proud of was using "marsh tanks" (septic tanks) for recovery and application of human and animal methane. This allowed cooking 7 days per week and was also bagged in floppy car-top bags for limited transportation.
The Indians use dung for cooking. Deforestation is a serious problem in many areas. But, it is possible to grow sustainable firewood crops.
Electricity was an experiment motivated primarily for political control purposes that had disastrous consequences (including TV satellite dishes promoting consumerism). Thousand of people migrated from the countryside when a village developed electric power that glowed in the night, overwhelming health and support services, such as septic, hospital, shelter, food, and so on.
Rural electric water wells were a huge success. Solar power was used in northern Africa due to the cost of transporting diesel to remote regions. In this case, expensive pv was much cheaper than the current cost of oil. That money came from the UN and private donors.
Efficiency is the best source of new world energy. And there is nothing new about that. Ben Franklin is credited for saving Philadelphia for the English. At that time, farmers were cutting trees 50 miles out due to deforestation and were faced with the choice of freezing or starving. The German farmers had more efficient wood stoves. Franklin showed that placing a steel plate across the wood fire hearth would triple firewood efficiency. He promoted this idea for seven years in his newspaper and was ignored. Finally it caught on and the English survived.
I have been poor much of my life and that forced me to live in a home-built shack, off-grid, deep in the woods, with rain barrels and vegetable gardens. That experience taught me that self reliance is a rich and rewarding lifestyle. (Of course it is easy to be poor in a rich country.)
The point is that energy is not the same thing as electricity nor fuel for transportation. Those are recent industrialized concepts, concepts that now endanger the whole planet.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:45 am
08 Jun 2006
Energy vs. electricity and fuel
It is not true of poor people that "Most do not have electricity and do not need it, except in trace amounts for reading after sunset and cooling pharmaceuticals. "
Shouldn't the poor have access to things such as the internet (mine is powered by electricity)?
Do we really want to deny the poor the same chances to have a "modern" life that we enjoy? The idea that we "need" electricity and the poor don't sounds elitist to me.
There was a special on the use of "marsh tanks" on the Chinese English Language Station CCTV9, the other night. It looked interesting, but I missed the statistics.
http://english.cctv.com/index.shtml
There is something wrong with the idea that "Thousand of people migrated from the countryside when a village developed electric power that glowed in the night, overwhelming health and support services, such as septic, hospital, shelter, food, and so on." Didn't these people have a right to desire health and support services? If they overwhelm them, it is because the services provided are not enough. But those of us who are wealthy need to learn to share such services and to expect that other people will want to have what we have. (I am speaking here of relative wealth, not absolute.)
Even if wealthy Americans think that modern services such as electricity, television and the internet are only for their use, the poor may not agree.
They are likely to strive for a good life, just as most people do. And we need to build a sustainable world that includes them as equal partners (we should build it WITH them).
In terms of transportation, we need to build better systems. I see no sign that people will voluntarily give up travelling. In fact, as people get money, they WANT to travel, and the poor who become well off, wish to do so as well. Those who have had the opportunities to travel and have done so, have no right to deny it to other people. And doing so will not be effective in any case. We need to find another way.
Peace, equality and sustainability.
Nothing else is likely to succeed.
patrick
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:36 pm
08 Jun 2006
energy equalitarian economics
I agree that people should have equal access to energy and the Internet, whether that be need or desire. There may be all sorts of spin-off benefits with mitigating global warming, like equalitarian economics, energy independance, and environmental benefits from reduction of mercury, acid rain, particulates, mining. However, the failure of mitigating global warming will make these spin-off benefits irrelevent. The one issue of antropogenic fossil CO2 is most urgent. The other considerations will have to wait for better days. It would be a mistake for China to copy the developments of the West. It is a mistake for the West to continue those developments.
We need new thinking, a new direction, or rights and wrongs will cease to exist.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 8:16 am
09 Jun 2006
The Problem is....
While the "one issue of antropogenic fossil CO2 is most urgent" to some people, unless Americans (the main cause of the problem) start to change, the rest of the world is less likely to do so.
Right now, there are many projects in China, India, and elsewhere in the developing world that seek to create sustainable developement.
It is certainly a mistake for anyone to copy the West. But that doesn't allow the West to do nothing.
And certainly, for Americans to do nothing, then to tell China or India or any other country what they should or should not do, well, it is unimaginably hypocritic (I am speaking generally, not about the views held by any one American).
The truth is, the developing world is going to continue to develop. The developed world needs to find ways to live sustainably, so it provides a good model for the developing world, rather than the bad model it provides now.
It is fine to say that the "other considerations will have to wait for better days" if you are rich. If you are poor, it sounds like Marie Antoinette saying "let them eat cake".
Since America seems determined to drag the world down to doom, I hope people don't simply copy it. However the power of advertising works against this idea.
patrick
Permalink
sunflower Posted 9:07 am
09 Jun 2006
Anthropogenic fossil CO2 is most urgent
I would much rather do something other than work for climate chaos mitigation. It is like swimming the bilges in the bowels of a sinking ship. When I said "other considerations will have to wait for better days" I meant my considerations.
Anthropogenic fossil CO2 is most urgent to me (while others attend to the other needs of local and global societies).
Further, I do not think telling others how to live (or not) is an option. Like my dogs, when they do the wrong thing I give them something new to think about. Works like magic sometimes.
Right now we are heading into a very dangerous storm. And we are sinking. If we do not turn this Ship of State around then we will perish. Please hear me. Force the issue.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:50 am
10 Jun 2006
Urgency of Global Warming
I agree that global warming is a critical issue.
People, and other countries, are not dogs. Last night, I listened to some students describe the primary characteristic of Americans as Arrogance.
No one listens to people they think are arrogant. So the ways in which we communicate are very important. The words, tones, everything matters. Or we will fail.
The primary current villain is the United States, and unless and until Americans changed, no one will listen to what Americans have to say.
We must begin to change things in America. The rest of the world (believe it or not), with more limited resources, is trying. Only America is doing nothing (from a world perspective).
patrick
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:12 pm
10 Jun 2006
Pollution From Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow
HANJING, China -- One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.htm
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:41 pm
10 Jun 2006
It's zen somehow.
"No one listens to people they think are arrogant."
But then again Wright said:
"Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility; I chose honest arrogance and have seen no occasion to change,"
http://www.marinhistory.org/article_CivicCenter2.html
Sometimes cultural re-evolution involves forcefull expression. Maybe it's the rock thrown in the pond that starts the waves (of change) rippling from a new center.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 4:16 pm
11 Jun 2006
stop damage & keep skeptics on the hook
Dave: I tried to comment on this thread at Prometheus, by RP Jr. declined to post it; I take the liberty of noting it here:
"Roger, while conceding that adaptation is also absolutely necessary allow me to note the following in defense of David:
1. AGW resulting from GHG emissions falls within the class of "tragedy of the commons" problems. Failure to solve it produces a net subsidy for current consumption, paid by all present and future generations that will bear the costs which are diffused among all. At a minimum, mitigation focusses on stopping the implicit subsidy, and thus has been blocked by those who have benefitted most from the subsidy. This group has been effective by marrying its private interests with the partisan political advantage that the Bush administration has felt it could gain (along with notoriety for certain pundits) by selling "fear of enviros" rather than seriously tackling the problem and the difficult international equity and free rider issues involved. While it can perhaps be considered as a separate issue who should bear the costs of trying to roll back emissions (as to merely ceasing the current subsidy), it's only fair to point to those who have done the most to ensure the delay and benefitted most from delaying action so far.
2. A vigorous discussion is needed of the amount of adaptation costs that are now unavoidable, just so that the public gets a good idea of how much damage has been done to us by delay.
3. However, just as libertarians and those on the right argued that the government should NOT be involved in trying to regulate GHGs, a consistent "skeptic" position would be that adaptation measures are best made by private decisions in the market, and governmental interference is likely to be counterproductive. Those opposed to mitigation to fix a market failure problem but who favor government involvement in adaptation show no small lack of intellectual honesty. What is instead being suggested is that, rather than eliminating the subsidies that now go to fossil fuel users and consumers, we should have a host of new government expenditure programs at home to benefit more corporate interests. I other words, adaptation politics, like mitigation politics, is about pork barrel spending.
4. Although the most pressing needs for adaptation and institutional/economic reforms are in the developing world, there is very little domestic political interest in spending abroad the hundreds of billions per year that such adaptation measures require (there is a domestic constituency only if funds are recycled to our own companies in the form of purchases or research funds). We would rather spend trillions on wars and fences (more funds to domestic corporate constituencies) than fund the needs of non-citizens abroad.
5. Our economic performance despite high oil prices (another partial consequence of wasteful wars) has show the resilience of our economy to the level of costs that serious mitigation efforts would entail.
6. It is possible to build a domestic constituency that would demand meaningful GHG restrictions from China and India (which could be achieved through trade pressure and through financial carrots).
7. It is becoming clear that AGW is a real issue that imposes real costs on our lives and ecosystems, and that the cynics/skeptics have been proven wrong. The US Senate and House Appropriations Committee, and Bush has just appointed a Treasury Secretary who is openly concerned about AGW. Noe is the time to keep pushing for mitigation.
Given these points, I think it perfectly understandable that David prefers to focus on pushing for what appear to be achievable mitigation gains, and not to let those corporate interests that have deliberately muddled the debate and delayed meaningful action continue to impose costs on us by neatly shifting the discussion to adaptation.
While a focus on adaptation is clearly also needed, it is a clear mistake if damaging GHG emissions are allowed to continue unregulated, and attacks against those such as David who are trying to forestall continuing environmental damage are unwarranted.
Regards,
Tom"
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:48 pm
11 Jun 2006
China's Coal
Yes China burns a lot of coal, and yes it causes pollution.
So does the coal burned in the United States, and that burned in Europe, India, Russia, Africa and South America.
China is a developing nation. One of the things that means is that it doesn't have as much money as countries like the United States (per capita income of an average Chinese is less than 10% that of an average American).
Kyoto (which Americans rejected, and which there is NO MOVEMENT in support of in the United States) requires technology transfers to help developing countries (not only China, but all of them) to produce the power they need in cleaner manners.
Despite this, people are making tremendous efforts to produce energy as cleanly as they can. But they will need energy. And they will produce it.
It was not only the reduction of American output (per capita, still WAY WAY ahead of everyone else, including China) that the US rejected. It was the sharing of technology that would enable countries like China (and India, etc.) to produce cleaner power and thus NOT send toxic clouds header your way.
People all over the world want a decent life, just like Americans have.
Unless Americans can learn to share (looks bad), then people will do the best they can to get there.
What would Americans suggest that developing countries do?
patrick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:26 pm
11 Jun 2006
Simple clean tech
"What would Americans suggest that developing countries do?"
Simple renewable distributed generation and energy storage technology is the answer. Small solar and wind that works well in developing regions can also compete with ever more expensive monopoly controlled energy like fossil and nuclear in developed countries.
I have heard that China is manufacturing wind power systems and the cost is coming down as a result.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 7:00 pm
12 Jun 2006
About Simple Clean Tech
China is manufacturing wind power systems, and working to develop solar power. It has been doing so for some time.
I am not an expert in the technical issues involved in either.
The most useful thing America could do, would be to stop spending so much money on wars, and instead spend it on developing the industry and technology to make clean power for all.
THIS would be the best way to fight terror.
All developing countries could use a hand in working on this process. If the developed world does so, it too will benefit, since many environmental problems have global consequences.
Last week, there was a fascinating news segment on low water usage toilets, and some "no" water usage ones as well, they were on display at a "green building" show in Beijing.
patrick
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:09 am
13 Jun 2006
Excellent!
It is great to know that ideas like composting toilets and wind and solar capture the attention of the public in China.
I really think we the people of spaceship earth have more in common than we all know Pat. Governments and corporations find it useful to stress the conflicts, instead of the commonalities.
So you really think that your friends there might find the rough and tumble dialectic here insulting? I think many americans do too. We netizens tend to take out our everyday frustrations online.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
bookerly Posted 9:05 am
14 Jun 2006
Rough and Tumble Dialectic
People outside of America know a lot about the United States. They never can quite understand why Americans are not (seemingly) interested in the rest of the world, as evidenced by our lack of knowledge about the world.
Certainly, if any Chinese find their way here, they will post if they wish (and there may be folks posting here now, though I suspect it is a majority of white males, that would be interesting research for Grist to do (grin)).
My informed friends might regard this as a place only for talking, where nothing is getting done (they are busy trying to solve the problems), and my students are generally not at a level to readily engage in the rough and tumble.
I should consider including Grist on my list of web sites for them. I will think about it (grin).
patrick
Permalink