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:
- Developing countries do not have the funds to tackle climate change, period.
- This then requires a massive investment on the part of rich countries.
- It also requires massive emissions reductions in rich countries, which will be costly in the short to medium run.
- Poor people, by and large, are much more concerned with getting electricity and food than with global warming -- the action must come from the developed world, and probably all of the money too.
None of this is big news to many, but it's good to remind ourselves.
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 4:54 am
15 Nov 2006
Can we please, please quit pretending that the choice is "costs or no costs"?
And while we're at it, can we quit pretending that the only road to development is the neoliberal "massive centralized infrastructure projects funded by huge loans from international banks" model?
www.grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:12 am
15 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:46 am
15 Nov 2006
Victual Reality
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:12 am
15 Nov 2006
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 6:13 am
15 Nov 2006
And I think it's more than fair for the rich countries to tackle the problem first, since they caused it. India is undertandably balking. It will be easier to bring them on board once we've had some success ourselves.
The Reason article doesn't even bring up these kinds of possibilities. It's not hard to understand why, because the author Ronald Baily seems to have some pretty clear ideological commitments. He seems to be a recently convert from denialism, and now he would seem to be part of the counsel of despair crowd. From the Reason article you linked to:
I think it is a safe bet that few Westerners will decide for the sake of the climate to live like poor Indians. So humanity will have little choice but to adapt to any future climate change. Fortunately, economic growth makes that easier to do.
Yep. Spoken like a true libertarian: The liberal elites want us all to wear sackcloth; Our solution of doing nothing is where it's at; Unplanned economic growth is the universal panacea; Hallelujah, amen.
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:19 am
15 Nov 2006
============
"A Swede in the audience reminded Sethi that the Stern Review had declared that urgent action toward reducing CO2 emissions is needed now. Sethi's response made it clear that restricting the access to energy by world's poor was unacceptable. "You cannot tackle climate change unless you make dramatic lifestyle changes in the West," replied Sethi. I think it is a safe bet that few Westerners will decide for the sake of the climate to live like poor Indians. So humanity will have little choice but to adapt to any future climate change. Fortunately, economic growth makes that easier to do."
==============
"I think it is a safe bet that few Westerners will decide for the sake of the climate to live like poor Indians." Boy, talk about rigorously sourced arguments and sound premises . . . NOT.
The gap between the elite white world and poor Indians is so vast that there is PLENTY of room for "dramatic [if not drastic] lifestyle changes" here without forcing anyone to live like poor Indians.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 6:30 am
15 Nov 2006
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:44 am
15 Nov 2006
Regarding India... if they don't find a way to reduce pollution, nature will take care of it for them. Westerners did not reduce pollution because it was the moral thing to do. They did it because they could not breathe the air and children were dying. We will soon be forced to reduce carbon emissions for different but also painful reasons. China cannot and India cannot rely on coal; their cities and current coastal areas will become uninhabitable.
The only choice is carbon reduction AND poverty reduction. The West can watch them suffer, delay their own suffering, watch developing countries work it out for themselves... or we can help ourselves and help them by accelerating technological development (wind, photovoltaics, biomass, et cetera).
Consider this... infrastructure is very expensive. Would it be better for developing countries to expand the infrastructure for old polluting power generation or invest in a new infrastructure for carbon-neutral power generation that will reduce costs far more in the long run?
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:04 am
15 Nov 2006
It is about vision and survival. It is about knowledge and hard work.
India has far more graduate students than does the U.S.
The U.S. spent far more money in Iraq than that required for U.S. energy self sufficiency via renewable energy.
Global warming mitigation is not about poverty.
Most important, global warming adaptation is about poverty.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:25 am
15 Nov 2006
Regarding... "The U.S. spent far more money in Iraq than that required for U.S. energy self sufficiency via renewable energy." YES! I wish we had some leaders with some business sense. I just can't figure out how Republicans actually make money when they do nnot seem to have the slightest ability to recognize suitable long-term investments. Alll the money burned in Iraq could have given the United States greater national security, good job, a cleaner environment, products to manufacture here and sell abroad, an improved image in the world (good for marketing), increased the size of the middle class abroad (good for selling stuff), and inspired further inovation and economic activity IF THEY HAD JUST INVESTED THE TAX MONEY IN RENEWABLE ENERGY!!!! If what they are doing is considered running government like a business, I'm surprised capitalism has lasted this long!
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 7:34 am
15 Nov 2006
Rich nations can zero out emissions for themselves at a net cost savings. That is by the time you increase efficiency you can easily pay for more expensive carbon neutral energy, and come out ahead or at least break even. This won't happen just through a bunch of individual choices; it will have to include subsidized infrastructure such as more rail, and fewer cars.
Reason is quite right that poor nations mostly do not have the funds available to follow a capital intensive clean development path unaided. The rich nations got rich with use of fossil fuels (and all the cheap labor, one-way open markets, and natural resources they could grab by force). So it would be both extremely unfair, and politically unrealistic to expect poor nations to either stay poor, or make a quick transition to carbon neutrality on their own. (China is not planning to become carbon neutral or even greatly reduce carbon emissions. They are planning a mixture of better efficiency,renewables and fossil fuels to save water, money, and reduce the types of air pollution that damages their peoples lungs, and adds to their health care costs. If we want them to go beyond that, we will have to pay for it.)
The good news is that the amount of aid that would let the poor nations develop on carbon-neutral path is well under a trillion. Ross Gelbspan thinks a 300 billion dollar a year aid program would work. I have not heard anyone suggest more than 600 billion a year. Even the higher number is a tiny percent of the GDP of the rich nations combined. Current U.S. military spending alone is a high percentage of that. And if it really reduced poverty, the additional world market created would pay back a good portion of that expenditure to the rich nations.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:22 am
15 Nov 2006
For example, Sol-Focus just raised something like $35 million from venture capital for new solar technology (small glass reflectors, like head lamps, concentrating sunlight on 36% efficient type III-V photovoltaic cells). Are they cost effective? Yes, in part because this new U.S. solar technology is manufactured in China.
Permalink
John McGrath Posted 10:32 am
15 Nov 2006
Now, I think we should do both of those anyway, but it could be a major bargaining chip for the poor - we give them technology transfers and debt forgiveness, they invest heavily in renewables and efficiency, and leave more oil for us junkies.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 10:50 am
15 Nov 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:00 am
15 Nov 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:10 am
15 Nov 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:17 pm
15 Nov 2006
The economics of energy systems are complex. One must factor in infrastructure, losses, operations & maintenance, fuel, discounted cash flow, decommissioning costs, investment alternatives, and so on.
If central coal power plants are used for heat, hot water, or air conditioning then distributed solar heat systems are (or will be) very competitive.
The economics of pv power systems use numbers from old silicon, new silicon, concentrator pv (CPV), thermal pv (TPV), organic film (CIGS), old inverters, new inverters, and so on. In CPV circles, the costs are $2/Watt to near-term projections of $0.50/Watt at GW levels. CPV can do some surprising things with expected efficiencies near 50%. Depending on where the coal is located (mining costs, transport costs, energy value) solar systems at $2/W are competitive with new coal power plants and solar systems at $0.50/W are competitive with old dirty mine-mouth power plants.
Sunlight costs less than coal and solar hardware costs less than coal power plant infrastructure.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:29 pm
15 Nov 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:06 pm
15 Nov 2006
Solar heaters, solar coolers, solar water heating are all less expensive than coal - when providing only some of this low temperature heating and cooling. And China (as noted) does make extensive use of low temperature solar.
Mind you China does have the capital to do the same thing we are refusing to do. That is they could increase efficiency and use the savings from that to pay for more expensive renewables. But as a nation with a low per capita income (even though a fairly high absolute one) if they save money via efficiency, they are not going to use those savins to buy the most expensive forms of energy. If we want the poor nations to cut carbon emissions, we will have to pay them to do it. And it is important to remember that China is poor, when their GDP per person is considered.
Incidentally, there are other externalities that will drive China part of the way toward decarbonization. Coal is responsible for high levels of various lung ailments in China, which adds to medical costs, and reduces productivity. It also competes for scare and precious water there. But while that (along with their need for oil imports) will motivate some substitution of efficiency and renewable for carbon emitting sources, they still won't eliminate carbon use or reduce it by 70-90 percent unless paid to do so.
Of course, before we start paying others to reduce their carbon emissions we need to do something about their own.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 4:51 pm
15 Nov 2006
Having been born and raised in Africa (and still living there, albeit in fairly middle-class surroundings) I'm getting rather sick of the 'we can't afford not to pollute' line.
Many so-called developing nations have actively chosen, with great encouragement from aid NGOs, foreign advisors and sundry fellow travellers, to pursue the old-fashioned, resource intensive 'smokestack' development model, as if alternatives do not exist. In fact, development based on renewable energy might offer a far more cost-effective option on the mid- to long-term.
South Africa has already developed its own thin-film solar technology, which a German company (Johanna Solar) has sunk millions into and expects to make billions from. However, the local patent rights have been bought by a consortium that includes AngloCoal who are doing their level best to slow the technology down. The government is building millions of low-cost houses for people who are currently living in self-built shacks. However, the new houses have no insulation, and people who move into them are being driven further into poverty because of exorbitant energy costs which they didn't have to bear while living in shacks. The South African government supports and drives these processes.
China is also the chief propper-upper of US debt, which enables the average US citizen to live the profligate lifestyle she does. China produces polluting crap that Americans buy on credit lines supplied by them. China could turn the US around by acting responsibly.
Stop pitying the developing world. Rather help sensible citizens of the developing world to kick out their corrupt elites, by kicking out the corrupt elites in the so-called developed world who support them. You can do far more by stopping American companies selling bad, expensive technology into Africa than by giving money to self-serving aid NGOs to dig wells or or whatever. Charity begins at home, and it's often most effective there.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
bookerly Posted 6:33 pm
15 Nov 2006
Various Chinese universities and companies are also working on these, as are companies in many other countries.
A lot of developing countries are including solar in their mix. But the extra initial start up costs associated with solar require a little more capital (which tends to be in short supply). This and technology do matter for the developing countries.
Imagine a World Solar Bank, with say, 100 billion in credits to give a year. (Less than the cost of the Iraq war).
The irony is, that we can indeed solve our tecnical problems, but America's political problems seem to be beyond our ability to resolve.
If the developing nations do have to "do it alone" (at least without the US), then you can certainly expect that the shift in the balance of power will be quicker and sharper than otherwise.
There is real reason for optimism outside of the US, alas, the US is such a big player...
Whiskerfish, do you blame the cooks if you overeat?
China is definitely still a developing country (GDP of a bit over $1000 US per person per annum, as opposed to $33,000 US for the US). Just quickly developing.
What is clear, and I agree with most of the posters here in that regard, is that we must address poverty on the road TO sustainable developement, not afterwards.
patrick
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 8:58 pm
15 Nov 2006
- That $1000 dollars buys you a lot more in China than it does in the US - we should stop these inane income comparisons. They don't give a real indication of standards of living.
- e.g. Nigeria could have been well on its way to being 'developed' is corrupt elites hadn't squandered its oil wealth. At what point do we stop saying 'poor little Third World, they can't help polluting' and say 'you have massive resources. You have wasted them. Now lie in the bed that you've made and don't use your mistakes as an opportunity to hold the rest of the planet to ransom'?
- Also, if you can't get your house in order in the US and elect a decent President (after all, you actually still have a semblance of a functioning democracy, and you don't get killed for criticising Bushco in the papers), who the hell are you to tell the Third World what to do?
This issue is far more about governance and morality than many people dare think - it's not just a matter of transferring money and tech around the planet.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:46 pm
15 Nov 2006
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:16 am
16 Nov 2006
Jason -- The 1.2 billion poor Chinese moving into the middle class will not be protected from the collapse of civilization caused by global warming. When Rome fell people froze due to the collapse of the firewood industry.
Aggressive carbon mitigation is our only hope. Solar energy is just one element of mitigation. Efficiency alone can do most of what we need.
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:18 am
16 Nov 2006
A) get their feet off the necks of the poor nations
B) eliminate their own emissions
But if we ever succeed in doing that we will still owe reparations to the poor nations for everything we have done. More to the point, in order to get our foot off the worlds neck, we have to make American conscious that it is there in the first place - that we are not this generous helpful nation who keeps trying to save the rest of the world, and fails cause they are too stupid to appreciate our help. Bringing up reparations is one way to bring up the fact that we are doing something wrong.
In terms of district heating. The Wuppertal institute thinks the embedded energy in the metal district heating systems require outweighs any operational savings. I have not seen the detailed analysis, and net energy arguments tend to be exaggerated. At any rate with natural zeolite storage, we may soon be able to reach 100% solar at the individual building, even the individual home, level fairly cheaply.
Regardless, we are going to have to use some renewable sources more expensive than fossil fuel in terms of what is currently monetized. That can be made up for because of really massive efficiency potential. But that still requires acknowledgement of the importance of doing this - because otherwise the temptation is institute the efficiency measures, provide 35% of the remaining demand from inexpensive renewables, and then provide the 70% remaining from coal.
Permalink
jjwfmme Posted 2:32 am
16 Nov 2006
At a certain point the price would reach a point where you could economically put photovoltaics on peoples' rooftops. You could have an economy of scale where everyone could afford some of their own power generation. Maybe some version of this could even spread to India. Supposedly you gain considerable efficiencies by having energy production local (over in the UK even David Cameron is buying into this idea). Maybe, this would actually improve India's electricity delivery infrastructure (and from what I've heard, it badly needs it). Maybe they could modernize using a different paradigm than we did...
We would be wise to speed this kind of thing along by some sort of government intervention, some coaxing of the market. Of course, for someone Ron Bailey, it's a matter of religious dogma that you can't do this without offending Ye Olde Free Market Gods...
Permalink
jscorse Posted 2:49 am
16 Nov 2006
Whiskerfish- i don't pity developing countries at all- but when the minister of india has a limited budget and doesn't choose to use that money to decrease CO2 reductions that makes sense to me- that's all i'm saying- and since rich countries are responsible for most of the carbon load seems reasonable that they should be the most to reduce them
sunflower- civilization isn't going to collapse because of global warming- when are environmentalists going to drop the doom and gloom rhetoric that discredits the movement? it's really tired and played out
jjwfmme- of course renewables are becoming cheaper and more competitive and that's a beautiful thing but the cheapest fuel sources (without accounting for externalities) will be fossil fuels for a while so this is where the heavy lifting is
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:38 am
16 Nov 2006
50% from efficiency plus 20% from renewables is 70%. 80% to 90% is possible.
Environmentalists, rhetoric, movements,... not the point. Six billion people can not survive the consequences of passing the tipping points of global warming. Where will civilization thrive after North America and Northern Europe are under 100 feet of ice, after global drought, malaria, floods, mass extinction, economic chaos?
I've often said life is a fantasy so make it a good one, but this reality bites me and seriously interferes with my desire for magical thinking.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:10 am
16 Nov 2006
Sunflower,
Of the roughly 1.3 billion Chinese, maybe 130-200 million are pretty much in the middle class (Chinese definition), with another 200 million or so well on the way. The roughly 900 million (there is so much movement and change going on, I don't know that anyone is able to track numbers exactly on an on-going basis) are in the countryside, where living conditions vary considerably. But all 1.3 billion will not enter the middle class at the same time (smile), though it would be nice if they could.
One advantage China will have in dealing with global warming is the strength of the CPC which may enable it to organize it's people to effectively make urgent changes better than other less well organized countries.
Whiskerfish,
What part of the problem do the cooks have in your overeating? (We are talking in a restaurant, not in your home (smile)). And there is a difference between blaming the owners of the restaurant (which in the case of China, are often the same folks who are overeating) and blaming the staff (the cooks). (In case you missed the point).
The US is the big Kahuna, the grand consumer of them all (with some European nations and Japan following a bit behind). People sell it what it wants to buy. Period. They won't make stuff it doesn't want to buy. Blaming them for trying to make a living is silly.
I make a living teaching English because that is what people want to pay me to do. If they wanted to pay me to teach them something else, I would be foolish to say "hey, I only teach English" and starve.
Your are correct about the $1000, but it does not buy you 33 times as much. Not even close. (Trust me on this one (smile)).
And one of the key differences between a developed and and a developing country is how much excess income it has to spend, and what it can spend it on. The expense of transforming developing countries into countries with fully developed infastructures is enormous! And as Gar points out, not always easy to come by. It requires hard choices.
BTW, where am I telling the Third World what to do?? (I thought I was suggesting otherwise!! (grin)).
Let's change your Nigerian example, and say "If the US eliminated preferential tax treatments for the rich, corporate loopholes, and the murder of Iraqis and Afghanis from it's budget (and cracked down on the corruption as well), it could easily afford to solve the global warming crisis all on its own."
Finally Gar's point, that the developed nations created the problem, and as such, should bear most of the responsibility for solving it, is true.
But forgetting the moral implications (responsiblity not being a particular Western virtue at this point in our cycle), let's be practical.
ONLY the developed nations have the excess resources (capital) to solve the problem.
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:17 am
16 Nov 2006
David,
There are other models of developement, but some of the things that usually need to happen to allow people to develop include things like building transport systems (ah, but what kind?), water management and treatment, education, health systems and so on (don't tell my students I used "and so on").
These generally require more investment than developing countries can handle at one time, and need to happen along with spending on things like energy production.
Each one of these projects may vary in size. But they all require money that isn't available. Let's go for micro-loans and micro-projects, but enough of them put together to make much of a difference still require lots of money.
Any model of developement (that I have ever heard of) requires money in excess of that needed to survive. Developed countries tend to have lots of that, developing countries don't.
patrick
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:23 am
16 Nov 2006
"Any model of developement ... requires money in excess of that needed to survive. Developed countries tend to have lots of that ..."
I'm just curious. If one takes into consideration the United States national debt, the average American's negative saving rate, and our deteriorating infrastructure, just how much excess money do we have floating around? What about other countries?
Oh... and who do we owe all of that money to? Those folks might have a little extra cash to spare for helping developing countries.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 5:27 am
16 Nov 2006
you said " The US is the big Kahuna, the grand consumer of them all (with some European nations and Japan following a bit behind). People sell it what it wants to buy. Period. They won't make stuff it doesn't want to buy. Blaming them for trying to make a living is silly."
re your last sentence. I think it's bs. They are part of the whole thing and must share responsibiliity with buyers, as must Exxon etc. Exxon is 'only trying to make a living', and so are tiger poachers. Neither deserves too much sympathy if what they do stuffs the planet up for the rest of us.
"And one of the key differences between a developed and and a developing country is how much excess income it has to spend, and what it can spend it on."
My point was that developing countries often have far more cash than they let on, and far more options than the aid agencies will have us believe. It's often just that they're run by a bunch of kleptocrats and corporate assholes (with support from similar in the developed world) and these corrupt elites have chosen not to develop sensibly and rather keep the money for themselves (=steal).
Therefore we should be very careful before we start committing money to these states for 'sustainable development' or any other reason as it's likely to disappear into the same deeeeep pockets as whatever money they had before did. Hence my insistence that we not let corrupt elites make the tired old excuse of 'we haven't enough money'. The real problem is often that 'we haven't enough morals and so we have crappy governance'.
Hence (2) my earlier suggestion is that the average citizen of the developed world would have a far bigger positive impact by getting their own political houses in order than by dispensing aid, as this would stop corrupt First World elites supporting their pals in the Third World and hopefully lead to better governance in the Third World, and more fertile ground for any worthwhile positive intervention.
Cheers
Whiskerfish
Permalink
jscorse Posted 5:38 am
16 Nov 2006
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
willa Posted 6:16 am
16 Nov 2006
Patrick, why is "and so on" a no-no?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:47 am
16 Nov 2006
But in some contexts it is perfectly fine, e.g., when it is clear enough that a complete list is unnecessary. "She had especially great affection for all black-and-white animals: pandas, penguins, orcas, and so on." Is it really necessary to write out "zebras," "border collies," and so on(!)? And I think Patrick's context is like that. He should not beat himself up for committing a stylistic sin.
Back to the topic: Of course the debate is way over my head. Nevertheless, I like Laurence Aurbach's holding up the middle-class Swede's lifestyle as probably doable for most Westerners. And I very much enjoy reading Whiskerfish, and am grateful to him (?) for sharing his perspective from South Africa.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:19 am
16 Nov 2006
First, Sethi "... pointed out that 50 percent of its [India's] people have no access to electricity; cooking was the largest use of energy for 75 percent of households; and 70 percent of cooking was done using traditional biomass, wood and dung."
I was reminded of something Paul Hawken brought up in his book, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. What is being demanded and what is the service ultimately provided? I don't recall Hawken's example, so I'll try to go with Sethi's remark. Sethi points out that India needs more energy. More specifically, a large part of that energy goes into cooking. So here is a small starting point... one could improve the quality of life in India, reduce energy consumption, and reduce CO2 (from buring biomass, wood, and dung) by getting solar cookers and ovens into their hands as soon as possible. I think this is already being done in Africa; the ovens might even be made locally. Not only does this accomplish the immediate goal--cooking food--but also reduces deforestation, makes dung available for fertilizer, reduces CO2 and particulate matter, frees up time previously spent gathering fuel (perhaps better spent on education), AND SO ON. There is a positive feedback loop here by gettting one piece of simple technology to the people who need it.
Rather than arguing that India has a choice between improving its standard of living and reducing CO2, Sethi could initiate a more productive dialogue by letting us know that India needs exactly X, Y, and Z. And if the West doesn't want more CO2 in the air, they had better figure out how to provide India with X, Y, and Z.
Energy is the immediate demand, but what does it mean to raise the standard of living? How is the energy going to be used?
Permalink
TokyoTom Posted 2:22 pm
16 Nov 2006
I addition, obviously the whole problem of dealing with AGw on a global scale - both mitigation and adaptation - is plagued not only by free rider issues but also by questions as to how to deal with the issues of corruption and misgovernance that favors elites in the developing world.
I agree strongly with Whiskerfish on the latter point, and Ron Bailey makes it in his follow-up post:
"While leaders like Kenyan Environment Minister Kivutha Kibwana may be sincere when they express fear that poor nations will "bear the brunt of nature's wrath," they also are very eager to get their hands on funds that they believe will generated when rich countries impose limits on CO2 emissions on themselves and begin trading emissions permits. Those markets will channel funds into clean development projects in poor countries as a way to offset CO2 emissions at home. Kofi Annan predicted that "international carbon finance flows to developing countries could reach $100 billion per year." Is this plausible? Currently, total overseas development aid amounts to $80 billion per year.
"Although the new funds would be devoted to projects to offset CO2 emissions, the experience of foreign aid over the past 50 years is sobering. During that period rich countries have spent more than $2.3 trillion dollars on aid and due largely the kleptocrats that have run many of the world's poorest countries, their people are poorer than ever. Unless that changes, pouring money into Africa and other developing countries to offset carbon emissions will produce neither development nor actual reductions in carbon emissions."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116751.html
Even as the third world is more interested in developing than in bearing costs to reduce future climate change, they also face a host of development problems that can be laid at the feet of their own corrupt elites. If we wish to help these countries to adapt to climate change, better meet the needs of their peoples and ease up on environmental destruction and to develop in ways that have a minimal AGW footprint, then we have to face up to and confront head on the problems corruption and poor governance that benefit elites.
Simply speaking, a narrow focus on GHGs will not be effective.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:37 pm
16 Nov 2006
Okay folks, if you want to talk about corrupt governments that benefit only the elites, please indicate whether you are referring to such governments in developed or developing countries...
I do agree with Whiskerfish that developed countries should look harder at their own political corruption and policies benefitting the rich before they pick on developing countries.... oh, wait, I only got the first half of that right (grin).
Carlyle, Halliburton, the billions of dollars that went to Iraq and then disappeared ....
(These are a few of my favorite things (GWB dancing as Mary Poppins in the Sound of Music))
But the suggestion that no aid go to a country until it meets some mythical anti-corruption standard that the DONOR countries can't meet, well, this is interesting.
Part of me wants to accuse Whiskerfish of being a South African government agent who wants to insure the dominance of the continent by his own country (which the no-aid provision would benefit), but I'll take the issue more seriuosly... (grin).
(Actually, China would probably benefit, since it will ignore Whisperfish and continue to improve and closen relations with Africa.)
As Gar and Jason have pointed out, aid to stop global warming is in the interest of the wealthy countries. Cause, duh, unless it is stopped, life in those countries will be impacted as well.
(I am aware that a number of people have fantasies of living of the land in small locally based communities as the chaos passes them by.... they imagine Walden II, the reality will be more like Mad Max. Where will America put the first 100 million refugees or so....)
Whiskerfish, if you have any figures about all that spare cash you imagine developing countries have, please provide them!! Otherwise, I will have to consider them another dream...
If we waited for good governance before we did anything, we would all be living in caves (and I know a couple of folks like the idea, but I would miss the net (smile)).
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:43 pm
16 Nov 2006
The problem is that someone (not me!) told my students (at some point) that using and so on was a good way to show that you have more that you could say.
Since many of them have trouble using the vocabulary with which they have been endowed by their educators, they see these three words as an enormous life jacket which will protect them from all further study.
So, they tend to end any list with "and so on" in both speech and writing.
This merely serves to eliminate any useful turns for the phrase and to convince listeners and readers that they have a poor vocabulary (which is usually but not always true).
So, I forbid them to use the words that they might learn how to speak and write without them.
Once they have finished my class and redeemed themselves, they are of course, free to return to a life full of "and so on", but hopefully moderated to some extent.
I am grateful that CanisCandida (who is more serious about writing style than I sometimes am) forgives my usage here.
But, don't tell my students!!
pace,
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:45 pm
16 Nov 2006
Wiscidea is correct. It is being done in China (someone posted an article from a traveller in Tibet running into them a while back), and I believe is also being done in other developing countries.
There is nothing wrong with using aid in a variety of different ways.
I believe we should judge each usage independently, and not automatically embrace or reject large projects (or small!!).
patrick
Permalink
atreyger Posted 11:27 pm
16 Nov 2006
As far as the rest of the points, I think it's absolutely possible to reduce emissions and promote poverty reductions. However, there is a whole ballpark of issues, from transportation to industrial agriculture: fertilizer is industrial unless organic, and it is also harder to farm and get large yields in the tropics, due to a combination of poor soils, limiting climatic conditions and lower sunlight per day compared to high latitudes during the growing season. These agricultural problems are inherent, and there is almost nothing that can be done about it, with the exception of population reduction.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 1:20 am
17 Nov 2006
a)
This is a complex subject and there are no easy answers. My main point throughout this debate is that one has to take the moral dimension into account when discussing this issue. Corrupt elites in the Third World usually have a lot of support form corrupt elites in the First. However, Third World kleptocrats tend to have more power within their own countries (are able to monopolise resources more effectively) than corrupt elites in the First. Even tho Bechtel/Halliburton etc. have made off with billions unders suspicious circumstances, most Americans don't live in poverty. (Yes I know there are poor people in the US, I have seen them myself, but they are a small minority). In many resource-rich Third World countries (like Nigeria or Angola for example) the corrupt elites manage to make off with or destroy so much wealth that the majority of the citizenry really do live in abject poverty.
Therefore before you throw money at a problem in the Third World you must understand the nature of this beast. Because of a number of factors (which might include severely dysfunctional democratic systems) many people in the Third World who are educated enough to insert themselves into positions where they can access donor funds are from the kleptocrat class. That, or they are foreign NGO types who are getting paid fat salaries to do next to nothing useful in the tropical sun (I know that's an overstatement, but honestly Africa could do without many of its NGO types). The money therefore gets wasted, or in the case of foreign NGO type salaries, is effectively just sent back to the First World.
So a better way of making progress than throwing money at Africa or wherever is to a) Get the Halliburtons in your own country under control first, because they prop up the Halliburtons over here. and b) support, in whatever way possible, the growth of deep democracy in the Third World. That means don't shelter the money or family of the kleptocrats, give true democrats a voice in your own media etc. I'm not suggesting that one doesn't give money to Third World countries because they might be corrupt even though First World countries are also corrupt. (I'm not making moral judgements of relative morality re corruption). I'm suggesting that one not give money to Third World countries, especially via dysfunctional governments, because it might not solve the problem (global warming) infact it might just feed an existing problem (corruption).
If you're going to intervene in the Third World, do it directly with personal friends (and I mean that - make friends, get to know people, have a relationship) at the level you want to work at - not via the kleptocrats.
b)
The value of anything is strongly dependent on the skills and morality of the person in whose posession it is. This point was made by John Ruskin about 150 years ago but seems to have been completely forgotten by most modern economists. This also applies to money. If you give $100 dollars to an underfed, uneducated person who cannot buy anything with it, it is money devalued or lost, no matter wht the number on the banknote says.
Rich people get rich by being smart and able to exploit and control resources. Thus the best way to make poor, underskilled and underresourced people rich is not to give them money but to enable them to gain the strength and skills necessary to become rich, assuming they have access to some material resources (which many Africans and South Americans actually do). That often means exposing them to new ideas and moralities that are more appropriate to their situations.
This might sound trite, and I might even sound like I'm contradicting myself, but if you think about it in the context of this issue (what to do about global warming) it puts a whole new spin on the debate. Think about what makes poor people 'poor', and think about the different aspects of poverty. It's not just about money.
PS The extra money in the developing world is in the bank accounts of its rich classes. This money is often offshore, or invested in the First World, but it is there. Just look at the billions invested in companies like Anglo American, De Beers, SAB-Miller (yes, your beloved Miller beer is now owned by South African Breweries), Old Mutual etc. This all came from South Africa, but is now invested in London Stock Exchange shares and foreign companies. People in the Third World chose not to invest at home, just like Anglo Coal has chosen not to make a world-beating South African-designed thin-film solar system at home but rather to keep it off the market and use its sway with the kleptocrats in the South African govt to force South African taxpayers to buy their coal. Hence my earlier statement re the responsibilty of the Third World for their own situation.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:26 am
17 Nov 2006
http://www.hfcletter.com/pub/XXI_9/stories/741-1.html
"The University of Minnesota expects to start work soon on a fertilizer-producing system that would convert wind energy via hydrogen into ammonia. The traditional way of making ammonia - NH3 - is to use hydrogen, produced from increasingly expensive natural gas, and react it with nitrogen extracted from the air. Now, the university's West Central Research and Outreach Center (WCROC) near Morris, will scale up a system in which wind, plentiful in the Great Plains, will drive wind turbines that will generate electricity which in turn will be used to electrolyze water to make the hydrogen."
Benefits: reduced dependency on fossil fuel, increased efficiency by going almost directly from wind to ammonia, increased efficiency by using energy locally rather than transmitting over long distances or trucking fertilizer from industrial areas to agricultural areas, possibility of ownership and management of the wind/fertilizer facility by a local co-op. A smaller benefit might be an increase in agricultural production that adds organic matter to the soil and results in a net drop in atmospheric carbon.
This all depends on how much wind is available in India (or elsewhere), but is an excellent example of looking at exactly what energy is being demanded for.
So... solar ovens for cooking and wind for fertilizer.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:30 am
17 Nov 2006
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:47 am
17 Nov 2006
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:50 am
17 Nov 2006
Dear Whiskerfish,
Your first argument makes no sense, it is hard indeed to figure out what exactly you are suggesting. Are you trying to say that every NGO that works in the Third World is corrupt? That the only way to put money in the developing nations is through a personal network?
You are mixing two things together into one pot, and your apples and grapes need to be stored differently.
While there is corruption in developing countries, there has also been, umm, some, anyway, developement.
The argument against just willy nilly dumping conscience money into Africa is an interesting one. And certainly throwing money at it is not always the best way to solve a problem.
But a lot of the aid going to Africa (which is a unique position in the world, consisting largely of "nations" created by colonial powers in their own interests) benefits the West as well. (Grain purchases made in Canada or Europe or the US, rather than made in other African countries are a good example.)
So, I don't disagree with some of what you are saying in terms of criticism.
BUT. And there is a big but. If the Developed countries were to close off charitable aid (it is not clear if that is what you are talking about) in some areas, would they replace it with open markets and investment?
The answer is probably not. That, after all, is what killed the last WTO round of talks. The developed countries have no intention of opening THEIR markets to the developing countries agriculturally, they want to be able to exploit the developing countries without giving a chance at growth in return. (And shame on us all.)
That was a). Now for b).
While it is true that there is money flowing out of Africa to invest in the western companies, and into bank accounts, you are mistating reality.
Africa is not one place (as you well know), it consists of 53 different countries spread across a huge continent with different problems and different resources. Not all of those countries are full of diamonds and gold (or oil).
Certainly what you are suggesting would benefit your own country (South Africa), as it would then be in an even more dominant position on the continent.
But would it benefit the rest of the people's of Africa?
I do agree that what Africa needs is more access to markets and more business investment. That the best aid should be tied into infastructure projects that will allow Africa to develop (railroads would be a good example, as well as sewage projects in big cities, universities, power networks (or solar cookers and local power generators), and transportation).
The truth is that given it's size, very little aid or investment goes into Africa. Much of what does is crisis aid which works (crisis averted), but is not the same as investment aid (see the infastructure projects I mentioned).
The developed nations have invested money mainly in taking resources from Africa, and not in projects that build the local economies (and there are 53 of them (at least).
While some money gets siphoned off to corruption (and the money siphoned off in Iraq is at a far higher percentage than anywhere else imaginable!), it doesn't all. (If you have actual links and sources to suggest otherwise, please provide some!).
Here are a couple for further reading. Note that while there is corruption, no one is suggesting that aid stop. Also, for the first link, note how little real money there is.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=55783&Sel...
http://www.irinnews.org/frontpage.asp?SelectRegion=Southe...
http://www.irinnews.org/frontpage.asp?SelectRegion=East_A...
Dear Whiskerfish,
Please offer us information that we can verify or are you merely toying with us? (smile).
You could also suggest some scenarios as to what you would see happening if money was cut off.
And please seperate investment and aid money (they are not the same at all!).
patrick
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:55 am
17 Nov 2006
Actually there is something interesting happening that will probably seriously increase all of the different types of money flowing to Africa from Developed Countries.
The dreaded China Card. As China deepens and develops ties with African nations, the West will rise up with alarm and fear. To counter the modest sums and opening of markets that China is proposing, Wester nations will almost certainly go mad.
First they will scream and rant and rave (currently under process) that China is merely exploiting the continent (as if they have ever done anything else!), and that China isn't careful enough of human rights (this is especially funny given developed countries history and current practices).
Then they will hold meetins and whisper and wheeze.
They will watch with alarm, then start to invest money and open their markets (all the while grumbling and blaming the Chinese for forcing them to do so to compete).
Despite corruption and other problems, in the long run this is likely to benefit Africa.
patrick
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 6:21 pm
17 Nov 2006
I'll try my best to answer you.
I'm toying but not. I've made some overstatements, but I really do want you to think about what I'm saying.
I'll try to separate investment and aid, but it's hard, because a lot of it just profits the countries that gave it. Much 'aid' goes to pay the salaries of foreign (non-African) NGO workers, and much of that just gets repatriated to the country that it came from in the savings of those workers. Similarly, most outside investment is made to profit the non-African countries that invest it. So there's a similar pattern of exploitation. I've suggested that a lot of the blame lies with Africans themselves - their elites are too corrupt and their democracies too weak to make sure that investment and aid money really does benefit their countries - they just skim off the top and let foreigners do what they will.
Many African countries are in fact extraordinarily resource-rich. My use of SA as an example was co-incidental. Both the Congos, Sudan, Cameroon, Nigeria, Angola, Gabon = loads of oil etc. etc. What is notable that relatively resource-poor countries like Botswana and Eritrea, simply by having better governance than other more resource-rich countries, have actually improved the quality of life of many of their citizens relative to those in more resource-rich countries.
Money that doesn't get siphoned off in corruption often gets wasted due to an inadequate skills base in many African countries. See my earlier statement re John Ruskin.
I wasn't joking re personal networks and NGOs. Lots of NGOs are not 'corrupt', but they waste cash and are often surprisingly ineffective (for a number of reasons). I am a firm believer in chanelling funds and know-how via personal networks, or small NGOs that are very targeted in their approach and run by very dedicated people, preferably Africans who know the culture and who are in FOR THE LONG TERM. People who work on something for less than 10 years always seem to fail in Africa. I don't always know why, but it my personal observation. You have to have the same people working consistently at something for a long time. Most NGOs shuttle staff in and out of countries and it's a mess.
I think China is really bad news for Africa on the environmental front and the governance front. Just when we'd got the old ogres like the World Bank etc. to begin to take environmental stuff vaguely seriously, the Chinese have come in with loads of mony for roads and large dams that are being constructed with no thought to the environment. A friend has just come from Angola and described how roads are going up north with Chinese govt money so that Chinese logging companies can rip the shit out of the forests there and export the timber. They road gangs are not locals - they have flown thousands of poorly-paid Chinese labourers in to build the roads (it's apparently a surreal sight - pointy bamboo hats in the African bush). So locals don't even get a look-in on the job front. They're donating military equipment to Mad Bob Mugabe so they can get access to his platinum mines. The Chinese look to be every bit as self-serving as their forerunners.
Look at Eritrea and Somaliland as places wtih few resources that have suceeded on a number fronts against significant odds to improve the lives of their people. Both have received little in formal aid and investment (esp Somaliland, which is not even recognised as a country). They are good illustrations of what I mean. Poor people in African countries with relatively good governance and little or no foreign aid or investment are often better off than poor people in African countries where the poor are not taken seriously by the government and that have lots of investment. SA, the richest country in Africa, has among the poorest of the poor - our bottom 20% are far worse off than the African average, and this has gotten WORSE since the end of Apartheid.
Gotta go
Whiskerfish
Permalink
bookerly Posted 5:47 pm
20 Nov 2006
Dear Whiskerfish,
The danger with overstating is that it confuses those of us with weak minds.
2) Do you have any statistics on the percentage of aid that goes to pay the salaries of foreign workers? It's a pretty sweeping generalization, and hard to take seriously without some links. (That is the danger of making broad statements). As to the idea that businesses invest expecting a return, well yes. No one buys or sells expecting to suffer a loss.
If your complaint is with the idea of profits, then you should say so, and please suggest what will take its place. If it is with the idea of foreign investment, then please suggest what will take it's place. (IE, where will the capital come from to build hospitals or roads or sewage systems (schools, anyone?).
3) If you can cite some studies, or statistics, that would be nice. Otherwise, I find these comparisons as being less useful. (Nothing personal, I am skeptical about broad generalizations by everyone, and they should be skeptical on any I make!)
4) Same as 3.
5) Your personal oberservations are very valuable, but please share your biases with us (I am an American left of center green vegetarian living abroad, please ask if you want more (grin)). (I forgot aging.... sigh... one of the signs).
6) The Chinese may be self serving (but who hasn't and isn't???), but seem to be welcomed by a fair number of African nations. As to the projects they are involved in, you are painting a fairly broad brush.
If you don't like the current development situation, please suggest how African countries could develop and reduce poverty.
7) Eritrea is an interesting example, but Somaliland? They have succeeded (if at all) based on US military investment and money dumped in to help keep the wolves (bad extremists in turbans) away.
It is interesting to read your thoughts and ideas, but I would appreciate some more specifics, if you have time!
thanks,
patrick
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:26 pm
20 Nov 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/19/magazine/19china.html?_...
I found it very interesting. Important subjects include the strange conflict between the Chinese monarchical technocratic business model and the corrupt Angolan oligarchy, a conflict that so far has done little or no good to the people of Angola; and the very different ways in which the West and China seek to invest in Africa: the Europeans and the Americans come with all kinds of political, social and economic demands, which makes their offers difficult to accept by the ruling governments, while the Chinese make no such demands.
In passing, what is relevant to discussion of an emerging Portuguese-language "commonwealth," Traub reports that he observed a number of Portuguese and Brazilian enterprises at work, especially in Luanda. So, there are others besides the Chinese.
Traub reports that it was not easy to find the Chinese. Everyone knew they were there, but no one knew just where. At last, he located a large, out-of-the-way worksite, where a railway was being laid down. Those in charge seem to have been friendly and forthcoming. They have both Chinese and Angolan workers, they told him. But the Chinese are much better workers. For one thing, they work on Sundays.
My friends the Portuguese have a questionable record as colonial masters of Angola. They built some lovely towns, Traub reports. But these were shot to pieces during the decades of civil war, the result of the Portuguese moving out hastily, essentially ditching the place, without setting up a decent government to take over.
When we were in Lisbon a couple of summers ago, we visited the monument of "the Navigators," as I think it is called, in the western part of the city on the shore of the Tejo. It is not very interesting: a grandiose marble modernish thing. But on the expansive pavement between it and the avenue was a large map of the world, done in mosaic; and Portugal and the countries of its empire are highlighted. As I looked down on that map from a balcony in the monument, I observed with fascination a group of twenty or thirty middle-aged Chinese men, studying it, and being lectured on it by their leader. It would be hard to believe that many others who have crossed that plaza ever showed so much interest in that map. By coincidence, the International Herald Tribune (one of the greatest small newspapers in the world) had just a couple of days earlier had something about how the Chinese are making a diligent study of the empires of Western countries. I would have loved to know what was going on in that study-group by the map. I cannot help wondering if one or another of the Chinese men in that group is now somehow involved in the Chinese projects in Angola.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:27 am
23 Nov 2006
The Portuguese have a "mixed record" in Africa? Umm, no, they have a sh****y record in Africa as do all the colonial powers!! (grin).
The slaves in Brazil were some of the worst off in both hemispheres of the Americas. And the Portuguese colonial experience was just that, an experience that was designed to benefit only them.
As to the idea that Western countries come with all kinds of "political, social and economic" demands, we need to seperate these ideas (said like this, it makes them sound idealistic and interested in truly helping).
In fact, all of the idealistic Western aid has mostly left the people's of Africa in debt to the West!!! It has not improved their lives at all, but has benefited the large Western multinationals.
The real complaint of the West is that countries like China are "poaching" on a place they still in their hearts of hearts regard as their own.
It's great that China is there, and if it makes Western nations get off their sofas and try to compete in helping Africa develop, all the better!!
Happy Thanksgiving CanisCandida, did you give in and eat the poor beast?? (smile).
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:25 am
24 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:39 am
24 Nov 2006
Jason, check the news. Here is a link, there is a longer article in the Washington Post.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/...
And do you think the US is really serious about what's happening in Darfur? There are a few politicians who care, more who are posturing, and administration that is doing nothing.
Africa is not only the Sudan. It is a large number of countries (which most Americans (not you Jason) know nothing about).
The West has over the last several hundred years played an almost totally negative role in Africa.
If fear of the Chinese can get Western countries off their sofas and doing something to help (even if it is only to counter the Chinese) then great!!! This will benefit Africa.
Since when have Western countries (on the whole) been at all serious about human rights in Africa? Not in places where there is oil.
Not in Somalia, which has essentially been abandoned (except for that very interesting large US military base, about which very little is published (that I have seen)).
Many of the African leaders think that China's presence and attention is positive (and they are not all dictators, not the Americans really care), most of the negative reactions to China's activities come from......
(hint not Africa)
Former colonial powers!!
As to how it all plays out, no one can say at this point.
Here is a website put up by some African students.
http://www.eafricanlinks.com/
Try to move beyond stereotypes.
patrick
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:58 am
25 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:12 pm
25 Nov 2006
Please pay attention to the simple matter of correct attribution. Everything I said about Angola was intended as a summary of the essay of James Traub. That ought to have been quite clear from the beginning.
I never used the words "mixed record" to summarize the activities of the Portuguese in Africa. With respect to Angola in particular, thinking of James Traub's reporting, I said they had a "questionable record." "Questionable" is a euphemistic understatement amounting to "unsatisfactory" or "bad."
There is no doubt that with respect to the slave trade and the treatment of slaves, many Portuguese were responsible for some of the worst crimes against humanity in all history, both in Africa and in Brazil. Starting in the mid-15th century C.E. (but I do not know when their evil trade really got under way), the Portuguese were the first Western European nation to enslave black Africans, for their own use and for sale to others.
It should be remembered that Muslims of North Africa and the Middle East anticipated them by many centuries in that same evil trade. It should also be remembered that traders from other European nations soon took up the trade, and in time came to dominate it. The Portuguese were first in Europe, not because they were especially evil, but only because they had the closest connexions to the West African coast.
With regard to the exploitation of Africans within their colonies, it is not clear that the Portuguese were the most efficient. The Belgians were the most notoriously so, probably followed by the British, the French and, more briefly, the Germans.
You wrote:
<<
The slaves in Brazil were some of the worst off in both hemispheres of the Americas.
>>
That sounds true enough. But it should not be exaggerated. One would not like to say to Henry Louis Gates, Jr., or Cornel West, "You thought the slaves had it bad in the U.S.; but that was nothing compared to what the slaves were suffering in Brazil."
You write:
<<
And the Portuguese colonial experience was just that, an experience that was designed to benefit only them.
>>
I am not sure I understand what "just that" means. But anyway, the accusation is not true of 100% of Portuguese, even as it is not true of 100% of any other Europeans. There were always some Europeans, very well-intentioned though possibly misguided and even foolish, who believed that the contact between Europeans and non-Europeans would ultimately prove beneficial to all.
You write:
<<
As to the idea that Western countries come with all kinds of "political, social and economic" demands, we need to seperate [sic!] these ideas (said like this, it makes them sound idealistic and interested in truly helping).
>>
Actually, it was the observation of James Traub, reporting what his contacts in Angola were telling him.
I do not see any point in doubting the sincerity of many Europeans and North Americans, whether in governments, in NGOs, or acting privately. To be sure, skepticism, and even cynicism, must always be at the ready. E.g., the Bush administration has been sending a fairly impressive bit of financial aid to Africa, to combat HIV/AIDS. But there are strings attached: the funds must not be used for acquiring or distributing condoms, and public instruction must be based on "Abstinence." Do many among the Bushies really feel that condoms are a no-no? Hard to say. But plainly, many in the Republican base believe most sincerely that that is by far the best message to send to Africans, for their physical and spiritual welfare.
You write:
<<
The real complaint of the West is that countries like China are "poaching" on a place they still in their hearts [sic!] of hearts regard as their own.
>>
This is far too simplistic a sentence to be at all useful. There are countless opinions, attitudes and sentiments in "the West," regarding both Africa and China. I do not doubt that there are many people in Western governments and in Western-based big businesses who dislike competition from the Chinese, in a number of areas. But the concept of legitimate private ownership, as in "poaching" and "their own," is perhaps an inexact metaphor.
I think it is fair to say that many people in the U.S. at least (I cannot at all speak for Canada and Europe) are driven by more or less racist stereotypes, as well as by a lingering sense of the Manifest Destiny of the U.S., and so mistrust the Chinese, and hate any news of their political and economic strength and accomplishments.
But they are not 100% of us. Many of us at least think it is too early to judge anything, regarding, say, China's investments in African countries. Meanwhile, we understand that it is necessary to continue to observe.
Your parting shot, regarding what I ate on Thanksgiving, accompanied by one of those enigmatic, hardly disarming smiles of yours, was not unfair, however much off topic. So: I very unhappily ate the flesh of a turkey cousin of mine. (Not a "beast"; beasts are fictitious.) As a guest in someone's house, I eat what is placed before me. Fortunately this is a once-a-year episode. And, the ways of that household are shortly likely to change.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:29 am
30 Nov 2006
Dear CanisCandida,
First of all, regarding slavery, my comments on the Portuguese and Brazil were derived from the terrible life expectancy of slaves sent to Brazil (around ten years).
If you feel I am unfair, than sorry. But where do you get the idea that I think slavery in the United States was "okay" or not terrible because that in Brazil was even more terrible?
Slavery as practised in most of the world was rarely as bad as slavery practised by Europeans in the New World (my opinion). Slaves in other societies often had some rights, they had none in the Americas (that I am aware of), and the heriditary and racist nature of slavery made it generally worse.
Which is not the same as defending it.
I am sure that there may have been some white folks who went to Africa (during the colonial period) thinking they were somehow doing good. But any reading that suggests they were significant in number or that they could be used to defend the rape of Africa by Europeans seems simplistic to me.
The Bush administration has PROMISED a lot of money to Africa. What has been actually been delivered is a lot less.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
Permalink
bookerly Posted 10:31 am
30 Nov 2006
The editor went wild, and I lost a link.
http://www.brookings.edu/views/articles/rice/20050627.htm...
patrick
Permalink