There are some flashpoints in the world that could involve major powers. Numerous resource-rich islands in the Western Pacific, for instance, have recently fueled tensions between China and its neighbors.
But large nations have diplomatic sophistication, and numerous reasons not to allow their conflicts to escalate to the point of violence. Not so on a smaller scale. Where people live near the edge of starvation anyway, the use of violence to gain access to resources is often the only option.
Today, clashes in rural Kenya have killed at least 38 people . Over 50 more were killed last month. Some goat-herds needed grazing land and water that farmers want for their crops. That's all. 88 deaths as a result.
The connection between resource scarcity and war has the potential to grow beyond impoverished zones of developing nations. As this century progresses, will larger nations find the need to feed their people and power their countries so compelling that they will resort to war? Solving resource challenges solves a bigger problem as well: it reduces the threat of military conflict. And in a world with weapons of mass destruction, that is vitally important.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Monday, September 3, 2012
Carbon, renewables and resource scarcity
European governments took the lead, several years ago, in establishing penalties for releasing carbon dioxide into the air, and creating a scheme for "carbon trading." It was a way of tackling a perceived environmental threat that attempted to take into account the complexity of the issue.
Australia has followed suit, and implemented one of the most aggressive carbon taxes, at $26 a tonne. Living here, there has been no lack of opinions and whining about the impact that the tax will have on the Australian economy. Even though the tax has been in place for only a month, there have been scams, cheats and accusations. Recently, almost $50 billion in capital projects have been cancelled by the mining industry here, and some have blamed the tax. It's a much more convenient whipping boy, clearly, than the fact that the Chinese economy has stalled.
But the larger question is: does carbon trading actually enhance sustainability? And does it improve the lot of the massively expanding human population?
Carbon trading would be unnecessary were carbon-neutral processes for energy generation economically viable. But they are not. Various nations and corporations have invested in some of these processes--solar power, wind power, fuel cells--but they have primarily been used for high-tech photo opportunities. Solar power still costs four times what carbon-based power does. Someone has to pay the difference. Small amounts of uneconomical practice can be absorbed, but not large amounts. In addition to the cost issue, there are other, unsolved technical problems, such as the variability of the "renewable" sources, which play havoc with the reliable delivery of electricity. So far, there has been zero improvement to the sustainability of world energy production.
Many developing nations want, and deserve, the higher quality of life that results from affordable energy sources, particularly for electricity and transportation. Can they be given access to this, even given the risk of increased global atmospheric temperatures? In this Century Of Scarcity, one principle must remain inviolate: no amount of carbon policing must be allowed to interfere with the production and distribution of food.
Australia has followed suit, and implemented one of the most aggressive carbon taxes, at $26 a tonne. Living here, there has been no lack of opinions and whining about the impact that the tax will have on the Australian economy. Even though the tax has been in place for only a month, there have been scams, cheats and accusations. Recently, almost $50 billion in capital projects have been cancelled by the mining industry here, and some have blamed the tax. It's a much more convenient whipping boy, clearly, than the fact that the Chinese economy has stalled.
But the larger question is: does carbon trading actually enhance sustainability? And does it improve the lot of the massively expanding human population?
Carbon trading would be unnecessary were carbon-neutral processes for energy generation economically viable. But they are not. Various nations and corporations have invested in some of these processes--solar power, wind power, fuel cells--but they have primarily been used for high-tech photo opportunities. Solar power still costs four times what carbon-based power does. Someone has to pay the difference. Small amounts of uneconomical practice can be absorbed, but not large amounts. In addition to the cost issue, there are other, unsolved technical problems, such as the variability of the "renewable" sources, which play havoc with the reliable delivery of electricity. So far, there has been zero improvement to the sustainability of world energy production.
Many developing nations want, and deserve, the higher quality of life that results from affordable energy sources, particularly for electricity and transportation. Can they be given access to this, even given the risk of increased global atmospheric temperatures? In this Century Of Scarcity, one principle must remain inviolate: no amount of carbon policing must be allowed to interfere with the production and distribution of food.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)