How to Escape the Oil Trap by Fareed Zakaria
How to Escape the Oil Trap
Both Iran and Saudi Arabia are now awash in oil money, and no matter what the controls, some is surely getting to unsavory groups.
By Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, August 29, 2005 U.S. Edition
If I could change one thing about American foreign policy, what would it be? The answer is easy, but it's not something most of us think of as foreign policy. I would adopt a serious national program geared toward energy efficiency and independence. Reducing our dependence on oil would be the single greatest multiplier of American power in the world. I leave it to economists to sort out what expensive oil does to America's growth and inflation prospects. What is less often noticed is how crippling this situation is for American foreign policy. "Everything we're trying to do in the world is made much more difficult in the current environment of rising oil prices," says Michael Mandelbaum, author of "The Ideas That Conquered the World." Consider:
Terror. Over the last three decades, Islamic extremism and violence have been funded from two countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran, not coincidentally the world's first and second largest oil exporters. Both countries are now awash in money and, no matter what the controls, some of this cash is surely getting to unsavory groups and individuals.
Democracy. The centerpiece of Bush's foreign policy—encouraging democracy in the Middle East—could easily lose steam in a world of high-priced oil. Governments reform when they have to. But many Middle Eastern governments are likely to have easy access to huge surpluses for years, making it easier for them to avoid change. Saudi Arabia will probably have a budget surplus of more than $26 billion this year because the price of oil is so much higher than anticipated. That means it can keep the old ways going, bribing the Wahhabi imams, funding the Army and National Guard, spending freely on patronage programs. (And that would still leave plenty to fund dozens of new palaces and yachts.) Ditto for other corrupt, quasi-feudal oil states.
Iran. Tehran has launched a breathtakingly ambitious foreign policy, moving determinedly on a nuclear path, and is also making a bid for influence in neighboring Iraq. This is nothing less than an attempt to replace the United States as the dominant power in the region. And it will prove extremely difficult to counter—more so, given Tehran's current resources. Despite massive economic inefficiency and corruption, Iran today has built up foreign reserves of $29.87 billion.
Russia. A modern, Westernized Russia firmly anchored in Europe would mean peace and stability in the region. But a gush of oil revenues has strengthened the Kremlin's might, allowing Putin to consolidate power, defund his opponents, destroy competing centers of power and continue his disastrous and expensive war in Chechnya. And the "Russian model" appears to have taken hold in much of Central Asia.
Latin America. After two decades of political and economic progress in Latin America, we are watching a serious anti-American movement gain ground. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela—emboldened by his rising oil wealth—was the first in recent years to rebel against American influence, but similar sentiments are beginning to be heard in other countries, from Ecuador to Bolivia.
I could go on, from Central Asia to Nigeria. In almost every region, efforts to produce a more stable, peaceful and open world order are being compromised and complicated by high oil prices. And while America spends enormous time, money and effort dealing with the symptoms of this problem, we are actively fueling the cause.
Rising oil prices are the result of many different forces coming together. We have little control over some of them, like China's growth rate. But America remains the 800-pound gorilla of petroleum demand. In 2004, China consumed 6.5 million barrels of oil per day. The United States consumed 20.4 million barrels, and demand is rising. That is because of strong growth, but also because American cars—which guzzle the bulk of oil imports—are much less efficient than they used to be. This is the only area of the American economy in which we have become less energy-efficient than we were 20 years ago, and we are the only industrialized country to have slid backward in this way. There's one reason: SUVs. They made up 5 percent of the American fleet in 1990. They make up almost 54 percent today.
It's true that there is no silver bullet that will entirely solve America's energy problem, but there is one that goes a long way: more-efficient cars. If American cars averaged 40 miles per gallon, we would soon reduce consumption by 2 million to 3 million barrels of oil a day. That could translate into a sustained price drop of more than $20 a barrel. And getting cars to be that efficient is easy. For the most powerful study that explains how, read "Winning the Oil Endgame" by energy expert Amory Lovins (or go to oilendgame.com). I would start by raising fuel-efficiency standards, providing incentives for hybrids and making gasoline somewhat more expensive (yes, that means raising taxes). Of course, the energy bill recently passed by Congress does none of these things.
We don't need a Manhattan Project to find our way out of our current energy trap. The technologies already exist. But what we're searching for is perhaps even harder—political leadership and vision.
Read at the original source
Monday, September 19, 2005
Building in Green - William McDonough
Building in Green
"Building in Green
Can China move 400 million people to its cities without wreaking environmental havoc? Eco-urban designer William McDonough says yes—and Beijing is listening.
By Sarah Schafer and Anne Underwood, Newsweek International, Sept. 26 - Oct. 3, 2005
When American architect and industrial designer William McDonough visited the dusty Chinese village of Huangbaiyu, the villagers greeted him and his entourage of U.S. executives with a marching band, red carpet and fake red flowers to pin on their lapels. One anxious county official wearing a new blue dress shirt, still creased from the packaging, ordered volunteers to
hold up an inflatable rainbow arch that had begun to sag. Foreign delegations often swing through rural towns, but McDonough is not just another big shot looking for a glimpse of "ordinary Chinese life." He's co-chair—together with Deng Xiaoping's daughter, Deng Nan—of the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development. And he plans to change life in Huangbaiyu—and, for that matter, across China. "We hope whatever we do will make you happy," he announced to the curious crowd.
Huangbaiyu is set to become an experiment in ecologically balanced living, and McDonough is the visionary behind it. He and a team of Chinese and Americans have been charged with turning the village into a model of environmentally sound living. The team has begun construction on the first two demonstration homes and expect to build about 50 more by November to house some of the town's 400 families. If all goes as planned, families will move into a town center, increasing the amount of land available for farming, rather than live scattered about as they are now.
It's a challenge, to say the least. McDonough's team can spend only $3,500 per house. To pull it off, they're using local labor and local materials, all of which will either biodegrade safely or be completely recyclable. To avoid the pollution that is released during the firing of bricks, the walls are made of pressed-earth blocks. Between the blocks is straw, a byproduct of the local rice harvest that would otherwise go to waste. Walls are a half-meter thick, so houses are well insulated and won't need a lot of heating. Solar panels on the rooftops provide electricity and heated water. "We're doing everything with nothing," McDonough says.
China has a lot riding on the Huangbaiyu experiment—and so does the rest of the world. Beijing is now orchestrating an industrial revolution, hoping to telescope into a few decades what it took Western countries a century or two to accomplish. The plan is to move 400 million people—about half the rural population—into urban centers by 2030. Doing so will require expanding towns into cities and even building new metropolises from scratch. That also means creating education, security and economic policies to help the masses adjust to the speedy transition from an agrarian to an urban society. How China manages this transformation will have a huge impact on the country's—indeed, the world's—environment, and its social stability. McDonough's projects in the village of Huangbaiyu and six major cities are China's biggest experiment in ecologically sound development. If all goes well, his brand of ecodesign could serve as a model for China's new urbanism. "China wasted 200 years already," says Nie Meisheng, president of the China Housing Industry Association. "We have to catch up."
It's too early, of course, to say whether the plan will succeed or fail. McDonough has completed designs for the six new districts in cities such as Beijing and Guangzhou plus the village, but he's so far built mainly parks, waterways and roads. The goal is to have the first of the city sites ready for habitation in a few years. Although his plan has won the support of China's leaders—President Hu Jintao likes to repeat phrases from the Chinese translation of McDonough's book, "Cradle to Cradle"—the project relies on funding that is being raised by local governments and is not assured. And McDonough must first overcome a thousand gritty realities of life in China that could sidetrack his vision.
It makes a certain sense that China is turning to McDonough for an urban design vision. He believes that industrial cities could be far more efficient than they are now if they were designed from the ground up with ecological principles in mind instead of taking shape piecemeal. This notion would be impractical in most countries but could work in China, where the government has the wherewithal to impose its plans on citizens.
Efficiency is also key to relieving one of China's biggest roadblocks to modernization—its demand for energy. The Chinese use three times more energy per square meter to heat and cool buildings than Europeans and Americans, according to professor Yuan Bin at Beijing's Tsinghua University school of architecture. China is already the second largest energy consumer in the world, after the United States. Although only 23 million Chinese own cars, China produces 16 percent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions and is set to overtake the United States as the world's biggest producer of CO2 within 30 years. If each person in China used as much energy as an average American, they would swallow up the world's entire current supply of petroleum. "China cannot consume energy like the U.S. because we have 1.3 billion people," says Yuan Bin.
If McDonough's method could be summed up in a phrase, it might be to leave nothing to chance. In each of the six cities, he is starting with a thorough examination of the land to be developed. He figures out how rainwater runs off and enters aquifers, how animals migrate, what plants grow where. He studies sunlight angles and wind patterns. Then he sketches in parks, which interconnect so citizens can walk or ride bicycles from one to the next and wildlife can carry on without disruption. Next comes the plan for the infrastructure, beginning with the angle of the streets. He slants them at a 15-degree angle to the winds in order to break up cold winter blasts and help keep city air clean. And orienting them on a diagonal rather than a rigid east-west grid also maximizes the sunlight that reaches apartments year-round. The cities are zoned for mixed residential, commercial and industrial use to ensure that transportation connects residences to the workplaces. Shops will be on the ground floor, residences above, and the rooftops will have farm plots. Bridges over the streets will connect the plots. The farmers will live downstairs.
Energy efficiency will be maximized through new types of building materials and a solar-powered energy grid. McDonough has begun by developing a polystyrene made by BASF without ozone-depleting chloro-fluorocarbons but with excellent insulating qualities. "Buildings can be heated and cooled for next to nothing," he says. "And they'll be silent. If there are 13 people in the apartment upstairs, you won't hear them." He's also working on new toilet bowls that are so slippery you can flush them with a light mist. Bamboo wetlands nearby would purify the waste, and the bamboo could be harvested and used for wood.
McDonough would like to see China's cities powered chiefly by solar panels. China, he says, is uniquely qualified to get solar power off the ground by virtue of its scale. "We're not talking about dinky solar collectors on roofs," he says. "Think of square miles of marginal land covered with them. This could drop the cost of solar energy an order of magnitude. And for every job making solar panels, there are four jobs putting them in place and maintaining them."
McDonough's ideas have worked well, albeit on a smaller scale, in the United States. He's designed green developments for communities and corporations, including the Gap and Ford. The headquarters for the clothing retailer the Gap in California has a roof with vegetation on it, a raised floor for better heating and cooling, and makes good use of daylight. The building exceeds California's energy requirements by 30 percent; Pacific Gas and Electric named it the second most energy-efficient building in the state.
In China, McDonough's plans for all six city districts have passed the government's standards test; three have gotten the green light. In Zhejiang province, the group has integrated the city of Ningbo's water system, creating wetlands that help conserve rainwater and protect animal and plant life. In Jinan, McDonough and his team are trying to clean up land contaminated by toxins from a steel plant. Outside Chengdu, in Sichuan province, they're trying to preserve an ancient landscape with old trees that would otherwise be leveled to make room for buildings and roads. "We're just at the beginning," McDonough said. "If you really want to see something, give us a few years."
Many prominent companies have gotten involved. Vermeer Manufacturing Co. of Iowa contributed an earth-block press for Huangbaiyu. Hewlett-Packard is donating computers for the schools. BP has given solar collectors. Intel is sponsoring an American anthropology Ph.D. student, Shannon May, to live in the model village for 14 months. May will study local habits and report back to Intel so it can figure out how to design products for rural Chinese. She'll also work on her dissertation, which will explore "the dissonances between what the Americans hope to accomplish here and what actually happens on the ground." The whole world will be eager to see the results.
Read article at the original source
"Building in Green
Can China move 400 million people to its cities without wreaking environmental havoc? Eco-urban designer William McDonough says yes—and Beijing is listening.
By Sarah Schafer and Anne Underwood, Newsweek International, Sept. 26 - Oct. 3, 2005
When American architect and industrial designer William McDonough visited the dusty Chinese village of Huangbaiyu, the villagers greeted him and his entourage of U.S. executives with a marching band, red carpet and fake red flowers to pin on their lapels. One anxious county official wearing a new blue dress shirt, still creased from the packaging, ordered volunteers to
hold up an inflatable rainbow arch that had begun to sag. Foreign delegations often swing through rural towns, but McDonough is not just another big shot looking for a glimpse of "ordinary Chinese life." He's co-chair—together with Deng Xiaoping's daughter, Deng Nan—of the China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development. And he plans to change life in Huangbaiyu—and, for that matter, across China. "We hope whatever we do will make you happy," he announced to the curious crowd.
Huangbaiyu is set to become an experiment in ecologically balanced living, and McDonough is the visionary behind it. He and a team of Chinese and Americans have been charged with turning the village into a model of environmentally sound living. The team has begun construction on the first two demonstration homes and expect to build about 50 more by November to house some of the town's 400 families. If all goes as planned, families will move into a town center, increasing the amount of land available for farming, rather than live scattered about as they are now.
It's a challenge, to say the least. McDonough's team can spend only $3,500 per house. To pull it off, they're using local labor and local materials, all of which will either biodegrade safely or be completely recyclable. To avoid the pollution that is released during the firing of bricks, the walls are made of pressed-earth blocks. Between the blocks is straw, a byproduct of the local rice harvest that would otherwise go to waste. Walls are a half-meter thick, so houses are well insulated and won't need a lot of heating. Solar panels on the rooftops provide electricity and heated water. "We're doing everything with nothing," McDonough says.
China has a lot riding on the Huangbaiyu experiment—and so does the rest of the world. Beijing is now orchestrating an industrial revolution, hoping to telescope into a few decades what it took Western countries a century or two to accomplish. The plan is to move 400 million people—about half the rural population—into urban centers by 2030. Doing so will require expanding towns into cities and even building new metropolises from scratch. That also means creating education, security and economic policies to help the masses adjust to the speedy transition from an agrarian to an urban society. How China manages this transformation will have a huge impact on the country's—indeed, the world's—environment, and its social stability. McDonough's projects in the village of Huangbaiyu and six major cities are China's biggest experiment in ecologically sound development. If all goes well, his brand of ecodesign could serve as a model for China's new urbanism. "China wasted 200 years already," says Nie Meisheng, president of the China Housing Industry Association. "We have to catch up."
It's too early, of course, to say whether the plan will succeed or fail. McDonough has completed designs for the six new districts in cities such as Beijing and Guangzhou plus the village, but he's so far built mainly parks, waterways and roads. The goal is to have the first of the city sites ready for habitation in a few years. Although his plan has won the support of China's leaders—President Hu Jintao likes to repeat phrases from the Chinese translation of McDonough's book, "Cradle to Cradle"—the project relies on funding that is being raised by local governments and is not assured. And McDonough must first overcome a thousand gritty realities of life in China that could sidetrack his vision.
It makes a certain sense that China is turning to McDonough for an urban design vision. He believes that industrial cities could be far more efficient than they are now if they were designed from the ground up with ecological principles in mind instead of taking shape piecemeal. This notion would be impractical in most countries but could work in China, where the government has the wherewithal to impose its plans on citizens.
Efficiency is also key to relieving one of China's biggest roadblocks to modernization—its demand for energy. The Chinese use three times more energy per square meter to heat and cool buildings than Europeans and Americans, according to professor Yuan Bin at Beijing's Tsinghua University school of architecture. China is already the second largest energy consumer in the world, after the United States. Although only 23 million Chinese own cars, China produces 16 percent of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions and is set to overtake the United States as the world's biggest producer of CO2 within 30 years. If each person in China used as much energy as an average American, they would swallow up the world's entire current supply of petroleum. "China cannot consume energy like the U.S. because we have 1.3 billion people," says Yuan Bin.
If McDonough's method could be summed up in a phrase, it might be to leave nothing to chance. In each of the six cities, he is starting with a thorough examination of the land to be developed. He figures out how rainwater runs off and enters aquifers, how animals migrate, what plants grow where. He studies sunlight angles and wind patterns. Then he sketches in parks, which interconnect so citizens can walk or ride bicycles from one to the next and wildlife can carry on without disruption. Next comes the plan for the infrastructure, beginning with the angle of the streets. He slants them at a 15-degree angle to the winds in order to break up cold winter blasts and help keep city air clean. And orienting them on a diagonal rather than a rigid east-west grid also maximizes the sunlight that reaches apartments year-round. The cities are zoned for mixed residential, commercial and industrial use to ensure that transportation connects residences to the workplaces. Shops will be on the ground floor, residences above, and the rooftops will have farm plots. Bridges over the streets will connect the plots. The farmers will live downstairs.
Energy efficiency will be maximized through new types of building materials and a solar-powered energy grid. McDonough has begun by developing a polystyrene made by BASF without ozone-depleting chloro-fluorocarbons but with excellent insulating qualities. "Buildings can be heated and cooled for next to nothing," he says. "And they'll be silent. If there are 13 people in the apartment upstairs, you won't hear them." He's also working on new toilet bowls that are so slippery you can flush them with a light mist. Bamboo wetlands nearby would purify the waste, and the bamboo could be harvested and used for wood.
McDonough would like to see China's cities powered chiefly by solar panels. China, he says, is uniquely qualified to get solar power off the ground by virtue of its scale. "We're not talking about dinky solar collectors on roofs," he says. "Think of square miles of marginal land covered with them. This could drop the cost of solar energy an order of magnitude. And for every job making solar panels, there are four jobs putting them in place and maintaining them."
McDonough's ideas have worked well, albeit on a smaller scale, in the United States. He's designed green developments for communities and corporations, including the Gap and Ford. The headquarters for the clothing retailer the Gap in California has a roof with vegetation on it, a raised floor for better heating and cooling, and makes good use of daylight. The building exceeds California's energy requirements by 30 percent; Pacific Gas and Electric named it the second most energy-efficient building in the state.
In China, McDonough's plans for all six city districts have passed the government's standards test; three have gotten the green light. In Zhejiang province, the group has integrated the city of Ningbo's water system, creating wetlands that help conserve rainwater and protect animal and plant life. In Jinan, McDonough and his team are trying to clean up land contaminated by toxins from a steel plant. Outside Chengdu, in Sichuan province, they're trying to preserve an ancient landscape with old trees that would otherwise be leveled to make room for buildings and roads. "We're just at the beginning," McDonough said. "If you really want to see something, give us a few years."
Many prominent companies have gotten involved. Vermeer Manufacturing Co. of Iowa contributed an earth-block press for Huangbaiyu. Hewlett-Packard is donating computers for the schools. BP has given solar collectors. Intel is sponsoring an American anthropology Ph.D. student, Shannon May, to live in the model village for 14 months. May will study local habits and report back to Intel so it can figure out how to design products for rural Chinese. She'll also work on her dissertation, which will explore "the dissonances between what the Americans hope to accomplish here and what actually happens on the ground." The whole world will be eager to see the results.
Read article at the original source
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Deadly immunity
Deadly immunity
"Deadly immunity
When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data -- and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the epidemic.
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Salon.com, June 16, 2005
In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly 'embargoed.' There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left."
Read the entire article
"Deadly immunity
When a study revealed that mercury in childhood vaccines may have caused autism in thousands of kids, the government rushed to conceal the data -- and to prevent parents from suing drug companies for their role in the epidemic.
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Salon.com, June 16, 2005
In June 2000, a group of top government scientists and health officials gathered for a meeting at the isolated Simpsonwood conference center in Norcross, Ga. Convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the meeting was held at this Methodist retreat center, nestled in wooded farmland next to the Chattahoochee River, to ensure complete secrecy. The agency had issued no public announcement of the session -- only private invitations to 52 attendees. There were high-level officials from the CDC and the Food and Drug Administration, the top vaccine specialist from the World Health Organization in Geneva, and representatives of every major vaccine manufacturer, including GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Wyeth and Aventis Pasteur. All of the scientific data under discussion, CDC officials repeatedly reminded the participants, was strictly 'embargoed.' There would be no making photocopies of documents, no taking papers with them when they left."
Read the entire article
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Is Heart Surgery Worth It?
Is Heart Surgery Worth It?
"Is Heart Surgery Worth It?
By John Carey, Businessweek, July 18, 2005
Physicians are looking at troubling studies and questioning whether bypasses and angioplasties necessarily prolong patients' lives
You start breathing hard after climbing stairs, and your chest hurts. You go to your doctor. Scans reveal that arteries feeding your heart are severely narrowed. Your doctor sends you to the hospital for coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty to restore the blood flow to your heart. Despite the trauma of surgery, you're glad the blockage was caught in time, saving you from a potentially fatal heart attack.
There's just one problem with this happy tale of modern medicine: More and more doctors are questioning whether such heart procedures are actually extending patients' lives. One of them, Dr. Nortin M. Hadler, professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of The Last Well Person, is urging the U.S. medical establishment to rethink its most basic precepts of cardiovascular care. Bypass surgery in particular, he says, 'should have been relegated to the archives 15 years ago.' "
Read the entire article
"Is Heart Surgery Worth It?
By John Carey, Businessweek, July 18, 2005
Physicians are looking at troubling studies and questioning whether bypasses and angioplasties necessarily prolong patients' lives
You start breathing hard after climbing stairs, and your chest hurts. You go to your doctor. Scans reveal that arteries feeding your heart are severely narrowed. Your doctor sends you to the hospital for coronary bypass surgery or angioplasty to restore the blood flow to your heart. Despite the trauma of surgery, you're glad the blockage was caught in time, saving you from a potentially fatal heart attack.
There's just one problem with this happy tale of modern medicine: More and more doctors are questioning whether such heart procedures are actually extending patients' lives. One of them, Dr. Nortin M. Hadler, professor of medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and author of The Last Well Person, is urging the U.S. medical establishment to rethink its most basic precepts of cardiovascular care. Bypass surgery in particular, he says, 'should have been relegated to the archives 15 years ago.' "
Read the entire article
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
We Need To Cool It - Even without federal leadership on global warming, states and businesses are starting to take action
We Need To Cool It
"We Need To Cool It
Even without federal leadership on global warming, states and businesses are starting to take action. A leading advocate for clean energy explains.
By Anne Underwood, Newsweek, July 11, 2005
In 1997, Eileen Claussen, a former assistant secretary of State and onetime EPA official, received an intriguing call from officials at the Pew Charitable Trusts: if they wanted to spend a lot of money to address global warming, how should they spend it? Claussen drew up a blue-print—collect scientific data, search out practical solutions, get businesses onboard, work with policymakers. In May 1998, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change was launched with Claussen as president. Since then, she has been a forceful advocate for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and has reached out to corporations, states, cities and members of Congress to help develop clean-energy policies. Claussen spoke recently with NEWSWEEK's Anne Underwood.
UNDERWOOD: Is there any doubt now that global warming exists?
CLAUSSEN: Let me put it this way. A few determined skeptics don't accept it, but the overwhelming majority of scientists do. When President Bush took office, he asked the National Academy of Sciences to study the issue. The report they issued was very balanced. They noted some uncertainties—for example, when and where impacts might be felt and to what degree. But the conclusion was that the Earth is warming, this change is induced by human activity, and it will get worse.
Do a few degrees of warming really matter?
The Earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years—more in some places, like the Arctic, where there has been an increase of 4 to 5 degrees since the 1950s. Polar bears are having a ter- rible time there and may be extinct by the end of this century. Already we're seeing changes in Alaska, where roads are buckling in places and some major pipelines no longer fit together. Coldwater fish that used to be found off the Alaskan coast are no longer there, because the waters are too warm.
Do you expect a similar amount of warming in the next century?
Estimates range from 2.5 to 10.4 degrees.
What will the effects be here in the United States?
As the sea level rises, some areas, particularly in Louisiana, could be submerged because of their low-lying coastal plains. There will be more floods. But some regions [that are already parched] will have even less precipitation, so drought in the Southwest would likely increase. There are theories—and I would keep them in the category of theories—that ocean currents will change, as fresh water from melting ice in the Arctic mixes with salt water, slowing circulation of ocean currents. While most of the Earth would get warmer, Europe would get colder from the disruption of the Gulf Stream.
Do we have enough information now to take action?
Given what we know now, it would be irresponsible not to act. The costs are not huge, but the downside of not acting is potentially enormous.
Can a new energy policy help?
Energy policy is climate policy, since fossil fuels are the main source of greenhouse gases. So the question becomes, where do we get our energy? In the United States, 51 percent of electricity comes from coal; 20 percent, nuclear; 16.5 percent, natural gas; 7 percent, hydroelectric; 3 percent, oil, and the rest, renewables—geothermal, wind and solar.
How much power can we realistically expect to derive from renewable sources?
Ten percent by 2020 is realistic—or, with a concerted effort, 30 percent by 2050. Without major breakthroughs, it's hard to get beyond a third, because most renewables are intermittent. You need better ways of storing the energy.
Do we need to increase reliance on nuclear energy?
It's hard to imagine getting to zero carbon emissions without some nuclear. But it's expensive. The issue of dealing with radioactive waste has not been resolved. And I worry about proliferation overseas.
So, if a major portion of energy will continue to come from coal, how do we reduce emissions?
Gasification of coal—technically known as the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)—could lead to cleaner burning. But the plants themselves are expensive, and it's not clear if states will allow companies to build them, given that costs would be passed on to the consumer. American Electrical Power and Cinergy both want their next plants to be IGCC, but they need to get it through their public-utility commissions. The other necessary ingredient is developing the technology for carbon capture and sequestration. That involves removing the carbon from emissions, using a chemical process for gas separation, and then piping it someplace or injecting it underground. Some experiments show that it can be done. In Norway, where there's a carbon-dioxide tax, one com- pany does it to avoid the tax.
It seems businesses are ahead of the government on this issue.
There are 39 companies working with us in our Business Environmental Leadership Council. Most of these are major multinational firms. Outside the United States, even in developing countries, there is a demand for cleaner technology, so it makes sense for them. Others have said that if they didn't have a forward-looking policy, they couldn't attract the best and brightest talent.
How does the council work?
We meet four times a year. These companies walk the walk; they don't just talk the talk. The most ambitious target was set in 1999 by DuPont, which set a goal of reducing emissions 65 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. They actually reached 67 percent by 2002 by reducing emissions from nylon manufacturing. They also brought down their energy consumption, even while growing the business. None of these companies found it cost them money to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, because in the process, they became more energy-efficient.
But our primary focus is policy. What kind of legislation do we want nationally and at the state level? If a bill comes up, we share that with the companies, so we get the best product.
Are the states out ahead of the federal government on this?
It's an interesting picture on the state level. The California effort on auto emissions is being challenged by the automotive industry and may or may not survive. But if it does, New York and other states will follow. Then you will almost have de facto national limits on greenhouse gases from cars.
In the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, nine states, led by Gov. George Pataki of New York, are trying to fashion a program of trading between states to get the most cost-effective measures for reduction of emissions taken first.
Nineteen states plus the District of Columbia have requirements for renewable energy. For example, Montana passed a law calling for 10 percent of energy to come from renewables by 2010.
The states are motivated by different things. North Carolina is worried about the barrier islands [being submerged]. Arizona is starting to figure out what will happen with droughts and forest fires. The Western Governors' Association is studying this. We're starting to see some real momentum, and it's a nonpartisan effort.
Even cities seem to be getting into the act.
Seattle took the lead. There are now 165 cities who have said they will meet the targets of Kyoto—reducing emissions 7* percent below 1990 levels.
Are you encouraged by recent actions in the Senate?
[Last month] the Senate voted on four climate amendments to the energy bill. The strongest—from Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman—did not pass. But a nonbinding resolution did, urging the Congress to enact mandatory, market-based limits to slow, stop and reverse the growth of emissions. Though it's nonbinding, the fact it passed with the word "mandatory" in it is encouraging. Most important, Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, voted for it. I don't know if I'd call it a turning point. If I were making predictions—which is maybe not a business I should be in—I would say it will take another House and another president to see real changes. But we're about to enter a phase where the debate will not be about whether to deal with climate change, but how. "
Read the entire article
"We Need To Cool It
Even without federal leadership on global warming, states and businesses are starting to take action. A leading advocate for clean energy explains.
By Anne Underwood, Newsweek, July 11, 2005
In 1997, Eileen Claussen, a former assistant secretary of State and onetime EPA official, received an intriguing call from officials at the Pew Charitable Trusts: if they wanted to spend a lot of money to address global warming, how should they spend it? Claussen drew up a blue-print—collect scientific data, search out practical solutions, get businesses onboard, work with policymakers. In May 1998, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change was launched with Claussen as president. Since then, she has been a forceful advocate for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and has reached out to corporations, states, cities and members of Congress to help develop clean-energy policies. Claussen spoke recently with NEWSWEEK's Anne Underwood.
UNDERWOOD: Is there any doubt now that global warming exists?
CLAUSSEN: Let me put it this way. A few determined skeptics don't accept it, but the overwhelming majority of scientists do. When President Bush took office, he asked the National Academy of Sciences to study the issue. The report they issued was very balanced. They noted some uncertainties—for example, when and where impacts might be felt and to what degree. But the conclusion was that the Earth is warming, this change is induced by human activity, and it will get worse.
Do a few degrees of warming really matter?
The Earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years—more in some places, like the Arctic, where there has been an increase of 4 to 5 degrees since the 1950s. Polar bears are having a ter- rible time there and may be extinct by the end of this century. Already we're seeing changes in Alaska, where roads are buckling in places and some major pipelines no longer fit together. Coldwater fish that used to be found off the Alaskan coast are no longer there, because the waters are too warm.
Do you expect a similar amount of warming in the next century?
Estimates range from 2.5 to 10.4 degrees.
What will the effects be here in the United States?
As the sea level rises, some areas, particularly in Louisiana, could be submerged because of their low-lying coastal plains. There will be more floods. But some regions [that are already parched] will have even less precipitation, so drought in the Southwest would likely increase. There are theories—and I would keep them in the category of theories—that ocean currents will change, as fresh water from melting ice in the Arctic mixes with salt water, slowing circulation of ocean currents. While most of the Earth would get warmer, Europe would get colder from the disruption of the Gulf Stream.
Do we have enough information now to take action?
Given what we know now, it would be irresponsible not to act. The costs are not huge, but the downside of not acting is potentially enormous.
Can a new energy policy help?
Energy policy is climate policy, since fossil fuels are the main source of greenhouse gases. So the question becomes, where do we get our energy? In the United States, 51 percent of electricity comes from coal; 20 percent, nuclear; 16.5 percent, natural gas; 7 percent, hydroelectric; 3 percent, oil, and the rest, renewables—geothermal, wind and solar.
How much power can we realistically expect to derive from renewable sources?
Ten percent by 2020 is realistic—or, with a concerted effort, 30 percent by 2050. Without major breakthroughs, it's hard to get beyond a third, because most renewables are intermittent. You need better ways of storing the energy.
Do we need to increase reliance on nuclear energy?
It's hard to imagine getting to zero carbon emissions without some nuclear. But it's expensive. The issue of dealing with radioactive waste has not been resolved. And I worry about proliferation overseas.
So, if a major portion of energy will continue to come from coal, how do we reduce emissions?
Gasification of coal—technically known as the integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC)—could lead to cleaner burning. But the plants themselves are expensive, and it's not clear if states will allow companies to build them, given that costs would be passed on to the consumer. American Electrical Power and Cinergy both want their next plants to be IGCC, but they need to get it through their public-utility commissions. The other necessary ingredient is developing the technology for carbon capture and sequestration. That involves removing the carbon from emissions, using a chemical process for gas separation, and then piping it someplace or injecting it underground. Some experiments show that it can be done. In Norway, where there's a carbon-dioxide tax, one com- pany does it to avoid the tax.
It seems businesses are ahead of the government on this issue.
There are 39 companies working with us in our Business Environmental Leadership Council. Most of these are major multinational firms. Outside the United States, even in developing countries, there is a demand for cleaner technology, so it makes sense for them. Others have said that if they didn't have a forward-looking policy, they couldn't attract the best and brightest talent.
How does the council work?
We meet four times a year. These companies walk the walk; they don't just talk the talk. The most ambitious target was set in 1999 by DuPont, which set a goal of reducing emissions 65 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. They actually reached 67 percent by 2002 by reducing emissions from nylon manufacturing. They also brought down their energy consumption, even while growing the business. None of these companies found it cost them money to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, because in the process, they became more energy-efficient.
But our primary focus is policy. What kind of legislation do we want nationally and at the state level? If a bill comes up, we share that with the companies, so we get the best product.
Are the states out ahead of the federal government on this?
It's an interesting picture on the state level. The California effort on auto emissions is being challenged by the automotive industry and may or may not survive. But if it does, New York and other states will follow. Then you will almost have de facto national limits on greenhouse gases from cars.
In the Northeast and mid-Atlantic, nine states, led by Gov. George Pataki of New York, are trying to fashion a program of trading between states to get the most cost-effective measures for reduction of emissions taken first.
Nineteen states plus the District of Columbia have requirements for renewable energy. For example, Montana passed a law calling for 10 percent of energy to come from renewables by 2010.
The states are motivated by different things. North Carolina is worried about the barrier islands [being submerged]. Arizona is starting to figure out what will happen with droughts and forest fires. The Western Governors' Association is studying this. We're starting to see some real momentum, and it's a nonpartisan effort.
Even cities seem to be getting into the act.
Seattle took the lead. There are now 165 cities who have said they will meet the targets of Kyoto—reducing emissions 7* percent below 1990 levels.
Are you encouraged by recent actions in the Senate?
[Last month] the Senate voted on four climate amendments to the energy bill. The strongest—from Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman—did not pass. But a nonbinding resolution did, urging the Congress to enact mandatory, market-based limits to slow, stop and reverse the growth of emissions. Though it's nonbinding, the fact it passed with the word "mandatory" in it is encouraging. Most important, Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, voted for it. I don't know if I'd call it a turning point. If I were making predictions—which is maybe not a business I should be in—I would say it will take another House and another president to see real changes. But we're about to enter a phase where the debate will not be about whether to deal with climate change, but how. "
Read the entire article
Friday, July 01, 2005
Eric Lander, Massachusetts Institute of Technology - current treatments will be considered medieval
Eric Lander, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lander is a Rhodes scholar originally trained as a mathematician, and now quite possibly the country's leading molecular geneticist. He is the founder of one of the world's first and best genome-sequencing centers (the Whitehead Institute / MIT Center for Genome Research) and one of a small coterie of visionaries behind the Human Genome Project.
When Lander visualizes the future, one image comes to mind: scornful doctors. "When people tried to treat infectious disease 150 years ago, they had no clue what the cause was - namely that there were these nasty microorganisms that caused the disease," he says. "They were just shooting in the dark. That's what we still do." Doctors of the future will look on our medicine with "bemusement and horror," he says, just as we look at the use of leeches. "They'll site around, saying, 'Can you believe they gave poisons to people to kill their cancers?'" says Lander. "And that is the reward we'll get - we will be considered medieval."
Source: Newsweek, Special Edition, Your Health in the 21st Century, "The Shape of Things to Come', Summer 2005, p.44.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)