WHAT MATTERS WEBLOG

I’m pretty sure that by mid-century, China will be a developed country with an efficient economy generating a huge share of its energy needs of renewable energy sources. That’s my prediction.

Next to China, there are two other prospective candidates: Indonesia and Brazil. These three countries are growing fast despite the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2009, they’re investing billions in huge infrastructure projects, they have an enormous supply of laborers and they’re investing in education and knowledge-based sectors of the economy. Furthermore, the three countries also have a sizable supply of natural resources, though China needs to import most of the resources it needs due to its rapid pace of economic development.

China’s influence on geopolitics and the world economy is massive and impossible to overlook. In 2009, China became the world’s new export champion after surpassing Germany and simultaneously, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest car market.

The ongoing global recovery is in large parts due to the giant Chinese economic stimulus package. Chinese growth is pulling the world economy out of recession. As British Foreign Secretary David Miliband put it, “after 1989, capitalism saved China. After 2009, China saved capitalism.”

Just recently, China and the ASEAN nations of Southeast Asia created the world’s third largest free trade area after NAFTA (Mexico-U.S.-Canada) and the EU.

This year, China might well overtake Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. 

Now Goldman Sachs is forecasting that China is set to overtake the United States as the world’s largest economy by 2027, if present growth rates can be sustained.

Since China’s population by 2027 will be roughly five times the population of the United States, that would mean China’s per capita GDP had to rise to 20% of the per capita economic output of an average American. That is a plausible scenario, however, I doubt that this will happen before 2050.

There is this saying “There is nothing permanent except change” which suggests that most predictions based on the condition of the continuation of current trends are prone to fail.

Inevitably, China will one day become the world’s largest economy. However, this will only happen when China learns to tap the intellectual capacity of its people rather than their raw labor force. Education, the protection of intellectual property, space for creative thinking and a less controlled and restricted economic environment are the preconditions of a transition that would enable China to take on today’s leading knowledge-based economies.

Rather sooner than later, China will reach a point at which its current model of growth won’t work anymore. The environmental challenge China is facing, the inflating real estate bubble and overproduction are major obstacles on China’s path to the top.

More interesting charts: http://www.whatmattersweblog.com/energy-charts/

As you can see on this chart, China’s share of world GDP is still tiny compared to the United States’.

The bottom line, however, is that China is indeed set to become a developed country in the foreseeable future. The long-term orientation of its domestic as well as foreign policy and the diligence of its people are a great foundation for a stable medium-income developed economy.

Not only do I expect China to join the ranks of developed nations in the coming decades, but I also expect that China will become the leader in alternative energy technologies. This has many reasons, but first and foremost, it is an economic necessity for the country.

Its reliance on fossil fuel imports, the skyrocketing energy consumption and out-of-hand air pollution in most Chinese cities force its leadership to firstly, limit the growth of fossil fuel consumption, secondly, increase efficiency across the board, thirdly, remove tailpipe emissions from inner cities and fourthly, generate as much energy from more sustainable and (in the long term) cheaper energy sources.

Another factor contributing to this development is that China can’t challenge the technology leadership of Western countries in internal combustion engine technologies. But when it comes to electric cars, battery technology, photovoltaic cells, etc., China is already ahead of the competition.

In the summer of 2009, I had a discussion with a NYC hedge fund manager who argued that China is ahead of the United States in terms of know-how in alternative energy and smart energy policies. I agree.

China is already the number one PV cell producer in the world and becoming the leader in electric car technology.

Chinese car manufacturer Geely announced the launch of its all-electric Nanoq which is expected to hit European and American markets later this year. The five-seater has a top speed of 81 mph and has a range of up to 125 miles on a single charge.

BYD, which stands for Build Your Dreams, a major Chinese battery manufacturer, is also aiming at establishing itself as a leading manufacturer of battery-electric cars.

Electric cars help the Chinese government to reduce the need for fuel subsidies which cost the state billions of dollars per year and support those the most who drive the biggest cars.

Chinese companies will soon have an edge over Western competitors in the electric vehicle market which will see enormous growth over the coming decades and a lot of support from governments around the world in an effort to curb carbon dioxide emissions and reduce dependence on dwindling oil reserves from unstable regions of the world.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6984237.ece

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/246312/

Currently I’m working on a research paper with the title “On the Threshold to a New Energy Age - America’s shift towards renewable energy as a consequence of the energy crisis and climate change” and as part of my research, I conducted a poll to find out how prepared people are for the New Energy Economy.

I handed out questionnaires in Singapore, Tokyo, Lisbon, New York City and Honolulu. On one of the questionnaires I had distributed in Honolulu, I found a few interesting comments.

To question #14 (Oil is….?), the respondent did not tick one of the three answer choices (expensive, cheap, neither) but wrote on the side:

Oil is....

I couldn’t agree more. What is important to understand is that we’re not paying an honest price for oil / gasoline. The nominal price of a gallon of gasoline in dollars or of a barrel of crude does not include the cost of the military and intelligence efforts to secure our access to oil reserves and protect ourselves from the dangerous consequences of American petrodollars funding radicalism and potentates around the world. The cost of dealing with the consequences of climate change - which are unpredictable at this point but potentially devastating - is not included either.

The United States of America in particular and generally most industrialized countries are paying a high price for consuming huge quantities of fossil fuels. According to my calculations (-> it’s time to become energy independent, overhaul the entire economy and infrastructure), the United States must have spent more than $ 700 billion on fossil fuel imports in 2008 alone. In addition, the U.S. is very vulnerable when it comes to disruptions of oil supplies. As you can read in my previous post (-> on the unequal consumption of oil & the resulting risks), Iran could easily block the Strait of Hormuz, a very narrow seaway through which roughly 40% of seaborne oil shipments pass every day, and destroy oil production facilities in several oil-rich Persian Gulf countries - including the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iraq. I’m not saying this is going to happen or likely to happen, but it is a possible scenario which puts the United States in a strategically disadvantageous position.

Whether you’re concerned about global warming, the health of the economy or national security, you will agree that it should be a number one priority for the U.S. to reduce its oil consumption and thereby ween itself from its dependence on Middle Eastern Oil, spend the money rather on domestic energy generation and keep carbon dioxide emissions from rising.

Much of this can be achieved through increased energy efficiency - the so-called “fifth fuel” after coal, oil, gas and uranium. 

Higher energy efficiency can only be achieved with higher compulsory standards for buildings and cars. Requiring U.S. auto makers to develop automobiles with better fuel economy will not only increase their products’ competitiveness but help decrease demand for foreign oil.

If efficiency standards were increased drastically and policies implemented to make oil reflect its true cost, the economic benefits over the long and medium term as well as the environmental and security benefits were undeniable.

According to the CIA World Factbook, the United States of America has a population of roughly 307.2 million. (July 2009 estimate) (1)

The total population of the world is estimated to be around 6.7 billion based on calculations of the World Bank. (data from 2008) (2)

This means Americans constitue 4.5% of the world’s population.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects global oil consumption in 2010 to grow to 85.2 million barrels per day. (3) With the United States consuming 19,500,000 barrels of oil per day (4), America accounts for roughly 22.9 % of global oil consumption.

When 5% of the world’s population consume almost a quarter of the world’s oil, conflicts are inevitable. Oil is a vital resource for the U.S. economy and  America already depends on foreign oil supplies. This is risky since disruptions in the supply chain would have disastrous impacts on the health of the American economy. A country (such as Iran) that could easily disrupt oil supplies coming from the Persian Gulf by blocking the Strait of Hormuz (through which roughly 40% of seaborne oil shipments pass every day) could hold the U.S. to ransom. Iran is holding hostage a huge share of the world’s oil reserves. The oil facilities of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Iraq and Bahrain are all within reach of Iranian missiles.

According to my calculations (follow this link to see the chart: oil consumption by country), the average American consumes 23.2 barrels of oil per year while the average Chinese consumes only 2.1 barrels per year. In 2010, one American will consume as much oil as 11 Chinese.  What were the consequences if in 15 or 20 years, one Chinese consumed 25% as much oil as an American today? Given that there will be around 1,450 million people in China between 2025 and 2030 (according to a recent report: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-12/28/content_507307.htm), China’s oil consumption will go through the roof no matter how efficiently they will be using energy by that time…

Without the discovery of several giant oil fields - with extraction costs similar to those in the Saudi Arabian desert - oil prices are prone to skyrocket.

sources:

(1) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2119rank.html

(2) http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_pop_totl&tdim=true&q=world+population

(3) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/contents.html#Global_Crude_Oil_And_Liquid_Fuels

(4) https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

Currently I’m working on a research paper with the title

“On the Threshold to a New Energy Age - America’s shift towards renewable energy as a consequence of the energy crisis and climate change”.

Therefore I created two graphics, illustrating the total and per capita oil consumption of the ten largest oil consumers: The United States, China, Japan, India, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Canada and South Korea.

Oil Consumption per Capita by Country (barrels/year)

 

 

 

TOP 10 Oil Consuming Countries, Per Capita Oil Consumption, GDP per Capita

 

 

 

I used publicly available data from the CIA World Factbook:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

 

 

 

For more graphics and charts, visit my Energy Charts page:

http://www.whatmattersweblog.com/energy-charts/

Even though this is my first post in 2010, I’d like to include a video from last year, featuring photos I took during my four-week stay in Hawaii in summer 2009.

I hope you enjoy this video. Traveling to Hawaii was an amazing experience. The place has such a positive energy which you can feel as soon as you are greeted by a lovely “Aloha” and get into a conversation with a local. The islands’ year-round pleasant temperatures and warm waters made Hawaii a dream destination for upscale tourism. Unlike any other place I’ve ever been to, Hawaii can be both, relaxing and exciting at the same time. The breathtaking landscapes, the intriguing culture and wonderful food make it hard to leave and easy to miss Hawaii. During my stay, I made some really good friends, learned a lot about Polynesian culture and became a huge fan of Hawaiian music - such as slack key guitar and ukulele.

If you have broadband, I advise you to watch the video in HD.

 

2010 is likely to be a year of uncertainty. As the financial crisis appears to be ebbing, the world is excitedly waiting to see major economies gaining back old strength. There is consensus that the Asia-Pacific region will be the epicenter of the next big global growth wave. During the crisis, China’s efforts to stem the meltdown were a blessing for the world economy. With the world’s third-largest economy maintaining high growth rates and strengthening domestic demand, Chinese consumers and companies have helped to stabilize the fragile global economy. Now it will be crucial whether or not China was overreaching by further building up overcapacities. If Chinese consumers fail to become American-style shoppers and remain thrifty, the implications for the Chinese economy could be disastrous. For many years to come, American consumers won’t be able to consume as they had been doing it in the years before the housing bubble popped. Therefore, China’s manufacturers need to find new customers, primarily within Asia.

Apart from China, some increased contribution to a global recovery from the rest of Asia can be expected. While Japan has not yet managed to end its “Lost Decade(s)”, marked by stagnation and deflationary pressures, Vietnam, Singapore and Indonesia are going to see strong growth in the years to come. Japan might also play a vital role when it comes to clean energy technologies and electric mobility.

The United States and Europe will be struggling with their out-of-hand public and private debt. Unless huge structural changes take place - such as the grand-scale deployment of smart energy technologies - growth rates might pick up but will remain low for an extended period.

Russia is now suffering from postponed economic reforms and its dependence on oil and gas exports. The global meltdown revealed a systemic weakness of the Russian economy. Therefore some analysts and economists argue whether the “R” should be taken out of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) states. If Russia indeed gets kicked out, Indonesia is the most likely candidate to take its place: BIIC (Brazil, Indonesia, India, China)

Especially smaller European economies that were hit hard by the financial crisis such as Iceland, Hungary and Greece might face bankruptcy. A Greek bankruptcy would be a difficult situation for the entire Eurozone, however, it is rather unlikely that Greek might leave the currency union entirely. Even though the possibility to downgrade its currency would give the Greek government a tool to increase competitiveness in the short term, the downsides would simply be too big. Financing its debt would become even more difficult outside of the Eurozone. The important question will be whether fellow European countries would bail Greece out should it come to a do-or-die situation. The Greek economy is week, as is the government. National debt is close to 120% of GDP, unemployment is high - especially among young people - and individuals are also highly indebted.

Spain (because of the crisis in the construction sector), Austria (because of Autrian banks’ involvement in lending to fragile economies in Eastern Europe), Ireland (because of the meltdown in finance) and Italy are also struggling and have poor growth prospects for the future. Even Britain’s economy is not going to recover fast as the massive financial sector is still weak and other industries are failing to fill the gap.

Dubai’s importance as a financial and real estate hub is waning while its neighbor Abu Dhabi strengthening its position and working on its image by investing in alternative energy projects such as the lighthouse project Masdar City.

Some predict escalating trade wars for 2010 and 2011. I hope that the United States, China and the European Union are aware of the enormous downsides of protectionist measures. Whether or not trade battles will erupt this year largely depends on the individual governments’ ability to resist populist calls for trade barriers.

Another point of uncertainty is the risk of other huge bubbles being created by the influx of money from stimulus packages and central banks around the world. Another bubble popping could easily torpedize an economic recovery.

Should the U.S. Federal Reserve fail to withdraw the excess money from the banking system in a timely manner, inflation rates could increase rapidly and have severe negative effects on the sustainability of the recovery. However, this would be all too tempting for the U.S. government, given the historic deficit, as this could reduce the real level of debt.

The bright side is that if central banks manage the money supply properly, governments refrain from setting up populist trade barriers, and banks start lending again, a strong global recovery may be underway. Therefore I’d also call 2010 the year of opportunity. Next year this time, we’ll know more…

Egyptians had worshipped the sun for several millennia. In Ancient Egypt, Ra was worshipped as the God of the Sun. Now Egyptians are starting to harness the sun’s energy. According to the International Energy Outlook 2009 (available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/world.html) world energy consumption is going to increase by 44% until 2030. Even if Peak Oil were a myth (and it is not, it’s a reality, the question is not if but when we will reach it), there is no way to meet future energy demand without the large-scale use of renewable energies. As you can read in yesterday’s post (wind power for New York City?), offshore wind power is a good option for many regions in Europe and North America. For sun-blessed areas in Africa, Australia, South Asia, the southern United States as well as large parts of Latin America, solar power is the most promising bet for a secure and sustainable energy future.

Just 56 miles south of Cairo, a 140-megawatt combined solar and gas-powered plant is in its final phase of construction. The location is perfect due to the proximity of the large metropolitan area of Cairo and the year-round high solar radiation in the area. The plant comprises of an array of parabolic-shaped trough collectors which focuses solar energy on a pipe filled with a heat transfer liquid. The liquid reaches temperatures of about 400°C (752°F), evaporates and then powers a steam turbine which generates electricity.  In the night when energy demand is highest, a natural gas cycle kicks in to ensure a consistent supply of power. Natural gas is being burned to heat the heat transfer liquid  which continues to spin the turbine.

Solar Thermal Electricity has great potential. By 2020, the technology will have become competitive with oil and gas.

Under the Desertec concept, 15% of Europe’s energy consumption should be supplied by renewable energy sources, primarily from Concentrating Solar Power plants such as the one in Egypt, photovoltaic power generation as well as wind and hydro power.

Here’s a graphic that illustrates such a system:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/DESERTEC-Map_large.jpg

Photovoltaic Energy (converting sunlight directly into electricity using solar cells) is even more attractive than Solar Thermal Energy for a number of reasons:

-  prices for solar panels are falling sharply while their efficiency is increasing.

- photovoltaic panels can be used on a small scale (e.g. by mounting PV panels on rooftops for decentral electricity production)

- grid parity - the point at which photovoltaic energy is equal or cheaper than grid power - is likely to be reached by 2015 in most of the United States. As soon as PV energy is cheaper than electricity from the socket, demand for PV panels will explode. Every homeowner could put some solar panels on his roof and thereby save a lot of money.

The sun is the only energy source that is inexhaustible. New inventions, improvements to existing solar power technologies and the cost reductions due to increasing production will help solar power to become an increasingly important component of our energy mix. Thin-film solar panels for external building walls, improved methods to store energy (e.g. the batteries of electric cars), rising fossil fuel prices and efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions are all factors contributing to the future success of solar power.

http://www.arabenvironment.net/archive/2007/2/161471.html

New York’s mayor Michael Bloomberg is envisioning a gigantic wind park off the shore of Long Island. At this point, a group of utilities and developers is making plans for a 350-megawatt wind farm comprising of more than 100 wind turbines. The cost for construction is estimated to be at around $ 1 billion.

The power generating capacity of 350 megawatts is sizable.  For comparison, the generating capacity of the nuclear power station at Three Mile Island, PA, is 802 megawatts. Usually, 1,000 megawatts is enough to power 750,000 households. If the wind park were able to supply 260,000 households with electricity, the investment of $1 billion would soon pay off. However, the 350 megawatts will only be available during peak winds. When there is only moderate wind or no wind at all, the power delivered will be much less than the rated capacity. Therefore, such a wind park could not replace another power station completely since it needs some back-up power plants for periods of light winds. Considering this, the $1 billion price tag is indeed very high.

Nevertheless, offshore wind farms usually always generate a certain amount of energy because off the coast, the wind is steady and blows harder than on land. Besides, wind energy is one of the most efficient renewable energy sources in areas where solar power is not economical due to low solar radiation. It could become competitive with conventional power sources before 2020. Especially large-scale offshore wind parks are expected to become increasingly profitable - even without many government subsidies.

One of the major remaining obstacles is power storage. The rate of power generation of wind parks differs greatly from one day to another, depending on wind strength. Only with an appropriate power storage system can offshore wind parks stabilize the grid and work efficiently. As conserving energy and reducing emissions by 30% is NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg’s declared goal, the growing fleet of plug-in hybrid cars, hybrid buses and electric cars can serve as a mobile energy storage system.

Today is the final day of the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit. And all the negotiators, politicians and diplomats involved once more proved the inability of the political world to find solutions before it’s actually too late.

This morning U.S. President Obama arrived in Copenhagen and urged all sides to set aside foolish claims and preconditions to reach an agreement - even if it may fall short of what was expected or what is needed.

 

Obama made it clear that the U.S. will work towards a clean energy economy “no matter what happens here in Copenhagen.” Furthermore he reminded delegates that “time for talk is over” and that we’re “running short of time.”

Unfortunately, the Copenhagen summit so far resembles previous climate summits such as the ones in Kyoto and Rio. Since the world community started to acknowledge the necessity to combat climate change and reduce emissions, CO2 emission have soared to unprecedented levels.

Obama also called upon delegates to stick to the formula: mitigation, transparency and financing. At this point, one of the major sticking points seems to be China’s resistance to allow some kind of monitoring. While I agree that it is necessary to make sure an agreement would not only be a set of empty promises, it’s unfair to blame China alone for standing in the way of an agreement. More or less every country involved is making a commitment that in reality is far less impressive than it seems at first sight. Europe and in particular Germany are the most serious about reducing emissions, though even Germany is applying some tricks to make its commitment appear bigger than it really is. Due to the reunification and the eradication of much of eastern Germany’s carbon-intensive industry and mining, the carbon emission in the reference year 1990 were overly high. Russia, which wants to look green by supporting the European Union’s ambitious reduction goals, could in fact further increase its greenhouse gas emissions since the collapse of the Soviet economy has already reduced the country’s emissions by an amount that exceeds Europe’s most ambitious targets.

China is understandably concerned that strict limits would harm its economic growth. Therefore it is most important to support Chinese efforts to increase energy-use efficiency. Significantly cutting the CO2 emissions per unit of GDP is more helpful than trying to convince China to agree to an inflexible limit on emissions.

The bilateral talks between U.S. President Obama and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao apparently did not result in any new commitments from either side. Now it is even more important to make sure no country dares to use China’s reluctance as an excuse to postpone action.

Both China and the United States are in a somewhat similar position. The two countries are the world’s two biggest carbon dioxide emitters, the predominant role of cole in both countries’ energy mix limits their ability to cut emissions drastically. Another parallel is that both couldn’t afford to burden their economies gratuitously.

Therefore, in order to get both countries on the fast track to a clean energy economy, it is vital that the U.S. takes the lead to exemplify that transforming to a more efficient and sustainable economic development saves money, generates jobs and gives birth to entirely new industries.

Whether this happens anytime soon largely depends on if the Obama administration succeeds in convincing the American people of the long-term benefits of a green revolution.

Apart from China and the United States, the biggest contribution to mitigating climate change and reducing CO2 emissions could only come from oil producing countries, most notably Saudi Arabia.

This has two main reasons:

Firstly, approaching the issue of CO2 emissions from the demand side is prone to fail due to politicians’ lack of long-term thinking and their inability to force developing countries to follow their lead. Even a 10% reduction in European and American demand for fossil fuels would not bring down global greenhouse gas emissions, not a bit! The resulting downward pressure on oil & gas prices would instead encourage developing nations to consume even more fossil fuels. Consequently, reducing demand in some parts of the world is not the answer.

Secondly, oil producers such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and Russia are the price makers of crude oil. And as everybody knows, demand can only be reduced effectively by higher prices. And the only way to reduce global demand for and consumption of  fossil fuels is to force up their prices.  As British Prime Minister Gordon Brown once said, “Global problems require global solutions.” And the only truly global solution to the problem of unsustainable demand for fossil fuels is to force up prices.

So, my suggestion is to get the suppliers of fossil fuels involved in the global effort to save planet earth and let the market take care of the rest. Only a supply-side approach can immediately and effectively bring down global consumption of fossil fuels.  Hence, it is important to get OPEC on board and convince its members to slow down the pace at which they’re pumping crude oil out of the ground.

Despite the likely disappointing outcome of the climate talks in Copenhagen, a bright spot might be that finally a true milestone could be reached in reducing emissions from deforestation. Industrial nations paying poor countries to preserve their forests as part of a program to offset their CO2 emissions would be real progress. Emissions from deforestation exceed the emissions of the entire transportation sector.If a program to end deforestation is included in the final agreement, this will be the most significant step to counter climate change ever taken since humanity noticed the severity of the problem.

For more on this: Deal to Save Forests Could Be Copenhagen’s Bright Spot

Right now the United Nations Climate Change Change Conference 2009 is taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark. World leaders, scientists, business leaders, environmentalists, journalists and all sorts of special interest groups have gathered in the Danish capital to discuss climate change, work out  a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol and draft a masterplan to make billions of dollars in revenue over the next few decades.

Face it, the Climate Change Conference is a business conference. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. The most effective way to drive innovation and change is by creating markets. More about this in another post.

Officially the Copenhagen summit is about tackling climate change. All evidence indicates that global warming is real. And the consequences will be dire for the entire world community, though some will suffer more than others. At this point it looks like the poorest countries will suffer the most from rising sea levels, accelerating desertification, extended dry seasons and other extreme weather phenomenons. Food shortages and water scarcity as consequences of droughts are likely to threaten the stability of entire continents. Africa will be the first victim.

Most likely the current changes taking place in the global climate system were caused or at least accelerated by humans. And it will be human behavior caused by the effects of climate change that will ultimately harm other human beings the most.

That is the main reason why first world countries just can’t continue taking baby steps. Since industrialization kicked off in Europe in the late 18th century, industrialized countries have exploited the world’s resources selfishly, polluted creeks, rivers and oceans, chopped down a good deal of the world’s rainforests and emitted enormous amounts of toxic gases into the atmosphere.

With this in mind, it is obvious that Europeans and Americans have the responsibility to lead the world on the path to a more sustainable economic development. However, this does not mean that rapidly developing countries such as Brazil, China and India can feel free to emit as much as they want to until they reach a level of industrialization similar to the American or European one. This truth is self-evident since Mother Earth cannot accomodate another 300 million people consuming like Americans. No way. The world can accomodate 1.3 billion Chinese living a prosperous yet sustainable lifestyle. The world can even accomodate another 2.5 billion people with whom we will have to share the planet by 2050. The world’s population is estimated to be about 9.2 billion by then, up from the current 6.7 billion.  - ONLY if we learn how to use resources more efficiently this increase in population will be managable.

If we fail to provide the entire population of the world with opportunities to live a good life without taxing the planet’s capacities too much, this will result in violence, wars, mass starvation and limitless suffering.

First-world countries are not immune to the consequences of global warming. Unprecedented human movement will take place as hundreds of millions of people could soon be forced leave their areas.

Widespread suffering and desparation fuels radicalization. Conflicts caused by climate change could easily become the bloodiest earth has ever experienced.

Moreover, several rich nations such as Spain, Portugal, the Southwestern United States and Australia will also suffer from the transition to a more arid climate.

The climate summit in Copenhagen is a chance to keep climate change managable. It is not anymore avoidable, but it lies in our hands to prevent the worst from happening.

I’m glad to see world leaders making an effort and raising awareness for the issue. Nonetheless, I’m disappointed how carelessly most politicians squander opportunities to achieve real progress by using the high popularity of climate conservation as an instrument to advance their own short-sighted purposes.

All around the world it can be seen that governments use all means available to thighten their grip on society. If it’s for the environment’s sake, it is OK to come up with ridiculous taxes, fees and counterproductive regulations. The climate debate is also frequently used to cover up protectionist measures.

Following the events at the Copenhagen Climate Conference, I have the impression that more politicians than ever are serious about coming up with a feasible solution to mitigate global warming. However, one bad idea after the other is being rolled out globally. Most politicians tend to overestimate the importance of reducing all sorts of CO2 emissions from cars, planes, factories and power plants while at the same time, they seem to ignore the enormous amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere from the avoidable deforestation taking place in rainforests from Brazil to Indonesia.

Forcing airlines into emissions trading would be a symbol. But not a very appealing one to developing nations where the new middle classes have just come to enjoy the pleasure of flying for the first time. Airline emissions account for roughly 3% of global CO2 emissions. Reducing airlines’ emissions by 30% would not have a measurable impact on the climate. Such a tiny decrease will easily be nullified by 1466 cars added to Beijing’s streets every day.

Furthermore, most politicians overestimate their own power. Including air travel in the European emissions trading scheme is pointless if other countries don’t follow. European governments are prone to choose the option that would give them the most control over the economy. That’s why they prefer the emissions trading for airlines to creating a single European sky which would immediately reduce emissions by up to 12% and save a lot of money at the same time.

There are countless examples just like that.  But what I care much more about is this:

“Imagine if you took all the cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships in the world and added up their exhaust every year. The amount of carbon dioxide, or CO2, all those cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships collectively emit into the atmosphere is actually less than the carbon emissions every year that result from the chopping down and clearing of tropical forests in places like Brazil, Indonesia and the Congo.” (from “A Way to Save the Planet’s Lungs”, by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times international weekly edition, November 23, 2009)

Reducing emissions in the transportation sector requires a lot of money, political will and time. We lack all three. But, reducing emissions from deforestation in the world’s rainforests which releases even more emissions than all the cars, planes, ships, etc. takes only some money and political will, and  it could be done within the matter of years.

Putting in place a system that rewards Brazilians, Indonesians, Malaysians when conserving their forests - our world’s lungs - rather than rewarding them for burning them down, planting soy beans, raising cattle and shipping the meat to us, would be the fastest and most efficient approach to our climate program. These people don’t burn down forests for the pleasure of doing so. They depend on it for making a living. And there’s no way of telling them to refrain from doing so because of the negtive long-term implications. These people are more concerned about their short-term survival.

Here’s where the world community needs to step in, provide them with alternatives and thereby save the rainforests and our planet. Rainforests release CO2 when they’re being burned down. Conversely, they absorb CO2 when they’re preserved.

The bottom line is that there are easy and effective ways to curb CO2 emissions immediatley. This needs to be done to buy us some more time to increase the efficiency of our economies to allow emerging nations to gain some more wealth the old-fashioned way while the U.S. and Europe start generating wealth the smart way.

In my next post I will focus on what the U.S. in particular can do and what role China plays.

Just before completing this post I came across this article:

“Google launches System for Measuring Deforestation and Combating Climate Change”

check it out: Baynewser: Google Launches…

Today is the 68th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan attacked all major military and navy bases on the island of Oahu. In the early morning, the first wave of bombers arrived from the north and it was mistakenly not recognized as the spearhead of a massive attack, although an early form of radar had detected a group of aircraft approaching. The operators were told by their supervisor not to worry about it because they expected the arrival of several U.S. B-17 bombers from the mainland.

For the Japanese army, the elimination of the U.S. pacific fleet and the naval base Pearl Harbor was a necessity in order to continue the empire’s effort to seize control over Southeast Asia.

During the attack, four U.S. battleships were sunk, 188 aircraft destroyed and more than 2,400 brave men and women (military personnel and civilians) were killed. Among the battleships sunk was the USS Arizona. On board the Arizona, 1177 crew members died and today, there are still the bodies of 1102 men in the wreck of the ship.

Despite the huge damage caused to the U.S. pacific fleet and the army and navy bases, the attackers failed to destroy the navy base as such, the fuel tanks or aircraft carriers which had left Pear Harbor a few days before.

On December 8th, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave a speech in which he called December 7 “a date which will live in infamy” . What followed was the  U.S. Congress declaring war on the Empire of Japan. Despite the shock of the attack, the U.S. armed forces recovered quickly from the damage and started an offensive against the Japanese forces in the Pacific. At an amazing pace the U.S. economy was transformed into a war economy. At the same time, the United States also entered war on the side of Britain and its allies against Nazi Germany, after Germany and Italy had declared war on the United States.

The attack on Pearl Harbor can be considered one of the most important events during World War II since it was the official reason that prompted the U.S. to join the war. However, as the Atlantic Charter  - which was agreed on by the United States and Great Britain in August 1941 - shows, the U.S. had plans of entering the war months before the Japanese attacks.

Apparently, the Japanese underestimated the ability of the U.S. to recover from the attack, though the emperor and his generals had been warned frequently. After the attack, Japanese Admiral Hara Tadaichi said: “We won a great tactical victory at Pearl Harbor and thereby lost the war.”

Probably the atomic bombings of Hiroshima (where I went in June) and Nagasaki which resulted in more than 220,000 deaths by 1945 would not have happened.

 

In August this year, I visited the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor. It is the resting place of the 1,102 killed sailors whose bodies are still on the ship.

Even 68 years after it was sunk, there is oil leaking out of the wreck of the USS Arizona which is referred to as “the tears of the Arizona” that is still crying for its men.

On the way to the memorial, a tour guide told me a story his grandmother - who was an eye-witness of the attack, having lived in Ewa Beach on the day of the attack, a Honolulu neighborhood right next to Pearl Harbor - had told him many years ago. When she was on the way to church on the morning of December 7, 1941, she saw the Japanese dive bombers flying over her head and one of the pilots waived to her, indicating that she should return to her home immediately. Decades later, she understood why the pilot warned her. The Japanese pilots were ordered not to target civilians and stated that the attack was not aimed at the Hawaiian people.

Before the U.S. took possession of Pearl Harbor in 1887 (when Hawaii was still an independent kingdom), the Hawaiian royal family refused to grant the United States Navy exclusive rights to use Pearl Harbor because they were afraid that this would some day put Hawaii in harm’s way. This prophetic premonition was also shared by several U.S. allies which warned the United States that Pearl Harbor was a likely target for the Japanese in the case of an armed conflict.