The recent thrust of China into the North Atlantic (in Iceland) has people wondering. Why would the second largest economy in the world, located in far away Asia, be interested in a tiny island-nation on the lip of the Arctic Circle? If our leaders were actually focused on the here and now, dealing with the real world as it exists, conversant with modern science, and not in the pocket of special business interests...they might just be interested in Iceland too--a place whose future in a much warmer world will look much different in a few short decades.
Mitt Romney, and the modern Republican Party's view of global warming (what the GOP, when they addresses the issue at all, calls:"climate change") is clouded by many factors. The Republicans are conflicted. Romney and his Republican allies must satisfy the oligarchs in the oil industry who in effect control elections by their largess. They must also mollify their radical right--wing base who are mindlessly and rabidly anti-science, anti-global warming and anti-government. Yet Romney and his allies must surely be aware of the FACT of global warming and its implications for the future of US industry and the well-being of the nation as a whole. But he can not enunciate these (likely) ideas....and would certainly not be able to act on them were he to be elected to the Nation's highest office. Our political system makes him and other Republican candidates (and some Democrats too) compliant tools of the powerful oil industry.
According to Mitt Romney himself, as quoted in the National Journal October 28, 2011: "My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us. My view with regards to energy policy is pretty straightforward. I want us to become energy secure and independent of the oil cartels. And that means let’s aggressively develop our oil, our gas, our coal, our nuclear power.”
Romney ignores the issue. The companies of his corporatist supporters generate vast amounts of CO2 which cause the greenhouse effect, and the warming of the earth's atmosphere. Can he ask his prime supporters to cease and desist? No! He attempts to change the subject rather than discuss the real problem, the fossil fuel energy sources that are used and how much CO2 we add to the atmosphere. He tries to pivot to "energy security" which has nothing to do with this problem. Romney attempts to obfuscate and apparently has no intention of addressing this critical global issue. He does not mention wind or solar power or any alternate sources of energy. Why? Such comments would roil the cozy relationship Romney has with the politically powerful corporatists who in turn support him with their deep pockets and who scheme to advance the sale and expansion of oil and gas. Why would they encourage competition with other energy sources? Their focus is their corporate bottom-line--the price of gas and oil--and who could fault that? But our nation's potential leader's focus should be on the best course for the US in a changing world not how to sell more oil, refrigerators, automobiles or widgets.
On the other hand, we see China as a different case, its leaders are not burdened by cozy relationships with specific corporate interests and the political and policy control which that entails (there is no oligarchical class in China, or political parties, for that matter). China's leadership is free to make sensible, forward-looking decisions, as for instance on this issue of global warming and alternate power sources. According to Wikipedia (See:"Solar Power in China"), today China has over 400 photovoltaic (PV) companies making solar panels which generate electricity from incident solar radiation. In 2007, China produced nearly half of the world's supply of solar panels with a capacity estimated at @ 4 Gigawatts (GW) of potential electrical energy. As of 2011, China produced about 3.1 Gigawatts of solar-derived electrical energy for power generation in China. In 2011 China added another 2.2 GW of solar panels and are planning to add 4-5 GW of solar photovoltaic panels in 2012. In addition non electrical, direct solar water heating is very common in China. Why are we so far behind them in this matter? We can blame that on the too-close ties of gas and oil interests with decision makers in Washington.
By comparison, in the US, solar power projects are described and measured, not on the gigawatt scale but in the (1000x less) megawatt range. Our production of solar panels is minimal,the Chinese have cornered that market. (The Solyndra incident illustrates the competitive challenge solar panel corporations in the USA face from the Chinese. In 2011, Solyndra, an American solar panel corporation, which had received a half a billion dollar Federal loan through the $800 billion dollar Obama stimulus package, went bankrupt and had to close its doors. President Obama, who correctly attempted to support this vital "green" industry which would have provided well-paying jobs long into the future was vilified and attacked for providing the loan). In terms of photovoltaic generation of electricity,California leads our nation. In that sun-drenched state there is only a one-half GW (550 MW) solar plant located at the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm, and several others in that state of smaller size. In the east, the largest is a 32 MW recently completed solar farm at Upton, New York on Long Island, and a smaller facility in Desoto County Florida. Sadly we are not competing in this vital area and need more government-supported investment, for viable firms, to make us more competitive.
China's reaction to the challenge of global warming is entirely different, than global warming denial we experience here in the USA.
In March of 2008, Chinese Premiere, Wen Jiabao was appointed to a second five-year term. Wen is a scientist and a professional geologist by training, so unlike the recent crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls who have their well-coiffed heads buried deeply in the sand, he accepts, understands and makes use of basic modern ideas such as Darwinian evolution, and the climatic data which supports-human generated global warming. Wen who graduated from the Beijing Institute of Geology is one of the top figures in formulating China's economic policy. He is known as the "people's premier" and has pushed for the development of China's hinterlands and advocated for the welfare of farmers and migrant workers. In the Politburo, the nation's de-facto top political organ, Wen is ranked third in importance out of nine members. Of course, for Wen to reach the premiership, he did not have to pass through a political gauntlet of "flat-earthers, Darwin-deniers, creationists, anti-feminists, radical anti-abortionists, anti-environmentalists, contraception opponents, and deniers of global warming. He of course, was appointed, not elected.
Our system of presidential campaigns and elections has become so controlled by special interests, corporatists, the plutocrats and the oligarch class that the nation's vital needs and best interest have been left ignored. What is best for America, as a nation, has become subordinated to the interests of large corporations, special interests and the powerful and politically well connected, and the motives of these players are not necessarily good for the nation as a whole. That old saw by President Calvin Coolidge which I often quote, "The business of the USA "
'is' business." is unfortunately too much of a verity. It's corollary, "What's good for business is good for the US." which may have been mouthed by Sinclair Lewis' character, George F. Babbit in his novel "Babbit" set in the USA of the 1920s, but it does not hold true in the 21st Century. Important decisions regarding our national needs and best interests have for too often been set in the top floor offices of corporate office buildings and not in the halls of the people's representatives in Washington. One example of that is how we have dealt with the energy sector in general and global warming in particular in this nation. Decision making has been for too long dominated by the oil and gas industry.
However, when we examine how the Chinese function, we find that Premier Wen is not controlled by any particular entrepreneurial group or special interest. Recall that he is appointed to his job. No messy elections in China. Furthermore, his major focus and and purpose as Premier is the well-being of China, not the benefit of some particular industry or special interest or other. In the USA our government leaders are forced to "make deals" with the powerful. To stay in office they must collect huge sums to stuff their "war chests" and to keep the "big guys" happy so as to prevent a election primary-challenge from a well-heeled, corporate-supported alternate candidate. That's how the wealthy heads of large corporations such as the big oil and gas industry--among others--maintain control of their boys in Congress. Decisions about legislation concerning oil and gas, our national power sources, electrical generation and similar questions are made with the representatives of those industries at our Senator's and Congressman's elbows and sometimes in the Whitehouse Oval Office.
What has this cozy relationship with the oil and gas industry gotten us--the average citizen and taxpayer? Over the last half century our nation has made various decisions either instigated or modified for the betterment of the powerful oil and gas industry. For example, the decision to expand our interstate roadways and maximize our dependency on gasoline-driven trucks at the expense of our (now outdated) rail system, is one decision made during the Eisenhower Administration. More recently we have put the development of solar power, wind, geothermal, tidal, and hydroelectric on the back-burner while we support politically, by foreign policy and with financial aid and tax incentives an industry which imports and exploits expensive and increasingly scarce and expensive oil and gas. The decisions made were with the major oil industry magnates and their political power brokers in mind. Wen Jiabao, the Chinese Premier, does not have such restrictions,controlling his decision making process when he must plan for China's future on a warmer globe.
Perhaps that is why, if we were looking for the Premiere of China last week, we would have found him in Iceland! Iceland? What in blazes was he doing there?
Iceland is a Nordic European nation, about the size of modern day Austria, located in the North Atlantic about six hundred miles northwest of Scotland (and about 1300 miles east of Quebec),it is situated about 64 degrees north latitude or just two degrees south of the Arctic Circle. It was originally settled by Europeans in the 9th century AD and now has a population of about 320,000. The Icelanders are settled mostly on the southern coast of this volcanic island which formed on the crest of the underwater Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The island covers an area of about 40,000 square miles (103,000 sq km). Iceland has a (estimated 2011) GDP of about $12 billion dollars, and a per capita GDP of about $38,000.
Of what interest could Wen Jiabao have in icy cold, isolated, dark-in-winter, snowy Iceland? Since Wen is not forced by his supporters or his competitors to deny and denigrate global warming, or climate change concepts, he can actually plan for these exigencies for China and embrace the idea. He can ready China for the change in the global weather and climate of the coming decades. His head is not buried like Pliny's Ostrich in the African sand, with the other Republican science-deniers. So he can go to Iceland, with his checkbook in his vest-pocket which, to an island in an increasingly warmer and ice-free North Atlantic Ocean which will likely play a larger role in world trade.
Yes on April 20, 2012 Wen Jiabao arrived in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland. Wen is the first Chinese premiere to visit that island-nation in 41 years. According to the Communist News Service, Xinhuanet, China is Iceland's biggest trade partner in Asia. China sells coke (a form of soft-coal), textiles, and manufactured goods to Iceland, while China imports Iceland's excellent and abundant marine fish. According to the China News Service, Wen is interested in bilateral ties and exchanges with Iceland as well as cooperation in geothermal energy, scientific research, polar studies and other matters. One of the "other matters" he might wish to discuss is the controversy regarding the acquisition of a huge chunk of coastal land by a "private Chinese citizen". The sale is presently "on hold" due to legal objections raised by some in Iceland. But the wealthy Chinese investor is continuing to pursue the sale and may have enlisted the Chinese Prime Minister in his plans. Some say the acquisition is for a future Chinese naval base. Some of the Icelanders and other North European countries are curious, suspicious and worried. What plans do the Chinese have for the North Atlantic and the Arctic?
What plans indeed? According to Reuters (See "China's Wen in Iceland", by Mia Shanley, April 20, 2012) Iceland certainly can use an infusion of China's copious cash horde. Iceland's banks were deregulated in 2000, and then were privatized. They invested heavily in American collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and went into default with many failing after September 15, 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed, followed by the rest of the world. Perhaps Wen is there to underscore the fact that China was not affected by the Great Recession initiated by greed, malfeasance and excesses of the American banking and financial sector of 2007-2008. Perhaps it is the Icelanders weak financial position, a circumstance that cash-rich China might profit from. Then there is the suspicions of Beijing's hunger for natural resources. According to author Shanley, Icelanders see a wider strategy in Wen's visit, perhaps to gain a foothold in the Arctic. Wen is also interested in developing geothermal energy for domestic and industrial use. In this regard, Iceland's Orka Energy and Sinopec Group signed a deal to develop this "clean green" source of geothermal energy in China for house heating and production of electricity.
According to the Reuters piece, climate change is causing the Polar ice to thin remarkably fast in the region, suggesting to the Chinese that there may be opportunities in the Arctic and North Atlantic for the alert and savvy. Present estimates by polar scientists and climatologists, foresee an ice-free summer-season in the Arctic by 2040, or less than three decades away. Not a bad lead time to set up a base of operations in available, financially needy, Iceland. An Arctic which is free of the polar ice cap in summer or simply ice-free enough for shipping, could slash the time it takes to move Chinese manufactured products from the Asian mainland to ports on the east coast of North America by well over a week. Raw materials could just as easily move the other way from North America to China via the same short Arctic route. That would enormously reduce transport costs, and eliminate expensive transit fees and fuel costs for going the long way through the Suez Canal.
Global warming could be a boon to Chinese industry, opening up whole regions and shortening travel times to existing client ports.
For those national leaders, with minds open to modern science and the real world, who are free of control by reactionary special interests, the future can look bright. China has seen an opportunity in our own back yard which some of our leaders have ignored, or resisted as contrary to their Party's existing ideology, or they simply decided to do what was politically expedient. As a great nation, we need great leaders to direct our path toward what is good, not just for the connected, well-heeled few, but for our nation as a whole.
Sadly, here in America we are still fighting over cultural issues generated to obfuscate and divide the electorate, such as contraception, abortion, women's rights to control their own bodies and even global warming. These are issues other industrial western democratic nations have settled long ago, and they have now set out to reap the future. Are we going to remain in the 1950s while the rest of the world passes us by? While the Chinese move into our own backyard and set up house?
Is our political system so outdated and hidebound that we are no longer flexible enough to meet the challenge or able to effectively deal with new circumstances and threats to our well-being? Is the Chinese system better? I think not. Let us not give credence to the political dinosaurs in our midst, who would call us back into the Mesozoic Era. That Era is gone and the saurians who had adapted to it are all extinct too--since those times and conditions have changed. We must change too or face extinction with them.
Get the picture?
rjk
No comments:
Post a Comment