Linda is a staff writer for the Harvard International Review
There’s Hope Yet for Renewable Energy
After the celebrated release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” last year, climate change experts, business leaders, and government officials alike held high hopes for progress to be made in 2007. This global warming thing is real after all, and the world’s energy demand is accelerating, not abating it. Aside from Gore’s entertaining lesson on climate change, the International Energy Agency’s 2006 World Energy Outlook as well as Sir Nicholas Stern’s Review on the Economics of Climate Change, among other publications, expressed serious concerns over the security of energy supply and environmental deterioration. As fellow HIR editor Killian Clarke accurately predicted in his February post, the entire world is indeed taking this issue seriously now, putting environmental policies at the top of political agendas. So what have countries around the world accomplished thus far?
Formulating updated and effective policies has been an important first step. Australia recognized the need for privatization and reform in the electricity market years before the global attention on energy efficiency. The establishment of the National Electricity Market (NEM) in 1991 heralded a competitive market for the supply and purchase of electricity. Almost a decade after the implementation of NEM in 1998, benefits of the reform can be clearly seen in the lower prices, increased labor and operational efficiency in the entire industry, and a dramatic rise in private investment in renewable energy sources.
Brazil’s PROINFA program (Program to Foster Alternative Sources of Electric Power), implemented in 2003, called for the construction of 3,300 megawatts of capacity in renewable sources (wind, small hydropower, and biomass) by 2006. This policy was designed to provide incentives for private energy suppliers to invest in wind, small hydropower, and biomass technologies. While the goal for PROINFA 1 has yet to be realized—its deadline was extended to 2008—PROINFA 2 aims to ensure that the renewable energy sources mentioned above would supply 10 percent of Brazil’s annual consumption in 20 years.
Having recently overtaken the United States as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases, China is pressured and pulled in multiple directions to fight pollution and environmental degradation while promoting development. Its Renewable Energy Law, issued within the government’s Eleventh Five-Year Plan in 2006, set an ambitious target to double the use of renewable energy sources to 16 percent of total consumption by 2020. In close cooperation with multilateral organizations and adhering closely to the Montreal Protocol and the Stockholm Convention, China is learning quickly from its partners about alternative technologies. The government’s bet on renewable sources, however, does not equate to a significant decrease on energy consumption. As the state invests billions of dollars (almost 20 percent of the global share) on renewables, energy efficiency is improving too slowly (i.e. energy consumption continues to rise) to meet the mid-term targets of the policy.
Developing countries all share the struggle to improve energy efficiency. For a country such as Brazil, which already has a solid foundation for the renewable energy industry, the struggle is one to initiate healthy competition among private businesses as Australia has done. For heavily coal-dependent countries such as China and India, sustainable development requires sufficient state funds to push industries away from cheap sources of energy and proactive state development of technological improvements. The financial and infrastructural assistance of international institutions and the developed world would obviously be welcome. Efficient and renewable energy consumption is, and will continue to grow as, the primary factor in the amelioration of global warming and environmental deterioration.
$15 billion later…
Electricity generation has fallen below pre-war levels in Iraq and, yes, waste, fraud, and typical US bureaucratic inefficiency abound in the reconstruction effort.
The United States has already contributed $15 billion to the effort, the entirety of which is estimated to exceed the initial projection of $55 billion. The money seems to have delivered only a trickling supply of clean water and left the devastated railroads almost untouched. Investigative reports are underway as usual, looking—craning—for culprits of this sad progress. Reading through stories from some of the major news agencies reveals that they’ve indicted Halliburton, unstable security conditions on the ground, and a host of other issues for Iraq’s present-day situation.
The investment in dollars has been taking a hard beating as well, but all the criticism is directed at the lack of results without consideration for the necessary costs. What is $15 billion in tangible terms? It’s about 17 percent of Iraq’s gross domestic product, but it’s not even one-tenth of General Electric’s annual revenue. It can construct roughly 27 bridges modeled after the newest suspension bridge in the United States (the 1.06km Carquinez Bridge in California’s northern Bay Area, near my hometown). (But when you adjust for labor costs in Iraq, among other calculations, you’d probably get more bridges.) Regardless, $15 billion is not a lot when you’re looking at the infrastructure of a war-ravaged country.
I agree that the United States is already footing a great majority of the bill—much more than a lot of our citizens are willing to stomach. It’s the good—and right—thing to do. I also think that while we shouldn’t divert huge portions of the national budget toward rebuilding Iraq, we should be more realistic when assessing the results of our efforts. Curbing waste and fraud is necessary, but the perpetual negative attitude is not.
Terrorism in Disguise
“Sri Lanka is at War”
“Sri Lanka Mired in Ethnic Conflict”
“Tamils: Army waging undeclared war”
…
These are a short sample of the headlines reporting violence in Sri Lanka in the past couple of months. The conflict between the majority Sinhalese and the minority Tamils on the island is seen as ongoing, despite the official ceasefire in 2002. Since the resurge of violence in 2005, there have widespread worries of a renewed civil war.
The Tamil Tigers, the military and political group promoting Tamil independence from Sri Lanka, are relentless in their attacks. Without recounting the gory details, one can imagine the bombings, the fighting, and the fear dominating civil life. Yet, what’s even more disheartening, if possible, is the Tigers’ resistance to peace. Just last month, they pulled out of the latest round of peace negotiations in Geneva, using the lack of transportation as their excuse. It seems that the organization, formally known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam, is simply disrupting peace for the sake of militancy.
The violence in Sri Lanka today can hardly be called an “ethnic conflict” as the militant Tamils do not represent the interests of most of the ethnic Tamils. At best, the Tigers’ attacks can be seen as an escalating rebel uprising; but realistically, it is no better than terrorism. While this is not to say that the Sinhalese are free of grievous faults of their own, such as the privileged treatment of their own over Tamils in college admissions and government jobs, the terrorist acts of the Tigers will get them nowhere. The Tamil Tigers should recognize and pursue peaceful means to achieve their ends (as do Janjaweed and non-Arabs in Sudan, the United Jihad Council in Kashmir, and many other militant groups) if they hope to gain any ground in Sri Lanka or support internationally.
What Taiwan Should Give Up for Lent (Its President)
How many more “grave provocations” is Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian willing to risk before China initiates an attack on the island?
The communist government of the People’s Republic has been suspicious of Chen since before he was elected to the executive office. His narrow victory during the 2004 presidential election is still fresh in the minds of Chinese officials and voters. Both groups are still skeptical of the failed assassination attempt and probably hoping to get their hands on some evidence that the event was staged. The PRC firmly believes that Chen will push Taiwan towards independence and, needless to say, holds him in a hostile light. Meanwhile, the Taiwanese public is losing confidence in him as well—his approval ratings have sunk to below 30 percent according to polling data provided by the New York Times. All of this is just to say that Chen should be cautious in his actions.
Chen’s decision to terminate the National Unification Council and Guidelines was incredibly bold in many respects. The obvious repercussions are the reaction it generated with the government of the People’s Republic and the escalation of the already volatile tension between Taiwan and the mainland, which threatens to affect the relationship of each with the US and Japan. The implications for Taiwan’s relationship with the US, however, are more severe than most realize. In 2000, not long after Chen was elected to the presidency for the first term, he was urged by the US to issue “Five No’s” as a gesture to the PRC. Among the five was a previously unmentioned statement promising the non-abolition of the National Unification Guidelines. This recent move by Chen, then, is not only a breach of promise against China, but also breach of good will with the US. As Washington is likely the only government that would be willing to aid Taiwan politically and militarily in the event of an attack (as Taiwan cannot defend against China on its own), Chen needs to take US concerns seriously.
Chen, and the US for that matter, would be mistaken to think that China would not live up to its threat of war against Taiwan. As the governments on either side of the strait open up to increasing economic and social exchanges, they are bound to have more productive discussions on political issues as well. The unification impasse should be approached by both sides in a calmer manner as any provocation may result in conflict on a global scale.