by David Steven | Aug 27, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, North America
Uniting the Republican Party and John McCain on climate change is a fiendishly difficult task, as a fascinating article by Stephen Spruiell shows.
By the time you’re done, you’ve scratched through so many lines and penciled in so many revisions that the document is barely legible. I wish I could show you my copy of the energy section of the 2008 Republican Platform’s working draft. You wouldn’t be able to read it, but you’d see what I mean.
The original draft accepted the reality of climate change and argued for ‘measured and reasonable’ action, while cautioning against “the doomsday climate change scenarios peddled by the aficionados of centralized command-and-control government.”
But it has proved contentious in committee. So what were the rows about?
Firstly, and most strangely, the word ‘global warming’ has proved controversial. Of course, experts tend not to use the term and prefer climate change (which helps “to convey that there are changes in addition to rising temperatures.”)
But Republicans are nervous about the warming word for another reason. They are unconvinced the world is getting hotter. The phrase “increased atmospheric carbon has a warming effect on the earth” has therefore been excised from the draft platform. And climate change has been used in preference to global warming throughout.
Compromise was also necessary to keep the door ajar for McCain’s preferred policy of cap and trade:
The working draft purposefully left McCain enough room to continue his support for an artificial ceiling on carbon emissions. The subcommittee improved the working draft by specifying that any proposals “should not harm the economy,” but it did not add anything that explicitly precludes McCain from supporting cap-and-trade. McCain is still free to argue that a cap-and-trade regime wouldn’t inhibit economic growth, and conservatives are still free to disagree.
Any cap and trade scheme must have no economic downside, in other words. (Or could any downside be balanced against the economic impact of unchecked warming?) Policy responses must be ‘global in nature’ as well, which would probably translate into a tough policy on China.
But this may not be enough for base. To sample its thinking, head over to the Republican Party site that solicits grassroots opinion on the platform. Here are extracts from the five most recent contributions that mention global warming:
Do NOT add “global warming” to the GOP platform. Do not fall for this nonsense. Its a fraud.
Under no circumstance should the platform even mention global warming, unless its a statement to acknowledge the evidence that we aren’t causing it.
I just saw on Drudge that there is to be a plank for global warming. If the Republicans fall for this false science, I have no one left to vote for and our economy will be ruined. Read what Senator James Imhof has to say about it all. He knows.
I cannot believe that the GOP is adding global warming to its platform. How can I respect my party if it can’t even come up with its own scams to increase the size and power of government, but has to adopt scams from the like of Al Gore.
Global Warming is a hoax! Why would we get on Al Gore’s bandwagon?
I would say there’s 80% agreement with the statement: “Man Made global warming is the biggest lie ever sold to the U.S. and the world.” For McCain as President – or for any President who bought a treaty home for ratification – there’s a long struggle ahead.
by Richard Gowan | Aug 20, 2008 | Africa, Conflict and security, Cooperation and coherence, Europe and Central Asia
In early August, Daniel wrote a punchy post entitled “After state-building”. Looking at American debate about what to do in Afghanistan and Iraq, he concluded “we may be about to witness a paradigmatic shift away from state-building. But what replaces it?” I’d come to a parallel conclusion for the UN: “the idea of large-scale, multi-dimensional UN missions overseeing countries stumbling out of conflict may have run out of road.” But I didn’t have an answer about what comes next.
And I still don’t. But I’ve outlined some initial thoughts in a piece over on the Guardian website, timed to pre-empt the arrival of the UN’s new peacekeeping boss – Alain Le Roy – next Monday. I run through the current list of short-term UN woes (where are the helicopters?), but then turn to “longer-term, strategic challenges”:
These aren’t about management. They involve adapting to a less American, more multipolar world. The current scale of UN peacekeeping is a product of the last, all-too-American decade. The Bush administration favoured hefty UN missions to stabilise places where it did not want to get bogged down itself: Haiti, Liberia, Darfur.
UN officials, shaken by their impotence over Iraq, have often felt obliged to look “relevant” elsewhere. The result has been a trend towards bigger peace operations with ever-more ambitious, perhaps unrealistic, mandates to rebuild these shattered states. In private, many of the organisation’s experts worry that they cannot fulfil these mandates – almost all would prefer less expansive alternatives with realistic targets.
But the greatest obstacle to effective peace operations is that tensions between the US and its rivals can reduce the UN to paralysis. China has ensured that the UN mission in Darfur cannot push back much (if at all) against pressure from the Sudanese government. Throughout 2008, Russia has stymied efforts to transfer UN peacekeeping responsibilities to the EU in Kosovo. UN observers in Georgia evacuated as Russian troops advanced this month.
If great power tensions increase further, the chances for more UN missions can only decrease. That would be tragic for the vulnerable who rely on the UN from, Port-au-Prince to Kinshasa. It might be dangerous for the great powers too. Without the UN to provide basic security, the odds of small flare-ups escalating into big crises will grow.
So as Alain Le Roy looks beyond his first round of crises, he may decide that his overarching strategic task is to build up a minimal consensus between the US, its allies and its rivals about what UN peacekeeping is for in an age of tensions between them.
Minimal consensus, eh? What might that look like? Stand by for answers sooner or, more probably, later. But I have started to spot quite a few symptoms of a “new minimalism” around the UN of late. These include its first ever peacekeeping doctrine, which is sharp and thoughtful document but feels conservative relative to earlier UN statements on peacebuilding and statebuilding (there’s textual analysis in my recent International Peacekeeping article, if you like that sort of thing).
It’s also worth checking out the state of debate on the Responsibility to Protect – Ban Ki-moon’s staff have been rather skillfully guiding discussions, emphasizing “soft” aspects of R2P like conflict prevention over “hard” military interventions. It’s worth having a close read of this really good report on the subject from the International Peace Institute. Now, a couple of policy documents do not equal a new ideology, but I think we’re seeing the first signs of a deeper minimalist trend…
by David Steven | Aug 20, 2008 | Off topic
The official medal table has China winning the Olympics. The US media rejigs things to put Team America is in its rightful place above us all. Europhiles, meanwhile, argue the EU is really the winner.
But a letter in the Telegraph offers a more interesting approach, arguing that – as in medieval warfare – we should judge thinks according to the success of the head of state.
By this measure the Queen, as its head, would be out in front with 79 medals, George Bush would be second with 72 and Hu Jintao trailing with 67.
Hats off to Her Majesty.
by Daniel Korski | Aug 20, 2008 | East Asia and Pacific, Global system, UK
With the Beijing Olympics about to be declared a success, attention will turn to London. One question is on everyone’s minds: can London 2012 match the power and fanfare of the Chinese Games?
But there is another lesson to take home from Beijing: how to sell your country abroad. Even before the Opening Ceremony, the world had been exposed to China for years. Eighteen months ago, the impressive Terracotta Warriors stormed London. Then came Kung Fun Panda, the Hollywood story of a bungling panda who aspires to be a martial arts warrior. China’s National Ballet performed “Swan Lake” at the Royal Opera House whilst 2004 was “Chinese Culture Year” in France.
Numerous TV commercials are using Chinese-looking script or placing mascots – like Kellogg’s Tony the Tiger – on a Tibetan mountains. Newspapers are filled with reports from Chinese villages whilst books on the Middle Kingdom are ensconced on the best-seller lists.
This is exactly what the Chinese government hoped for. The Beijing Olympics has been about sport, to be sure. But they were always going to be about more than just that. For the Communist Party, the 29th Olympiad was seen as China’s “coming out party”, an event to mark the country’s acceptance and recognition from a sometimes hostile family of nations.
Since their modern re-launch in 1859, the Olympics have been one of the best ways to show-case a country; the Greeks demolished half-a-century of stereotyping when they pulled off the Athens Games.
For Britain, the 2012 London Olympics can play a similar role. The event will be the single greatest opportunity to re-brand Britain since 1997 and following the image-destroying partnership between Tony Blair and George Bush. Until the Queen dies, no other event is likely to make people around the world focus on Britain.
In the book The Man Who Saved Britain Simon Winder argued that James Bond upheld the British ego while a once-great power was trying to come to terms with its diminished post-World War II role. The Games will offer a rare chance to do the same; to re-launch Britain’s image in the world. Forget the “cool Britannia” of the Blair era; what may be needed may is less naff but equally modern and positive.
But the Games offer an opportunity not only to promote Britain’s culture and values, but also to attract tourists, students and investors; and to promote British exports.
The country is heading towards a recession. Consumers are battered by declining purchasing power, plummeting house prices and falling credit availability. The only way out will be to increase British exports, much as in the 1990s. Whilst the volume of British exports will be determined by economic fundamentals – a weak pound and low interest rates – there is scope for government action.
Sadly, for all that potential benefit rather than seizing the opportunity, the 2012 preparations have been off to an uninspiring start. Google the words “London Olympics” and after three official URLs comes the heading “Olympic chiefs under fire for puerile logo”. Debate has mostly been about how much money the Games will cost.
In the Foreign Office, the enormous task of gearing Britain’s diplomatic network to promote the country, its exports and its values is set to fall to a middle-ranking official.
Last year, UK Trade & Investment – the government’s export-promotion arm – seemed thrilled, according to its own board minutes, that Lord Coe, “agreed that he will devote some time to UKTI activities and has provided a quote in support of UKTI’s Olympic objectives.” Splendid – but his lordship’s involvement hardly substitutes for Ministerial leadership.
If a cross-governmental plan to use the Olympics to promote Britain does indeed exist, I would be curious to know if it includes sending the Elgin Marbles around the world? Will it call for more money to British films? Will Simon Cowell be drafted in to host a “The World’s Got Talent” show, with a finale in London’s Dome? Does the plan include initiatives to collaborate with Rockstar, the makers of Grand Theft Auto, the world’s best-selling video game?
As a new collection of articles – in part written by Alex and David and edited by up-and-coming Foreign Office minister Jim Murphy – argues, this is exactly the way Britain will need to think if it wants to promote itself. The lack of plans, senior staff attention, and ministerial leadership, however, does no bode well.
It is time for the government to take a leaf out of the Murphy playbook and launch a three-year campaign to promote Britain. The benefits are many and for the whole of Britain – as the Chinese have shown.
by Alex Evans | Aug 20, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity
Full marks to WWF for their report on virtual water use today, which finds that when imports of virtual water – the water used to grow or manufacture goods that are then imported into the UK, sometimes from severely water-stressed countries – each Briton uses some 4,645 litres, making the UK the sixth largest net importer of water in the world. Only 38% of the UK’s net water use actually comes from Britain’s own resources, the report adds. (Press release; report.)
Virtual water’s a handy concept, not least in that it shows up where consumers’ real water impact takes place. Turning off the tap while brushing one’s teeth is all very well, but if you really want to have an impact, go vegetarian: here’s the amount of water it takes to produce selected foods:
1 kg of potatoes – 500 litres
1 kg of wheat – 900 litres
1 kg of rice – 1,900 litres
1 kg of poultry – 3,500 litres
1 kg of beef – 15,000 litres
(Source: the excellent Atlas of Water. Buy one today.) Agriculture’s easily the world’s largest consumer of water, too: it accounts for 70% of global water use, compared to 20% for industry and 10% for the domestic sector.
In case you wondering, WWF says the top 5 net importers of virtual water are Brazil, Mexico, Japan, China and Italy. And the top 5 exporters? The USA, Australia, Argentina, Canada and Thailand. (Sixth is India, where water tables are plummeting.)
