http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052970203946904574301221048374500-lMyQjAxMDA5MDIwNTEyNDUyWj.html
It is important to give Hillary Clinton credit for what she's done since taking over as Secretary of State. She's travelled around the world and "listened." And, while that might be muted laughter some can hear in DC emanating from her office at the State Department over the "ObamaCare" ship taking on water, Clinton's efforts on behalf of diplomacy for the U.S. have been exceptional. Her appearance on "Meet the Press" over the weekend was first class.
The article I've attached refers to the India stop on her tour when Jairam Ramesh, Environment Minister of that country, told her about the widespread Indian consensus that it is irresponsible to sacrifice economic growth benefiting hundreds of millions of mostly poor people for the sake of "environmental absolutism." While India's per capita GDP is at $1,000 and its energy industry is grossly inefficient, he explained that "emissions caps" are the wrong way to go. Caps would send prices on energy and other goods higher, not to mention the longer-term damage to economic growth.
And, as the editorial board of the WSJ points out (article attached - WSJ 7/24/09), Ramesh remarked that another cost India would have to bear, should his country not impose its own emissions caps, would be the cost of protectionist measures imposed by developed countries to shield their businesses from the costs of their own national emissions targets. The cap and tax bill that was recently passed by the U.S. House is explicit in proposing tariffs on goods from countries that don't follow the developed world's anticarbon line.
The Indian government recognizes the public would never be willing to shoulder the costs of emissions controls, and that it is unfair to ask millions of poor people to try.
So, let's choose: do we want economic growth or "environmental absolutism"? Do we want to impose a tax on GDP growth worldwide while we try to get out of the worst recession since the Great Depression?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have to say that I am incredibly impressed with Hillary's performance so far. I wasn't sure that it would work given the friction between the two during the race, but she has risen to the challenge and is making the job "hers" with grace. I just hope she can make some headway in the middle east!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of women in high places, did you see the following interview in the NY times?: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/business/26corner.html?pagewanted=1&em
Ya. Top managements need more women.
ReplyDeleteCorner Office is always interesting.
India? We all saw this coming.
Not sure how China will respond or if internal corruption will inhibit "greening". The public image is certain, but I have my doubts about its reality (sorry China sensors =[).
On the other hand, scientists could just give into the algae craze. You hear Exxon Mobil dropping 600 million dollars on algae research? It solves the carbon dioxide problem by striking a balance between harvesting, planting, and carbon dioxide levels in a way that algae eats up carbon dioxide enough to justify its environmental costs. Plus, many "ocean forests" have been destroyed. Remember, ocean plant life contributes more oxygen than land, yet many tend to ignore this.
Just dump algae into the ocean and allow it to form a layer. Redesign boats. Then, presto, nobody cares about global warming. Although, the planet might get a bit too green for some people's tastes.
Hahaha, I am not being serious, just playfully imaginative. Although, practical applications of algae exceeding "energy cost efficiency" of gasoline would be quite awesome.