Dan Reicher, director of climate change and energy initiatives at Google, summed the effort to pass a US climate change bill as an “epic, epic struggle”.

This summer the House of Representatives passed a climate change bill that aims to reduce carbon emissions and make investments in renewable energy. Recently the Senate has taken up the task of stitching together a bill and well, but real action has been postponed to the spring.

The positive and the frustrating aspects of the American political process are on full display. Climate change legislation languishes and wallows in several Senate committees, and is held captive by the vested interest of the few.

This would all be inconsequential if it wasn’t absolutely urgent for the US to get its act together before UN climate talks in December.

In December, 192 nations will meet in Copenhagen to forge one of the most difficult international agreements ever – a comprehensive climate change treaty that replaces the Kyoto Protocol. The Copenhagen conference is seen by many as one of the last opportunities for the world to lock in a process that reduces greenhouse gases in time to stave off disaster.

Copenhagen will not only be a historic gathering of world leaders, scientists, and thought leaders – it’ll be a critical one as well. The time that remains, the window that we have for a climate change deal for the world’s 6 billion people is closing.

It’s an understatement to only suggest that the stakes are high. But success in Copenhagen hinges largely on what the US will do domestically and will commit to in Copenhagen. If American negotiators head into Copenhagen without clarity as to what its domestic position is, other countries are unlikely to sign a binding deal.

For all our trumpeting of American leadership in the world, our almost instinctive belief in American exceptionalism  – on the most critical issue facing the world today, the world’s greatest power is missing.

But why, what’s holding us back?

Right now, there are currently 2,810 climate lobbyists registered in Washington DC. That’s five lobbyists for every member of Congress. In the lead up to the June 26^th House vote, more than 460 new businesses and interest groups lobbied Congress on its climate change legislation. We’re unable to decipher how much money was actually spent on specific climate change lobbying efforts as businesses don’t have to detail their expenses for each separate issue they are lobbying in Congress. But say we assume that the issue consumed only 10% of their time. That amount comes to more than $27 million in the second quarter, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

It’s been reported that US airways spent $410,000 in the third quarter lobbying on the cap-and-trade system that’s a part of what’s being proposed in the Senate.

Not all of these efforts are aimed at defeating climate change. But, a lot of them are, and even more are aiming to slow down the pace of change and dilute the level of carbon reduction targets that scientist say are necessary. Many of the global warming cynics of the 90’s now argue that climate change legislation will reduce jobs and hurt the economy. While embracing global warming as fact, their lobbying efforts focus on making sure they can still make a profit in the old energy economy.

The election of President Obama brought hope in the US and foreign capitals around the world that the US would renew its commitment to work multilaterally to address the world’s toughest problems. Change is in fact hard.

And on the defining challenge of this generation and the next, it is the efforts of those vested in the status quo largely inhibiting progress. It’s a generational failing or more harshly a generational atrocity. How old will you be in 2050? By then, those who are blocking progress now probably won’t be alive. But you will be, when the consequences of our inaction on climate change will come to bear.

If you’re looking for Congress to do the right thing, because it’s the right and moral course of action to take, that’s not likely to happen. The US government has to step up, so must youth as well. A climate change agreement won’t happen without youth energy and involvement similar to what it was in the 2008 election. And, it has to be, for no generation has more at stake – our possibilities at peace and security, a clean economy, a sustainable and just world – than young people.

Post by William Easterly

The world economy with its multiple crises is a frightening place. To confront our fears, we have a new global religion. It developed slowly over the last couple decades, based on the sacred writings of the world’s leading shamans. The shamans have been releasing a new scripture of prophecy and comfort every year after secluding themselves in a remote location for several days of prayer and reflection.

There used to be only seven of these shamans, and they were known for short as the G7. As of their latest retreat to the Burgh of Pitt last weekend, the number of shamans has grown to G20.

This year’s scripture, called The Communiqué, was the longest in G-ism history at 15 pages. It offered prayers of healing for many different ailments, from the pestilent OTC Derivative Contracts to the noxious Gas Emissions. It condemned the unholy Excessive Compensation in the Financial Sector as well as the evil Non-Cooperative Jurisdictions.

One of the greatest attractions of the G-ist religion is its concern for the poorest among us. G20 reserved their most fervent prayers of comfort and restoration for those who newly suffer, such as those who now hunger when they did not before. There are 90 million more who go hungry than at last year’s G-shaman meeting, after the Great Backsliding of 2008, whereupon “the financial crisis followed close on the heels of a global spike in food prices…{when} even before the crisis, too many still suffered from hunger …{and} recognizing the crisis has exacerbated this situation.” G20 offer to feed the hungry with GPAFS, CAADP, UNCFA, IDA, ADB, NGOs, FAO, IFAD, and WFP, using the holy mysteries of “coordinate efforts,” and “country-led mechanisms,” and “complement and reinforce other existing multilateral and bilateral efforts” (page 11, verse 39 of The Communiqué).

G20ism has proven to be tolerant and inclusive of other religions. According to a story in the Florida Catholic:

“Most people in high levels of government “really do want to do the right thing for the poor. They really do have a moral compass,” said Stephen Colecchi, director of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Office of International Justice and Peace, at a press conference in Pittsburgh Sept. 23. Part of the power of prayer and bringing together religious leaders at such an event is “the belief that we can influence people,” he said. Some 30 leaders of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh faiths attended the press conference before processing in full clerical garb to the Omni William Penn Hotel to meet with representatives of the U.S. delegation to the G–20 summit.”

Alas, there are still many who do not believe, even mocking the true faith of the G20. The nonbelievers claim that reason and evidence is the best path to alleviate suffering, rather than belief in the mystical powers of the G-shamans.

The evidence on increased hunger numbers is a wee bit shaky when the last reliable numbers on undernourishment are from 2003 to 2005. Nor is hunger either necessarily the result of the crisis or a black and white categorization. Most malnutrition is chronic, not crisis-driven, and includes many different categories of nutritional deficiency, such as vitamin A deficiency, as well as not having enough to eat.

Then to make things worse, even the crisis narrative on hunger is faulty: the food price spike crisis and the global recession are not additive but partially offsetting. Global food prices in real terms fell because of the global recession to pre-spike levels (although lower income because of the crisis of course makes buying food more difficult).

Faith-based analysis leads to faith-based actions. Only the most fanatical G20-ist religionists could believe that more Coordinations, Frameworks, Partnerships and Programmes will feed the hungry.

To show the contrast between G20-ism and reason & evidence, here are two questions that address hunger:

(1) If you are an aid agency that covers hunger, exactly what is your excuse for not meeting the unmet needs for nutritional and vitamin supplements? These supplements are cheap, they have been demonstrated to work, and they fit well into other aid programs like conditional cash transfers.

(2) If you are the US government, how can you take a solemn vow to feed the hungry when there ARE food emergencies and yet you still insist the food come from American farmers and shippers? This leads to months of delays while people are dying from hunger. Sometimes the food arrives after the emergency is over, and then makes sustainable future food supplies worse by driving food prices down and driving local farmers out of business.

G-ism has already survived for many years even though the G-shamans did not keep previous promises. That is the tragedy of faith without reason.

So, this morning on my way to work, I was listening to a segment on the Diane Rehm show about international trade and the global recession.  I’ve been listening to a lot of radio talk shows on the global economy lately (including many of President Obama’s press conferences), and while the content of these programs isn’t typically designed to be amusing (war, strife, poverty, the faltering market), this one actually made me laugh!

The comment was in reference to the fact that the wages of American blue collar workers had really stagnated over the past thirty years, that the U.S. is the largest manufacturer in the world, and that we MUST find a way to make this economy grow again–the economy has got to grow.

What made me laugh is the fact that this premise of “economic growth,” upon which many of the current stimulus suggestions are being made, is rarely challenged, or at least accepted within mainstream dialogues.  I was reminded of Annie Leonard’s Story of Stuff (pictured above), in which Annie cleverly explains that the pursuit of infinite growth on a finite planet with a finite amount of resources is mathematically, logically, environmentally impossible.

I highly recommend you watch the full presentation–so worth it.  Even if you think you’ve mastered the basic concepts, Annie lays it out in such a straightforward and articulate way, that it makes you wonder how the growth wonks haven’t caught on yet.

If you’re interested in development policy and poverty-eradication programs, I highly recommend some background reading on development theory (not just economics).  This is the perfect moment to jump start this conversation.  What is development?  What does it look like and to whom?  What is the measure of success?  And who decides when you’ve arrived?

I meet more and more student these days taking classes in development policy or the politics of inequality, and would love to hear your thoughts.

Much has been made in recent weeks about what I like to call MAD 2.0–this time between the U.S. and China.

Of course, the new MAD is not nearly as vindictive as the previous phase of international relations between the U.S. and the S.U.  It involves no bombs, posturing, or division of the world into spheres of influence (yet).  No, the new MAD is predicated on a simple fact: each country controls the other country’s financial system.

The Financial Times synthesized the situation rather succinctly.  China has made a policy of holding substantial currency reserves while keeping its currency artificially low.  This will, in theory, allow it to weather economic downturns while promoting its exports, because if the currency remains low it is easier for other countries to buy Chinese products.

These substantial currency reserves have to sit somewhere, and must be of a different currency (since to hold a potential flood of yuan would pose a potential problem to the currency’s value should it have to be spent).  Up to this point and continuing at least until the near future, the reserves have been held primarily in United States’ assets.

In the process, China has become the largest creditor to the United States, with this debt growing by 25% per year.

If the U.S. were to falter, China would lose its currency reserves, revaluing the yuan and cutting its growth massively.  If China were to draw down its reserves, the U.S. would have to call in mountains of debt to begin to pay it back and would lose the status of reserve currency that has allowed outrageous deficit spending for many years.

From the U.S. perspective, this is quite a precarious situation at first glance: to depend solely on a country that is not exactly the friendliest of allies on many issues for economic security does not top the list of desirable positions to be in.  Yet there are several factors that make this relationship much more complicated and not so evidently negative.

Primarily, the U.S. has the advantageous position at the moment of being the world’s reserve currency, which means for this application that it is still one of the safest investments in terms of long-term stability that exists.  If the Chinese choose to continue their policy of holding huge currency reserves, then their best investment option is still the dollar.

For China, to even begin to move away from its stake in the dollar would collapse all of the value that that remains in their reserves.  This is why they are so cautious to assure the world’s investors that this is precisely what they are not going to do.  Furthermore, to liquidate its reserves would lead to a valuation of the yuan.

Clearly, neither country can afford to have the other make any drastic moves.  A very precarious balance pervades the system, and any sway in either direction could bring both economies to a grinding halt.

Still, China realizes that it has the relative upper hand in the sitaution, and, as the Financial Times report, are beginning to move the issue of debt obligation into the realm of foreign policy.  The U.S. is going to have to tread very lightly into the future–especially because, in this case, it cannot deficit spend the enemy into oblivion.

—

For further information, here is an interesting podcast published by the Economist on China’s downturn and how it plays into this financial crisis:

Stream it

Download it

Though I am soon to depart overseas to London to blog with a more international perspective, I report to you today live from the future Californian Republic of China.

For those of you not familiar with the coming establishment of this Chinese-operated province in what will-once-have-been-formerly the Western U.S., you can read more about the impending breakup of the United States as predicted by a prominent Russian professor and foreign minister here.

The Wall Street Journal describes the circulation of such theories in elite Russian circles, telling us a lot about the disposition of these circles toward the United States.  Can anything be done about this anti-Americanism?

If you’re curious to whom you should address your citizenship application or where you should plan your next vacation without needing a visa, make sure to check out the map of which nation will control your state.

Thinking ahead to the non-existent next election, Sarah Palin will be getting a much closer view of Russia.  However, if she were to use this newfound foreign experience when she runs for President, she would be doing so in Russia, and I doubt the potential for success in that strategy. Still, if she were to be successful, Russia, according to the map, would hold no control over my home state of California, which would effectively choose Chinese control over the potential of any more Sarah Palins coming around.

Otherwise notable is the reclamation of the southwestern territories minus California but plus the South by Mexico, though the Mexican officials might not be in the right state of mind to take full advantage of the seizure for some time.

Also, a large group of Mid-Westerners are going to have to end their dispute with Canada in a fairly embarrassing way.

—-[More after the fold]—-

Of course, this Russian professor probably drew his prediction from my blog from last week, telling tales of global strife and woe being brought on by the barrel-full by the current economic crisis.  Oh, and if you are liable to believe anything that CBS says any more, it’s not getting better any time soon.

Still, I am fairly confident that despite the economic downturn, it truly takes a wishful attitude (on the part of the Russian professor) to predict the disintegration of the United States.  I am willing to admit to deficiencies in my optimism, but not that the entire system that people have lived and died for during the past two hundred-plus years will prefer the control of Mexico, Canada, Japan, or the E.U., not to mention our best-friends Russia and China.  It is indeed a chilling thought, especially with the current financial crisis in the capital of the Californian Republic

What this does expose (as the article mentions) is the level of anti-Americanism that is prevalent in elite Russian circles.  It would seem their greatest hope is to watch the U.S. walk into its own booby-trapped financial system and leave solely Russia as leaders of the newly-freed world.  The Western system created a big economic downturn that swallowed it up, and all that is left is state-centered China and Russia to provide capital to an impoverished world.

The problem is that, from their perspective, we have done nothing to give them any feeling but anti-Americanism.  Of course, there are decades-long enmities that are not solvable by a mere switch to “democracy,” still-fresh wounds of people being acutely aware that at any moment they faced missile attacks from the world’s other pole.  Yet beyond this, it does not seem that the U.S. has done very much to bridge the gap between the two states and begin the process of surmounting this opposition.  Russia feels like the Western powers are cornering it and taking away its influence over its former satellites, and believes that a move toward retrenchment is the only suitable response for a dignified world power in opposition.

It seems to me that there is much room for the new administration to reach out to Russia.  This is a bit of a boiler-plate suggestion, I know, but the opening of a real and constructive dialogue that goes beyond soul searching could be a big step toward making Russia feel less backed into a corner.

This can be difficult: Movements towards democracy or NATO membership in the formerly-Russian satellites should not be threatening if Russia is committed to democracy and freedom, yet the level of crony-ism and state-centered control that is becoming increasingly prevalent is causing a rift with the goals of the Western democracies.  The nostalgia for days of world-domination pictured by the double-headed eagle in Igor Panarin’s office (the Russian professor who made the initial projections) is not going to be satiated until Russia is allowed to prosper again, but with the price of oil down and the U.S. dollar’s influence over that price of oil, Russia has a stake in partnership with the U.S.

As Panarin notes, the failure of the U.S. would not be good for Russia, no matter what its ego assumes.

So the key point is to open dialogue to induce Russia to view its interest over its ego.  If we are in this together and mutually-reliant to a degree, we should act like it.  If our failure means incredible punishment to Russia, then Russia needs to learn to stop wishing for it; if our policies continue to drive other countries from our negotiating table, we are going to find ourselves with no friends in a time of crisis.  Out of none of these situations does anyone benefit.

Though stranger things have happened, I hope that this prediction evidences nothing more than the chasm that has developed between the U.S. and Russia; still, its jarring proposal provides us with an excellent reason to re-evaluate our relations and decide if we really want to set ourselves in opposition to a large portion of the world based on ideological concerns.

I am going to submit this post now, though, because who knows how my new Chinese rulers will react?

It is becoming clear that Iran will not escape the growing global economic crisis unscathed. The LA Times reported on Friday that the Iranian government is seriously considering a $300 million bail-out to help companies that are suffering from the recent drops in oil and commodity prices. The Times reports:

According to a report Tuesday in the daily Kargozaaran, the chief of the Tehran Stock Exchange is pressing the government to put up cash to stop the collapse of the stock market, which has dropped to a five-year low since oil prices began plummeting this fall.

Iran is also struggling with rampant inflation. According to a report by Iran’s Central Bank inflation has risen 25% in the last twelve months and the cost of food and drinks rose 35% in September alone. This rise in the cost of living, combined with wide-spread unemployment, is particularly tough on Iran’s young people. A government report recently found that “a young college graduate had to work and save 40 years in order to be able to afford to buy a first home.”

Economic anxiety among Iranian citizens could play a major role in the upcoming Presidential election. Current President Mahmood Ahmadinejahd has been criticized for his handling of the economy, particularly since up until recently he claimed that Iran would not be affected by the global economic downturn. According to Mohammad Atrianfar, a senior adviser to former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Ahmadinejahd has consistently lied about Iran’s problems with exports, inflation, and employment. Anger over economic mismanagement could definitely hurt Ahmadinejahd at the polls.

Meanwhile, American and European officials are hoping that Iran’s economic troubles will force the regime to take the threat of economic sanctions more seriously. The threat of sanctions, however, is severely undermined by Russia’s opposition to sanctions and its position as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Without Russia’s support, it is almost certain that the Security Council will not be able to approve new sanctions against Iran. An op-ed in yesterday’s New York Times by Oded Eran, Giora Eiland, and Emily Landau offers an interesting solution: a three-way deal between the United States, Russia, and Iran. They propose that the United States should offer to drop its plans for a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and increased scrutiny for Eastern European NATO candidates, in exchange for Russia support of stricter sanctions and its promise to stop providing Iran with conventional weapons. This deal would give the United States increased leverage that it need to negotiate with Iran and convince the regime to suspend its nuclear enrichment program. Iran would therefore be able to save itself from painful sanctions and rejoin the international community in exchange for putting its nuclear dreams on hold.

This is an interesting proposal but it fails to take in to account how wildly popular Iran’s nuclear program is among Iranians, who believe that they have a right to nuclear energy. If Ahmadinejahd, or indeed any politician, were to agree to such a deal, this could severely hurt their chances in the June election. Rather than asking Iran to completely stop its nuclear program , international pressure would be more effective if it held Iran accountable to the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency which has demanded more transparency to determine Iran’s nuclear motives.

As Iranian officials are wondering how to stabilize their faltering economy and American and European officials are wondering if the time is right for renewed economic pressure, one thing is clear: the ramifications of the economic downturn are being felt around the globe and Iran is no exception.

The global financial crisis is highlighting all of the ways in which my new job talking about the BRICs is especially important.

With the world’s economy stumbling, the North-South Axis is becoming much more like the U.S. border than the Berlin Wall–and the South is catching on.

Al Jazeera posted a comprehensive review of recent posturing by the South to advance their concept of a more equal financial system.  Pointing very-insistent fingers at the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the U.S., the countries of the South are claiming this financial crisis as a) the end of the North-South axis or b) a shift in the axis that allows the South to drive the car for a while.

Southern nations are upset that the U.S. has spent decades telling them what to do, and yet still managed to ruin the economy. The obvious conclusion, in their minds, is that these instructions were all bogus, and the system must be completely reevaluated without an anachronistic power structure that disadvantages countries that house most of the world’s people and an increasing amount of the wealth.

In defense of the U.S., it is probably unfair to say that the financial crisis signals the inaccuracy of the “Washington Consensus.” I am no economist, but pro-poor and pro-growth policies coupled with fiscal discipline, privatization of industry, and tax reform seem like good ideas to me.  (Feel free to disagree in the comments!)

Still, it is also true that there were serious flaws in the financial system that allowed people to continue to ignore the obvious threats of sub-prime bundling, and one of the Washington Consensus’ main points–deregulation–probably played some role in this.  (Although some would argue that no regulation would have helped, as much of the lending was done on purpose).

Personally, I don’t find that the system as a whole is completely flawed.  It seems somewhat clear to me on initial inspection that the post-World War II mission to liberalize trade and develop economies around the world has been successful in some large measures, and it is hard to argue the counter-factual that it could have been more successful.

I think that this success is actually becoming the problem. [More after the fold]

The world economic system has had similar goals since the day of its inception, and now that it is achieving some of those goals (the development of middle classes around the world, the improvement of developing country economies into more-developed states) it does not have a mechanism for coping with that success.  The countries, including the U.S., who have been at its helm from the beginning are reluctant to give up their dominant position to allow more members into the club.

The U.S. might profit from a reconciliation at least with the fact that a growing club membership means fewer dues for everyone.  The unipolar world in which the U.S. has dominated since the end of the Cold War has been costly, with the U.S. spending 46% of the world’s military money and having to tackle substantive conflicts, like the Iraq war, on an almost solo basis.

Still, the Southern nations have to back up these leadership aspirations with a commitment to consider themselves developed countries.  Much of the time, the developed countries talk a big game and then expect the U.S. and E.U. to absorb the costs of any development strategy.  Of course, the U.S. and E.U. are in a better position to absorb these costs, but some would argue this also means they should have greater say in dictating the rules.

In all, the world economic structure has to find a way to integrate the newest members of the development club.  The newly-developed members, in turn, need to provide the same leadership they expect of the U.S. to avoid any inter-club rivalries.  As my friend’s mom would point out, the tennis members have a deep-seeded enmity toward the golf members of the country club, and vice versa.  We need to have everyone playing both sports.

—–

And one last thing–As we all know how influential a position the AID Rising Powers blogger is in the foreign policy world, I have a special request to make of these international bodies (who are probably reading this, right???): Please, for me if for no one else, start over and avoid calling each other “G’s” all the time.  Besides the fact that it has already been claimed, it is magnificently uncreative.

In any case, the Rising Powers of the world are making a better case with each passing week for gaining an increasing role in world policy making.  It will be interesting to see how this changes as the crisis unfolds.

—–

Do you think that the G20 countries make a good case for this increasing role?  How should the U.S. respond to these demands?  Should the U.S. relinquish its dominant position, even at potential cost to its citizens?  Sound off in the comments.