EDITORIAL: Afterthoughts from Foreign Affairs Book Review (Kissinger v Friedberg) 'What China Wants: Bargaining With Beijing', by Andrew J. Nathan

A very interesting review essay by Andrew J. Nathan. Kissinger and Friedberg present two different takes on how Chinese-US relations and its outlook. Kissinger advocates an acceptance of China’s rising, and Friedberg proposes a more defiant US stance.

I’ll let you read the article, and perhaps we’ll all be lucky enough to read the related texts — in addition to Nathan’s own forthcoming book on Chinese security.

The thought in my head, after reading Nathan’s conclusion regarding US strategy (below), has to do with why US may not emphasize human rights as an means to best China…

It is no wonder that Chinese statecraft aims to establish the cultural relativity of human rights and to pose talk of human rights as the enemy of friendship. After all, the failure to respect human rights is a glaring weakness of Chinese power both at home and abroad, whereas promoting human rights has been among the United States’ most successful maneuvers on the wei qi board of world politics. What is surprising is that the United States’ master strategist wants to play this part of the game by Beijing’s rules. Would it not make more sense to emulate Chinese strategy than to yield to it? Emphasizing the principled centrality of the human rights idea to American ideology and keeping the issue active in bilateral relations even though it cannot be solved would seem to be — along with exercising the United States’ strengths in other fields — a good way to set the boundaries within which a rising Chinese power can operate without threatening U.S. interests.

It seems to me that there is not a great deal of unity within the US about how to best go about human rights celebration (or endorsement and support, in general). The country seems to have major rifts on several issues, such as: allowing homosexuals to be in the military, or become married; there is rampant disagreement about abortion (see the Susan G. Komen saga); continuing debate about immigration policy; and, perhaps less directly related, labor unions have come under scrutiny and in many states are facing heavy pressure to disband. This is not to say race relations and religious freedoms/tolerance are completely resolved, either. You could also argue that the economic struggles of the US have flared concerns about the growing wealth gap between rich and poor, and child poverty and related education issues linger (see end of article*).

Considering all these things, the US may not be in as much a position of human rights strength as it would like. Nathan agrees with Friedberg:

In a version of “we have met the enemy and he is us,” Friedberg says that in order to do all this, the United States must restore its economy, keep its scientific edge, protect its advanced technology, and maintain its margin of military advantage.

One can only say amen to the recommendation that the United States pull up its socks…

While I agree that those are worthy (and necessary) endeavors, I would add “strengthening human rights” to that list. It is not the time to rest on the laurels of the past. That said, making progress (or perhaps somehow working towards more national unity) on human rights issues is likely made easier with a robust economy; it’s easier to be enlightened when you are not starving. So perhaps the ultimate foreign policy recommendation for America is to figure out an economic policy that works, first and foremost, as it may be one of the best tools for having a positive influence towards the rest of the world.

(And if you were to ask me what that policy might highlight, I would suggest a very wise energy & resource strategy; a focus on combating structural unemployment; and retooling education - to develop research and technology for the globally competitive future, and for addressing domestic health and aging population. Easier said than done, of course.)

____

For more of my thoughts throughout the week and see what news I’m following, I invite you to join the conversation via Twitter, Facebook, or Tumblr. Or visit my main website, INFLUENCE with Jesse Parent to view Case Studies, Reports, Editorials and more.

____

- - - - - - - - - -

*

Fareed Zakaria via Facebook: ….We know that we have an education problem with the poor. Seventy-seven percent of our kids who entered high school graduated. Compare that with other rich countries: 90% in Switzerland, 91% in the UK, 93% in Finland and 97% in Germany. Studies show that dropouts are twice as likely to slip into poverty than high school graduates.

Children in extreme poverty do badly even when they are smart. A recent U.S. study tracked a group of eighth-graders in 1988. It found that students who did very well on a standardized test but were poor were less likely to get through college than their peers who tested poorly but were well-off.

The sad part is, these statistics are reversible. Compare child poverty rates in America and the UK. You’ll see that the UK’s rates were halved within a decade from the mid-1990s. The U.S. has actually risen since then.

There’s no secret sauce. Tony Blair’s Labour government simply made reducing child poverty a priority through various programs.

… (See Zakaria’s GPS Blog here)

Definitely worth looking into….

In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.

For comparison’s sake, using the same method, beginning in 2001 and ending in 2009, George W. Bush added more than $5 trillion to the deficit.

What is often assumed in this conversation is that all deficit spending is equal and all of it is bad. That’s not the case. Deficit spending when the economy is growing is different from deficit spending when the economy is in crisis.

Operation Sustainability: U.S. Military Sets Ambitious Environmental Goals

DoD understands the energy crunch…

With personnel nearly the population of Chicago and a fleet of over 500,000 aircrafts, vessels, and vehicles, the U.S. Department of Defense is a massive and energy-hungry institution.

In 2009 alone, the military consumed some 375,000 barrels of oil per day, more than three-quarters of all other countries on the planet. To put that in perspective, Nigeria — with a population of more than 140 million — consumes about the same amount.

During the decades of cheap fuel and easy access, feeding this complex system spread over 820 global installations was of little concern. In today’s economic climate, however, the Department of Defense (DoD) has had to adapt its energy strategy.

“The stakes could not be higher,” Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said in a statement earlier this year. “Energy reform will make us better fighters. In the end, it is a matter of energy independence and it is a matter of national security. Our dependence on foreign sources of petroleum makes us vulnerable in too many ways.”

According to a recent report by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the DoD is taking aim at its annual $15 billion energy budget with a focus on efficiency and development of renewable, clean fuels — three areas that are pivotal in the race to create a more efficient fighting force and strengthen America’s energy independence.

THE AGE OF DOMESTIC BIOFUELS

As the world’s largest single consumer of liquid fuels, the DoD is taking ambitious steps to source alternatives. The Obama administration recently announced a joint partnership between private-sector companies, the Department of Agriculture, U.S. Navy, and the Department of Energy to invest $510 million in biofuel production over three years. …

EIA: How many/what kind of power plants in USA?

Want some stats? Here you go.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/table1.2.pdf states there are over 5K natural gas generators as top source in number of plants as well as nameplate capacity; coal is second in capacity, but conventional hydroelectric is second in generator numbers.

The capacity of fossil fuel plants far outweighs that of renewable plants, at this time…

How many and what kind of power plants are there in the United States?

There are about 18,000 individual generators at about 5,800 operational power plants in the United States with a nameplate generation capacity of at least one MegaWatt. A power plant can have one or more generators, and some generators may use more than one type of fuel.

Learn More:

Electric Power Annual 2010, Table 1.2: Capacity by Energy Source and Table 5.1: Count of Electric Power Industry Power Plants, by Sector, by Predominant Energy Sources within Plant. (Some plants are double-counted by fuel type in Table 5.1.)

Downloadable databases with detailed data on individual generators and power plants.

Last updated: December 21, 2011

State of The Union 2012 & Energy (KeystoneXL Saga: #4)

So a number of different takes on Obama’s SOTU. I’m not surprise by his approach, and I generally support how he attempted to handle balance dirty energy and clean energy. I still maintain the he will allow Keystone XL to happen, although after the next election; it’s too big of a resource to not happen, and I think him delaying it so long will eventually help his credibility about caring for the environment. It’s difficult in the US to talk seriously and be realistic about energy needs in the US and I see his approach as an unpopular one if you were to directly ask “average joe of either party”, but I think he’s trying to tightrope a very difficult path towards being an energy realist, without hurting anyone’s feelings too much. Not an enviable position, for sure.

This is an update from a previous position I held, that Obama was being far too indirect about energy needs and resources and abilities… but at least now the ‘indirectness’ seems appropriate, or perhaps even necessary, at this stage. The US is, IMO, much like a young person coming to terms with reality, in regard to a nation-wide energy discussion. It is still mainly dominated by it’s overbearing parents (Big Oil) in terms of how reality is viewed, and it’s also starting to question the idealism of rushing towards green energy, or putting all its faith in Big Oil. There is more of a warped polarization still lingering than not, but I appreciate how Obama attempted to frame things in this years SOTU. Definitely still not where the US needs to be to be competitive and sustainable in terms of energy, but at least a step in the right direction.

Links below:

(Main link from the legendary Oil Drum website)

You can see a lot of backlash from GOP about Keystone XL here (Bloomberg). I’m personally not convinced that KXL would be the greatest thing we could do for our economy - the actual jobs created by it depends on a lot of things. Doing something a lot harder, like actually producing people with the skills to do tech jobs that are needed (and are also globally competitive) is going to do a lot more for this and the next (and the past, perhaps) generation, economically, than the creation of one pipeline. We need an army of engineers and scientists and high tech manufacturers, period.

“The president should — I call it a conditional yes — say, ‘Yes, TransCanada, if you’re willing to move forward and take a risk that Nebraska will get it done,’ which we will, ‘you go ahead and start building from our northern border and our southern border,’” [Nebraska Governor] Heineman said.

I think Gov Heineman’s approach may be a useful one and one that is ultimately adopted. I think the economic pressure from both Canada and the US, combined with real energy needs, is more or less an unstoppable force. And as mentioned above, I would guess Obama is aware of this and trying to find the best time to let it blossom. The ideal time for him will likely be after he is elected, or, perhaps, making an announcement of some sort, like Heineman suggested, before the election this November.

State owned Chinese energy companies are not pouring billions of dollars into developing Alberta’s oil sands so more synthetic crude or bitumen can be sent to refineries in Cushing, Oklahoma. While the sudden about turn by the Obama Administration may have been a rude awakening for some folks in Calgary’s Petroleum Club, in the end it only serves to reroute Canadian oil to where world markets will ultimately dictate that it flow.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper once remarked it was a no brainer for the Keystone XL pipeline to connect Alberta oil sand product to supply U.S. markets. Looking at geography, it is easy to understand the remark. But looking at where market growth will occur, the Prime Minister’s sentiments are misguided.

U.S. gasoline consumption continues to fall, and it is now down to the lowest levels in more than a decade. The future of the oil sands lies with the growth of oil demand in Asian markets, not in American ones. And that future, more than any regulatory decision in either the United States or Canada , will depend on the price of oil.

I think this article has significance in describing the overall trend of the oil market and Asia’s development, but I am not so sure that Canada would give the US the cold shoulder about other projects. I would guess anyone paying attention to the vast politicization of Keystone XL, with an intent to understand ‘why’ things are playing out this way — like a rather arbitrary and easily overturnable 60 day deadline pressed by Congress during the US payroll tax debate — would realize there is more going on than mere “interest” or lack there of. If anything, I’d suspect — just like with the US potentially not raising its debt ceiling last year — the US’s lack of cohesiveness makes it a questionable trading partner more than anything else.

Just another reason for the US to continue to its struggles toward having a realistic energy dialogue take place amongst its people.

“The Republican narrative is that Obama is shoveling huge amounts of money to his cronies in the renewable industry, and blocking the real energy that American needs,” Slocum said in an interview. “It’s a false narrative. The administration has been focused on green energy, but they haven’t been against fossil fuels.”

It is a false narrative, but, the claims that Obama instilled a resurgence in US natural gas also are false. I think the amount you view Obama as ‘taking credit’ for the natural gas boom in US depends somewhat on your party alignment.

“The losses due to the Obama administration’s death-grip on offshore drilling and its unwillingness to open federal lands or issue timely permits for exploration far outweigh any energy gains that the White House may tout this week,” Thomas Pyle, president of the Washington-based Institute for Energy Research, said in a statement.

Also, curiously, the day after the State of the Union address, Democrats from the committe on Energy & Commerce are requesting testimony from the Koch Industries et al about KXL.

Today Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Bobby L. Rush, John D. Dingell, Edward J. Markey, Eliot L. Engel, Lois Capps, Mike Doyle, Charles A. Gonzalez, and Kathy Castor sent a letter to Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield to request at least one additional day of hearings on draft legislation to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to approve the Keystone XL pipeline, pursuant to rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. The members are requesting testimony on the pipeline from Koch Industries and other federal agencies to fully understand the effects of the proposed legislation. The members emphasized that the hearing should be scheduled prior to a Subcommittee markup of the legislation.

Finally, for now, Obama surprised me with citing this curious bit of information:

In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama referred to the findings of a Breakthrough Institute investigation, which found that 30 years of federal funding led to the shale gas revolution.

“It was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years,” said the president, “that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock — reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.”

Although I’m not sure if the Breakthrough Institute was ‘the source’ for such findings for Obama, it was a great source for me in looking into the subsidizing that lead to our current state of shale gas production.

I think making remarks like that - about subsidy, and (below) about the problems that come with developing new energy technologies - show a somewhat more matured stance on addressing energy issues with the US public. It’s not great, but perhaps adequate for now, and may help put things like “Solyndra” into more perspective, hopefully leading to less polarized politicization of energy talk, and more understanding, more context:

Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these
public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies
don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the
promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like
Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China
or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough.
It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely
been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry
that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and
create these jobs.

Marcellus Shale estimates cut by 66%

Cutting the potential output as being able to supply the US for 6 years instead of 18? Ouch. On the other hand, perhaps this will be good news for renewable energy R&D.

The U.S. Energy Department cut its estimate for natural gas reserves in the Marcellus shale formation by 66 percent, citing improved data on drilling and production.

About 141 trillion cubic feet of gas can be recovered from the Marcellus shale using current technology, down from the previous estimate of 410 trillion, the department said today in its Annual Energy Outlook. About 482 trillion cubic feet can be produced from shale basins across the U.S., down 42 percent from 827 trillion in last year’s outlook.

“Drilling in the Marcellus accelerated rapidly in 2010 and 2011, so that there is far more information available today than a year ago,” the department said. The estimates represent unproved technically recoverable gas. The daily rate of Marcellus production doubled during 2011.

The estimated Marcellus reserves would meet U.S. gas demand for about six years, using 2010 consumption data, according to the Energy Department, down from 17 years in the previous outlook.

The Marcellus Shale is a rock formation stretching across the U.S. Northeast, including Pennsylvania and New York. Shale producers use a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, which involves pumping water, sand and chemicals underground to extract gas embedded in the rock.

"The Perils of 2012", brief by Joseph E. Stiglitz

A look ahead at 2012. I like the angles the author addresses. If he spoke more directly about the global energy crunch, it might be similar to something I’d write if I were to speak about the upcoming year. Those great Columbia economists (Jagdish Bhagwati, Jeff Sachs…), they seem to know what’s cooking. Maybe I’ll work with them someday, down the road…

From Project Syndicate

Even without widening the fiscal deficit, such “balanced budget” increases in taxes and spending would lower unemployment and increase output. The worry, however, is that politics and ideology on both sides of the Atlantic, but especially in the US, will not allow any of this to occur. Fixation on the deficit will induce cutbacks in social spending, worsening inequality. Likewise, the enduring attraction of supply-side economics, despite all of the evidence against it (especially in a period in which there is high unemployment), will prevent raising taxes at the top.

Even before the crisis, there was a rebalancing of economic power – in fact, a correction of a 200-year historical anomaly, in which Asia’s share of global GDP fell from nearly 50% to, at one point, below 10%. The pragmatic commitment to growth that one sees in Asia and other emerging markets today stands in contrast to the West’s misguided policies, which, driven by a combination of ideology and vested interests, almost seem to reflect a commitment not to grow.

As a result, global economic rebalancing is likely to accelerate, almost inevitably giving rise to political tensions. With all of the problems confronting the global economy, we will be lucky if these strains do not begin to manifest themselves within the next twelve months.

US State of The Union Address, by President Barack Obama.

Miss it? Aired yesterday.

Beyond Hype, a Closer Look at New York’s Choice on Shale Gas By ANDREW C. REVKIN

Close to home, definitely an important issue…

Beyond Hype, a Closer Look at New York’s Choice on Shale Gas
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
More than 40,000 comments have been submitted to New York State aimed at shaping how Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo deals with the huge natural gas resource locked in the state’s portion of sprawling geological formations known as the Marcellus Shale and Utica Shale.

The comments are not publicly viewable at this point. (You can submit a Freedom of Information Law request for an eventual CD, I was told.) But any quick sift of the Web provides a pretty solid sense of the range of views — from environmentalists pursuing an outright ban on hydraulic fracturing and related processes, widely called fracking, to landowners seeking the freedom to benefit from their mineral rights. There was a fresh anti-gas rally in Albany this morning, focused on passing bills (sponsored by lawmakers representing New York City constituents far from the resource) that would limit the governor’s ability to move ahead.

Here’s some background behind the shouting:

The comments submitted to the state by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (online here) are particularly useful to explore. The E.P.A. stance could be characterized as concerned but supportive, which is a strong contrast from the agency’s tougher stance in 2009, as described in a recent post on the Politics on the Hudson blog. I also encourage you to read coverage from Brian Nearing of the Albany Times Union. One concern from the agency is over how the state and industry will work out how to pay for the cost of overseeing the gas extraction.

…

In order to stay competitive in a global age, we must invest in our future by ensuring Americans have the right education and skills to realize their full potential and drive our nation’s economic success. We must start by transforming our education system from preschool through K-12, especially in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education. We must also ensure that our higher education and professional training programs are better aligned to meet student needs. These measures will create a purposeful educational system that produces work-ready graduates, satisfied employers with access to a talented labor pool, and a vibrant economy poised for growth and success.

Prepare the American Workforce to Compete in the Global Economy

(Source: jobs-council.com)