The Biochar Blog

Posts Tagged ‘2008’

Description
The United States can’t take meaningful steps toward fighting climate change without finding commercially viable renewable transportation fuels. We know that ethanol derived from corn isn’t the answer, but what is the best alter… More >>

INTRODUCTION

The world has travelled so far a long path from the agrarian level of development, the down south of development, where the level of life was not more than that required for mere subsistence, towards a life full of modernity, sophistication, luxury, satiety, satisfaction and scientific ideology, the high north of development. However, a part of the world comprised of so called developed economies has achieved a lot having reached a distant point on the upper north of development but the bigger part comprised of the so called poor and developing economies is still lagging far behind. These developing economies deserve not for competition with but for help from the developed economies. Therefore, instead of an at par cooperation of ‘equally give and take’ position, a cooperation resulting a net flow of help from the developed to the developing will rather help the latter to cover the gap. Therefore, arrangements like globalisation confined to mere free trade can’t be proved justified because the fruits of such an arrangement can never be distributed equally between developed and developing economies. This was well explained in detail by a number of economists, especially belonging to developing countries, in the later eighties when the developed economies together as a consortium started to blatantly advertise and rather insist the developing economies for coming under the globalization move so that the extra production of developed economies may find market in developing economies. But the voice of those thinkers was lost in the uproar of the initially increasing foreign exchange receipts in developing economies. In addition to this, the behest of IMF and World Bank too made the governments of developing member countries to neglect this type of criticisms.

CONSEQUENCE OF GLOBALISATION

Most of the developing countries accepted and made required changes in their economic policies to lift the trade barriers on their borders and rather to give thrust to the process of globalisation in the beginning of nineties. Thus the protectionism in foreign trade was said good-bye to and the overproduction of developed countries started finding market in the developing countries. There started but two processes, one of which was unwanted and another was unexpected. The unwanted process was that of the infant industries in developing countries becoming unable to compete with the superior quality foreign product coming to their home market. This made them to shrink in the want of adequate market whereby the situation started gaining a formation as if there would have been over production in the developing economies despite the existence of inflationary pressure on account of heavy autonomous investment made by the governments therein. The consequential cut in production of and employment in the infant industries made other industries to apprehend and worry about future economic environment. On the other hand, under the above said unexpected process, some countries like China started currency manipulations based on their  cheaply produced heavy exports mostly of the ‘use & throw’ articles in a well planned way. The previous process instilled a feeling of depressive trend or economic meltdown in developing economies and the latter process rendered rigour to the depressive condition, firstly in the markets of the developing economies by dumping cheap exports therein, and secondly of developed economies by making big dent on their exports meant for releasing or rather defecating depressive pressure towards the markets of developing economies.

PRESENT SITUATION

The two processes discussed above and emerged as the aftermath of globalisation have now brought the world economy at a bi-path juncture of deciding whether the world economy should carry on with the free trade policy under the prevailing globalisation system or the abandoned policy of protective trade should be resorted to for proceeding further on the path of achieving the higher and higher development level of human life. The statement of the newly elected US President, Mr. Obama, regarding the relief in tax burden not extended to the companies practising outsourcing clearly indicates his tending to assimilate to some extent and in some form the policy of protected trade. In response thereto Indian Finance Minister, Mr. Mukharji, has reacted saying that protectionism in any way or in any form would not be accepted in the present globalisation era because it would be against the norms of globalisation. Similar reactions are expected to follow from other corners also. But I think that Mr. Obama will not care such reactions because he is perhaps going to use all ways and means to improve or at least keep prevented from being worsened the unemployment situation in US.

FUTURE PROSPECT

The pressing way of Obama’s making the declaration, the rigour of meltdown situation in US and employment enhancement being the best way of mitigating the rate of falling demand provide sufficient ground to believe that obama would rest stuck with his ideology of placing barriers on the way of US’s service imports like in the form of outsourcing. Once the import through outsourcing is checked other segments of US’s foreign trade also will start demanding protective measures to some extent whereby US government would become unable to prevent the thread of protective measures from being spun further. Other economies, trading with US, will react and ultimately resort to the similar action by protecting their trade in some way and to some extent. If betided so, the return of protectionism would become certain, the system of globalisation would be shattered and US, the globalisation inaugurating country, would be blamed for causing the so downfall of globalisation. With the passing of time protectionism may once more attain fathom to unwanted depth and again the world trade may become badly hit. That would become not lesser ponderable a situation because it would again prevent the world economies from enjoying the advantages of globalisation.

CONCLUSION

The US economy is taken as the leader of world economies that is why it has become the US’s responsibility to decide how to solve the prevailing problem of world depression and to which direction the world economies should be led in future. US should not at all try to get individuated to solve own depression problem leaving other economies aside. If US choose to solve depression problem individually by resorting to protectionism, it will veer the world economy towards the pre-globalisation situation having constricted trade and devoid of globalisation advantages. On the other hand, sticking to absolutely free trade under globalisation will probably either render more rigour to or, at least, be proved immaterial to help the economy come out of the meltdown. Therefore, similarly as in the case of free market capitalism versus fully regulated socialism, neither the prevailing totally free trade under globalisation nor the old and pre-globalisation highly protected trade would be a desirable course. Eventually, I would like to conclude and rather suggest that US should take leading economists and leading economies in confidence and find out a viable and sustainable trade arrangement by deciding the essential dose of protection in the prevailing globalised free trade. The leading economists should decide where, how, to what extent and for what articles tariffs should be imposed in the world economy taking all independent economies as different parts of a single economy. In this way arrived at trade system will not only prove significantly helpful in the struggle against the prevailing world depression 2008 but also prove sustainable for future.

_____________________________________________________________

Biofuels. What a great name! It just sounds green. Looking around I see a proliferation of Biodiesel bumper stickers everywhere I look. In my home state of Oregon all filling stations will be required to add at least 10 % ethanol to all gasoline by next year. Environmentalists are cheering as politicians and the media are jumping onto the Biofuel bandwagon. Sounds like a big win for the environment and society – think again, in reality Biofuels are much more brown than they are green.

Here are five reasons why Biofuels may actually be harmful for the environment:

1. Biofuels are so profitable that rain forest, the most efficient absorber of greenhouse gases, is being cut or burned to grow grains and sugarcane to make ethanol or Biodiesel.

2. Farmers growing highly profitable Biofuel crops are looking for the fastest growth and biggest yields and use heavy amounts of chemical fertilizer; which strips key micronutrients out of our increasingly scarce topsoil, and the nitrogen-rich runoff causes massive algae growth that destroys our streams, rivers and lakes.

3. Because Biofuels are more profitable than food crops large amounts of prime farmland is being devoted to Biofuel production creating grain shortages and increasing the price of grain products, especially in third world countries.

4. Although Biofuels emit less greenhouse gases per gallon than petroleum fuels they still emit significant amounts. Biofuels are also less fuel-efficient. In my vehicle mileage drops substantially when I use a fuel containing ethanol. So, overall Biofuels do not reduce greenhouse emissions nearly as much as claim.

5. This is perhaps the most important reason. To permanently solve both the energy crisis and eliminate greenhouse gas emissions we will have to move away from consumable fuels to toward energy sources that do not consume fuel, emit heat or produce pollutants. At the moment electricity is the cleanest energy source available and companies are beginning to develop and produce powerful electric cars that can go a few hundred miles on a charge. For these vehicles to be practical we will need to establish charging stations in every town and alongside every highway. This requires a massive transition from filling stations to charging stations. The use of Biofuels will perpetuate the existing infrastructure of filling stations and delay the transition to charging stations. The longer we delay this transition the more greenhouse gases will be released into our atmosphere.

At this point some of you might be wondering why our political leadership and big business is so supportive of Biofuels – yet they never even mention electric vehicles. It might be worth your time to see the movie “Who Killed the Electric Car”, which is available on DVD. Click Here to go to their website.

To begin with most big grain producers are large corporate farms with a strong lobbying presence in Washington and a history of making campaign contributions to politicians that support their agendas. Biofuels are big business for these companies.

The auto industry also is heavily involved in politics, lobbying efforts, and campaign contributions. These companies have a big investment in continuing to make internal combustion engines that burn fuels. Moving to electric motors will require major retrofitting for these companies. Biofuels allow them to avoid making this investment.

The petroleum industry has perhaps the most to gain from the implementation of Biofuels. They know that the public will eventually demand a move away from petroleum. All the other solutions will take business away from them. However, they will be refining and distributing Biofuels just like they do with petroleum – and crude Biofuels are cheaper too. So, the petroleum industry stands to make a great deal of money from the distribution of Biofuels.

The petroleum industry makes huge campaign contributions to certain politicians. They have been successful at having many of their supporters and former executives elected and appointed to the highest levels of power in our current administration. It is not surprising that our political leaders are embracing Biofuels.

The solution to both the energy crisis and pollution is to transition to non-consumable fuels. This means solar, geothermal, wind and tidal energy production of electricity. Even nuclear energy could be a viable alternative if spent fuel can be safely transported out of the Earth’s atmosphere using the low-cost rocket technologies recently developed. All of these kinds of energy production are already in use and are becoming cheaper and more efficient every day. We have not yet begun to see the economies of scale and innovation that will make this kind of energy production much cheaper the more that it is developed and used.

At this very moment several companies are planning massive solar energy installations in Arizona, which is beginning to be called the Silicon Valley or Middle East of Solar energy production. Huge wind farms are being planned for the Plains states. We could be only years away from a massive transition to electric vehicles. For this to be successful we need to get big business and our political leadership to focus on this transition. This will take a lot longer if we allow them to remain focused on Biofuels instead.

When comparing non-consumable energy sources to fuel based energy production remember that all fuels must be transported to where they are sold. The transportation of fuels burns more fuel – so these transportation costs must be figured into the numbers used for greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency. Distribution of electricity does involve some energy loss, but it is fractional compared to how much energy is used to transport fuel and does not emit greenhouse gases.

Some of you might be wondering why I have not mentioned hydrogen fuel cells. There are three reasons why: 1. Hydrogen combustion still produces heat, 2. Our engineers still have not figured out how to produce hydrogen without using large amounts of energy to do it, and 3. The other renewal energy sources mentioned earlier have already moved beyond the experimental stage and are in real-world use.

On the Bright Future website we offer a comprehensive discussion about energy and climate. Check out our radio show: Click Understanding Climate Change on the Listen page. On our panel for this discussion is Greg Jones, a distinguished climate scientist from Southern Oregon University. This discussion reveals some of the complexities of properly addressing Climate Change.

World Environment Day, which is commemorated each year on June 5th, is one of the most significant mode through which the United Nations stimulates the global awareness of the environment. It is by this way that the United Nations attract political attention and enhances action to shape a better global environment. Each year the World Environment Day is celebrated in recognition of unique theme. Norway was honored to host International World Environment Day 2007 celebrations in recognition of the theme — ‘Melting Ice – The Hot Topic’. Over a hundred nations across the globe celebrates the World Environment Day with highly relevant theme each year.

The slogan for World Environment Day 2008 is ‘Kick the Habit! Towards a Low Carbon Economy’. With an understanding of the fact that the change in climatic condition is gradually becoming one of the most defining issue of the age, UNEP is requesting the nations, companies and communities to put special focus on the greenhouse gas emissions and to put spare thought over how to reduce them. The World Environment Day 2008 is going to highlight resources and focuses on promoting low carbon economies with a view to shape a better and healthier future. Promoting a low carbon economy involves steps towards improved energy efficiency, alternative energy sources, forest conservation and eco-friendly consumption. The chief international celebration of the World Environment Day 2008 is going to be held in New Zealand.

The Heads of State, Prime Ministers and Ministers of Environment deliver statements and commit themselves to care for this only green planet of the universe. Serious pledges establish sound and non-transitory governmental policies related to environmental management and economic planning. bicycle parades, tree planting , recycling campaigns, clean-up campaigns, street rallies, school level essay and poster competitions etc. are organized all over the world on June 5th to celebrate the World Environment Day.

Here are some information on World Environment Day for the last ten years regarding where the WED celebration was held at and what were the respective themes each year:

Places of celebration:
World Environment Day 2007 – Tromsø, Norway
World Environment Day 2006 – Algiers, Algeria
World Environment Day 2005 – San Francisco, U.S.
World Environment Day 2004 – Barcelona, Spain
World Environment Day 2003 – Beirut, Lebanon
World Environment Day 2002 – Shenzhen, People’s Republic of China
World Environment Day 2001 – Torino, Italy and Havana, Cuba
World Environment Day 2000 – Adelaide, Australia
World Environment Day 1999 – Tokyo, Japan
World Environment Day 1998 – Moscow, Russian Federation

Themes of celebration:
World Environment Day 2007 – Melting Ice – a Hot Topic?
World Environment Day 2006 – Deserts and Desertification – Don’t Desert Drylands!
World Environment Day 2005 – Green Cities – Plan for the Planet!
World Environment Day 2004 – Wanted! Seas and Oceans – Dead or Alive?
World Environment Day 2003 – Water – Two Billion People are Dying for It!
World Environment Day 2002 – Give Earth a Chance
World Environment Day 2001 – Connect with the World Wide Web of Life
World Environment Day 2000 – The Environment Millennium – Time to Act
World Environment Day 1999 – Our Earth – Our Future – Just Save It!
World Environment Day 1998 – For Life on Earth – Save Our Seas