LyrArc Article Gist
These are key provisions in the biggest climate change bill in history- Tax credits that last for over a decade for zero carbon plants- these tax credits go to companies that build new sources of emissions free electricity, for wind turbines, solar panels, battery storage, geo thermal plants. Tax credits also for new technologies that capture and bury carbon dioxide from natural gas plants and industrial facilities before it escapes into the atmosphere and heats the planet. This technology is rarely used because of high costs. Incentives for electric vehicles- It extends a tax credit of $7500 for new electric vehicles. It adds a $4000 tax credit for used electric vehicles. Tax credit goes only to people earning $150,000 a year (300,000 for joint filers) for new EV's and $75,000 (150,000 for joint filers) for used EV's. Help for people to lower energy costs - $9 billion in rebates for Americans installing energy efficient electrical appliances. And a decade of tax credits for Americans installing rooftop solar, heat pumps, water heaters and electric HVAC, or electric heating, air conditioning and ventilation technologies. Investments in Domestic Manufacturing- $60 billion for investments in clean energy manufacturing in the US. This includes $30 billion for production tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and critical minerals processing. $10 billion in investment tax credits to build manufacturing facilities for electric cars and renewable energy technologies. This action is to halt the shifting of clean energy manufacturing overseas to China. $27 billion towards a green bank that would finance clean energy projects in disadvantaged communities. Cracking down on Methane- the bill places a fine on methane gas emissions from oil and gas wells and pipelines and other infrastructure. Fees of $900 per metric ton in 2024 and $1500 a metric ton in 2026 when it exceeds federally set limits.    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Mette Fredericksen, Social Democratic party prime minister of Denmark has made it very clear that she believes who is hurt most by migrant families coming to Europe is the working class. Years of austerity policies and other policies that hurt working class families that struggled with the cost of living and loss of jobs shifted overseas were pushed by parties that were elected for opposing such migrants and migrant friendly policies.   Under Merkel there was with a migrant friendly policy the neglect of infrastructure, neglect of childcare and social goals to help working class families, and neglect of the needed action to tackle climate change. Only in the last 2 years of her administration did Merkel realize that this policy was misconceived and reversed it leading to a dramatic decline in such migrants coming to Germany. Policies were shifted to work with African countries to promote development and security, so that the conditions such as wars and economic crises could be prevented and managed in Africa. Countries such as China and India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, are living proof that development works and what is needed is not working class in Europe paying a price for failed policies in Africa but tackling the situation in Africa and parts of Asia with the right kind of development assistance where the migrants originate.  Mette Fredericksen was one of the first European leaders to lead a large delegation of Danish business and logistics leaders from companies such as Maersk that visited India in 2021, with the goal of expanding trade and business with India. Especially in upgrading logistics for a country of 1.2 billion that is promoting Made in India for the world. This is the kind of collaborative action that Fredericksen is taking in the international sphere that is helping world progress during the pandemic.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
China's strategy for climate change action makes allowance for the need for coal as base energy, and insurance to prevent factory shutdowns from shortfalls of hydroelectric energy in drought seasons. It planned 80GW in 2024 for new coal powered plant construction. 

What should the US do? DJT and Republicans including North Dakota Governor Borghum say the US should also make some room for this in transition policy. DJT calls it "drill baby drill." Yet it is more nuanced than that, it means US will produce natural gas to supply Europe and keep gas and electricity prices down as a cost of living action. DJT knows industry has already put in plans for renewable energy production, it just won't be accelerated in ways that won't let the US economy grow. This is the rational for Alaska oil and gas and rare minerals policies shown alongside this article.

LyrArc Article Gist
The World Health Organization lists the world's most polluted cities with the highest level of PM2.5 particulate matter as 1. Kanpur, India     173 2. Faridabad          172 3.  Varanasi            151 4.  Gaya                  149 5. Patna                   144 6.  Delhi                    143 7.  Lucknow                 138 8.  Agra                        131 9.  Muzzaffarpur           120 10.  Srinagar                113 11.   Gurgaon                113 12.  Jaipur                     105 13.  Patiala                      101 14.  Jodhpur                     98 15.  li Subah ali Salem      94 A look at the cities most polluted shows that most of the cities are in or near New Delhi, (Gurgaon, New Delhi, Faridabad, Agra) in the state of Uttar Pradesh (Lucknow, Kanpur, Varanasi, Agra). The cities on the list that one does not expect are cities such as Jodhpur in the Thar desert, and Srinagar in the mountainous region of Kashmir. Srinagar is on the list because of inadequate sewage facilities to treat sewage. The Dal lake is polluted from houseboats and tourist hotels dumping sewage into the lake and not connecting to the sewage system. Jodhpur is polluted from auto exhaust and vehicular pollution.. The WHO says India's efforts to control pollution need to follow the steps taken by China recently. In response to citizen pressure and outrage about health conditions China has closed down polluting factories, and is shifting away from coal, away from coal stoves. India's efforts are inadequate and scattered says the WHO. This includes stopping fireworks sales that aggravated toxic conditions in Delhi. A program giving 37 million poor Indian women free gas connections helps a shift from use of dung fired clay ovens or coal ovens. Pollution kills 7 million people each year says WHO, and over half or 3.8 million people die from use of unhealthy cooking stoves which create indoor air pollution. Of cities above 14 million Delhi ranks first, Cairo, Egypt second, Mumbai, India fourth and Beijing fifth in air pollution levels.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump's executive order reversing parts of the Clean Power Plan of president Obama may extend the life of older coal powered plants, but overall it is unlikely to change the shift away from coal for the U.S. utility industry. It will do little to reverse the market forces that are leading to a shift to natural gas for the utility industry with the increasing availability of natural gas. In this WSJ report Cassandra Sweet cites Duke Energy Corp. CEO Lynn Good, who says natural gas for Duke will be the leading fuel followed by coal by 2026, and natural gas now makes up 28% of its mix with coal at 34%. He says a $11 billion ten year investment in natural gas and renewable energy will go through regardless of what the Trump administration does because of the economics- the declining price of renewables, the competitive price of natural gas. Companies are loath to base their long term plans on changes in administration as they see the economics dictated by advances in technology, and the general sense that cleaner energy is here to stay for the long run. Already in the U.S. 34% of total power supplies are from natural gas and 30% from coal for 2016, according to the U.S. Energy Department. This may change slightly as coal is used where it is economical and makes sense without the carbon rules, yet the long term trend is clearly towards natural gas. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Joe Biden was about 78 when he entered the presidency. Reagan ended his presidency at age 79 in 1989. It is about 35 years since Reagan, and advances of medicine are making it possible for people to work longer with retirement ages extended to age 65 in many countries. Mr. Biden looks healthy and brings much experience from his decades in the Senate of the US. His 36 years in the Senate are the longest for any president. Turning 80 should not be a hurdle in that sense if one is healthy and the country needs this experience. During a foreign affairs crisis with China and Russia this experience of 12 years as ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is invaluable. More so as Biden reflects America's values. During his 36 years in the Senate he put forward the Violence Against Women's legislation in Congress. As Vice President he continued to advocate for working class and middle class and for families. One has to go back to Harry Truman to sense this kind of fervent and resolute action for workers and families, and for the American people. As president he passed the $1 trillion legislation for Workers and Families and to fight Climate Change. Building America Back Better is one of its goals and further investment in America and its people is being pushed forward.  Mr. Biden is living at a time when there is a struggle for the soul of the nation and he believes in his role in this struggle which gives him the energy he needs for his role in 2024 for continuing the work he has begun. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jaishankar was asked at the 2021 GLOBSEC conference in Bratislava in 2021 why he thinks anyone will help India in case of a problem with China after it did not help others for Ukraine. Chancellor Scholz of Germany cites Indian Foreign Minister Jasihankar's remarks in Bratislava, Slovakia, in 2021. Jaishankar said- "Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems, but the world's problems are not Europe's problems. That is if it is you it's yours, if it is me it is ours. I see reflections of that. There is a linkage today which is being made. A linkage betwen China and India and what's happening in Ukraine. Chia and India happened way before anything happened in Ukraine. The Chinese do not need a precedent somewhere else on how to engage us or not to engage us or be difficult with us or not to be difficult with us." These are Scholz's remarks at the Munich Security Conference. Scholz says Jaishankar has "a point."  "This quote from the Indian Foreign Minister is included in this year's Munich Security Report and he has a point it would't be Europe's problem alone if the law of the strong were to assert itself in international relations." To be credible European or North American in New Delhi or Jakarta, it is not enough to emphasize shared values. "We generally have to address the interests and concerns of these countries as a basic prerequisite for joint action. And that's why it was so important to me to not merely have representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America at the negotiating table during the G-7 Summit last June. I really wanted to work with these regions to find solutions to the main challenges they face growing poverty and hunger, partly as a consequence of Rusia's war, as well as the impact of climate change or COVID-19. There is another side to this -Scholz and Germany's president Frank Walter-Steinmeier are from the social Democrats party which has sought closer cooperation with Russia, and also carry a great deal of ambivalence for the war. America is not fighting this indirect war in its neighborhood, Germany is. And some of the roots of this conflict go back to the Napoleonic invasion of Russia in the 1800's period and the German invasion in the 1940's. Macron is even more ambivalent in his position and he has remained this way from the beginning- not committed to humiliating Russia. In a way it is the position of the Social Democrats from the historical context of Germany's invasion of Russia, and Christian Democrats eagerness to create a German recovery with low cost Russian energy that created the dependence that Russia sought to use. In what it sees as the unfairness of NATO being allowed to expand right next to its borders. Because of a sense of righteousness on both sides- Russia of the Soviet period failing to see the feelings of a Budapest in 1956, East Berlin in 1953, and Prague in 1968, sees little wrong in an invasion of Kviv. And with it all the biography of Brezhnev the last leader of the Soviet Union, describes that very struggle in the Great Patriotic War the soviets fought against Nazi Germany which was fought by Ukrainians including Leonid Brezhnev with great will and purpose against all odds.  Cambridge historian has written the history of Europe that Scholz is cited to be reading in 2021- Europe The Struggle for Supremacy 1453 to the Present.  It shows Europe since 1453 engaging in balance of power of European powers, Sweden Denmark, Russia, Austria, Germany, France, Britain, Turkey, continually for 500 years. Europe simply forgot its own history. Asia including Japan, China, Indonesia and India, simply emerging from the situation of falling behind in science, technology, and the industrial revolution and building their economies with the help of the US since the Meiji Restoration in Japan in 1868. The Balance of Power Simms says was maintained for 500 years is simply based on no country allowed to act with impunity, no country allowed to do whatever it wanted because of its position of strength at that moment or period of time. In that situation all other powers regrouped to keep the balance from being upset. The war in Ukraine is also likely to end in a way that is consistent with that which Brendan Simms writes about because this has not changed now for over 500 years. Biden knows this and it has fallen on America to shoulder the burden for this in the last 150 years, Scholz is aware of this, Modi in India sees this, and Jinping in China realizes this even with its concerns about Taiwan.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Robert Stavins of the environmental economics program at Harvard is cited in this NYT article by Coral Davenport. Stavin says that even with the change in policy favoring fossil under Trump administration the trend is towards using less fossil fuel and this trend is unlikely to change. This makes the claims of Trump that half a million jobs can be created with less regulation of the coal industry and shale oil industry, less likely. Industry is shifting away from coal for economic reasons and investors preferences, say experts. At the same time the progress away from fossil fuels is likely to be inadequate to avoid the worst effects of global warming, says Stavins. The change by industry is reflected in the decisions made by executives such as Nicholas Akins at American Electric Power, Ohio based electric power company. Akins tells NYT that he is making decisions for power generation 20, 30 and 40 years from now, and this assumes some form of carbon control. He says no question but that industry will move forward with cleaner energy and that means closing large coal facilities. The incoming Trump administration does not affect his policy. Another factor away from coal is dictated by economics- the availability of cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing. Incentives for renewable sources such as wind, solar, are not likely to change either say experts, because the solar panels and wind turbines are made in Republican and Democratic favoring districts and have support of Republicans in places like Arizona, Texas and Kansas. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Following the executive order by U.S. president Trump reversing Obama administration policies on climate change and clean energy, BBC correspondent points out that the strategy of the Trump administration and Republicans is to change the narrative to job creation and with court challenges let the Clean Power plan be delayed. This would be followed by a different plan with less regulation of the coal industry. The clean energy policies were unpopular in states where Republicans had support.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. president Trump signs an executive order on March 28, 2017, reversing the American commitment to the Paris climate change agreement. The executive order also lifts a moratorium on the sale of coalmining leases on federal lands. The Obama administration 2015 clean power plan was designed to restrict greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. It was blocked by courts in 2016. Trump says he is reversing president Obama's war on coal. Earlier he approved the Keystone pipeline for bringing oil from oil sands in Canada to the U.S.. Under the Paris agreement the U.S. agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26-28% by 2025 from 2005 levels. Market changes including the availability of cheap natural gas from technology advances fracking and hydraulic fracturing is leading a shift away from coal, apart from Obama administration regulations. Another factor is the long term trend towards cleaner energy, with large energy producers such as American Electric Power and other companies planning for the long term which is likely to be in the direction of cleaner energy. These companies see the Trump administration changes as a situation that may not be for the long term. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The US needs good manufacturing jobs for the jobs and income that it brings into communities, and also because of the tax revenues from the companies making products in America that provide the basis for local governments to provide good public services in healthcare, education, and transportation. To say comparitive advantage that helped first Japanese and now Chinese manufacturers is real and how society gains is to deny some basic facts that are self evident from observation that contradict textbook ideas in economics. Comparitive Advantage is a textbook economics concept that says countries are proficient in what they make best and should specialize in that product. But it is a static concept that exists only in textbooks. If Japan in 1960, China in 1980 and India in 2000 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making steel and remained makers of lower end products such as footwear and textiles. If Japan in 1980, China in 2000, and India in 2020 were each presented with this idea they would have turned down the idea of making semiconductors and remained makers of lower end products such as steel. A senior vice president of US Steel in the late 1960's even told this writer a graduate student at Northwestern in Chicago- as the US can make steel better than India or China let us keep making it for you. He and much of the business faculty at Northwestern also could not understand in 1970 why Airbus was being setup to compete with Boeing who by the concept of comparitive advantage should have had the whole market to itself for commercial aircraft . By this kind of thinking Airbus would not exist today because it did not have the lowest cost or the manufacturing technologies Boeing had through its vast manufacturing operation. America would be still the only one making aircraft in 2023 if textbook concepts ruled the day. By indirect methods such as hidden preferential arrangements, provision of inputs such as land, capital and labor, tax relief, the costs can be represented in a way that shows it is cheaper to manufacture overseas. The lack of a level playing field is what president Biden is correcting by doing what first Japan, then South Korea, then China and now India are doing since the 1960's. By 1974 in four years after its founding in 1970 Airbus came up with its first model the A-300 using advanced technologies. America will regain its leadership in the cost and manufacturing of many products through Biden policy and the efforts of American companies by 2030, and do this in a transformative way that will benefit the world as a whole.  It is an enormous error to say the US does not need good manufacturing jobs, that local governments do not need the tax revenues from manufacturing plants to build services for communities where manufacturing workers live, and the US does not need the manufacturing experience curve that leads to reduced costs. It is this loss of the manufacturing experience curve that is the most vital aspect for understanding the need for the US government to compete effectively with the governments of Asian countries to keep manufacturing healthy and strong at home. Economics experts ignorant of how important this science and engineering principle is fail to grasp this. Related to this is the idea of a virtuous cycle in manufacturing- whoever braves the hard years of moving up the learning and experience curve gets rewarded because once that country has mastered that skill it gets better an better as the technology advances- making it harder and harder to prevent a new monopoly in manufacturing by the country (Japan, China or Taiwan) that had the highest costs and the least advantage ten or 20 years earlier but just persevered through it all with the government's help to gain cost competitiveness. This part does not make it into the economics textbooks which are mostly theory and much of it outdated by the time they are written. Observation is the best teacher and guide as it is in science, to guide policy and action. Obsessive attachment to theory that ignores observation becomes the enemy of progress. Comparitive advantage is one concept that needs to be retired even from the textbooks. Overseas manufacturing then is a piece of the overall picture that fits into what is good for the US. Macroeconomic principles determine microeconomic outcomes as opposed to microeconomic principles with companies out on their own being forced to compete without a level playing field, or handing out technology for special status in a recipient country as some do putting the US at a macroeconomic disadvantage. This is also healthy for the recipient country overseas, as recrimination with loss of manufacturing jobs in the US inevitably leads to the kind of recrimination that does not serve either country well as in the case of China today, and worse still can lead to conflict, even war. After the egregious situation of loss of manufacturing communities across the US leading to destabilizing the social fabric, it is hard to see such thinking prevail about the US not needing manufacturing as a vital part of its social fabric and industrial strength. China, it can be said, would have developed, and developed well over the past two decades without overconcentration of US and EU manufacturing in China. Without aggravating the problems of climate change and contamination of air, land and water, and destabilizing the social fabric in the US hurting workers and communities across the US, if macroeconomic policy was made to manage this process in the US government without it being left entirely to individual companies to decide. Instead China faces today a difficult situation through events such as destabilizing the social fabric in the US (the Trump tariffs), advanced economies in G-7 resistance to sharing of technologies, the damage to its environment from microeconomic locally determined policy at individual companies, and the global effects of climate change from climate unsustainable levels of growth since 2000.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
India and China agree to a legally binding deal on climate change and emissions that would be drafted by 2015, and take effect in 2020. This would bring them in line with or symmetrical with the U.S. and European countries for controlling emissions.

LyrArc Article Gist
China's production of 300 gigawatts of soalr and other renewable energy in 2023 makes it possible for the country to achieve earlier emissions reduction than planned, says this report in WSJ. Of this 217 gigawatts are solar and 77 gigawatts are wind. Such is the investment China is making that it showed an increase in solar energy of 55%. The increase was itself more the solar energy installed in the US, for 500 million solar panels. At this rate China can meet its entire increase in electricity demand each year from solar and wind, other renewables. This is the kind of story that should be given prominence because it puts the fight against climate change in the right direction with aggressive climate change action coming from China, the largest user of coal.

LyrArc Article Gist
Under new proposed changes carbon emissions permits would be sold to industry and heavier polluters would have to pay more. And to make it fair to European companies exporters in other countries like China would have to buy these carbon permits to be able to export to Europe. There is similiar discussion about this in the USA which expects caps on greenhouse gas emissions in a few years. These changes wouldn't go into effect till 2013 at the earliest and industry will be trying to create a level playing field by then. Countries like China and India because they are developing have been exempt from the greenhouse caps under the Kyoto Protocol which expire 2012. Under the Kyoto Protocol which Europe signed and the USA did not sign, European companies are giving carbon permits free to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas every year, the heavier polluters have to buy the permits from the ones that pollute less creating an incentive for companies to reduce emisssions.

LyrArc Article Gist
In this WSJ report a top American Defense Department official before resigning says- "I have no problem with feeding China or trading with China. I have a problem with arming China." Advanced or sensitive manufacturing technology is still being approved for export to China says this report in WSJ, even as the US perceives this to be a national security threat. Experts say the Commerce Department report approval process needs overhaul and the US needs close coordination with the European Union on this process. Of the total US $124 billion in exports to China in 2020 only half of one percent needed a license Commerce Department data reviewed by WSJ shows. Of that small fraction of one half percent Commerce Department approved 2562  applications or 94%. This even includes array of semiconductors, aerospace components, artificial intelligence technologies that could be added to China's military. This means that even towards the end of the Trump administration with its talk about national security threats, through the four years 2016-2020, nothing much happened in this important field.  The difficulty that the Trump administration faced and America faces is putting company and business interests first or American security interests and retaining competitive technological advantage interests first. American administrations and business have consistently failed to follow what plain ordinary Americans understand by America first. Even when it is clearly evident that America is handing over sensitive advanced technologies with very little in return, and creating out of nowhere competition that poses serious risks for the national interest, business and administrations operate indifferent to the national interest. Even right into the period when this is making the world a riskier and more dangerous place.   This is the state of affairs today, and the situation is not about Congressmen visiting Taiwan or ships going through the seas in that region, or international law. All that is American policy  and is well known and well understood. What is missing is the right action and the right determination behind other action that is sending a different message at the same time -that the US is oblivious to its own interests. That administrations, even those such as the recent Republican one under Mr. Trump, see a higher priority in following American business wherever it goes in pursuit of individual company interests alone, even if it does not accord with the national interest. Lobbying groups distort what policy should be in the public interest and in the interest of both countries, leading to a breakdown in the whole process itself whenever governments surrender their role of protecting the public interest.  Outshoring manufacturing was bad economically at the level of communities across the US, leading to divisions that weakened the country in the last decade, it was also bad for the economy of the country with loss of the best manufacturing jobs, beyond what economists in their ignorance of the big picture sought to show was the consumer- often the same person who lost a job or stopped seeking work- paying less. It was bad also for China as it created the hyper growth that rapidly contaminated land, air and water and created an inherently unstable relationship in trade with destruction of jobs at a pace that America had not faced with Japan and with which it could not cope. Could a pace that worked for both nations have worked? At the root is the notion that business knows best even if it is in plain sight to every plain American that the country's most advanced technologies are being shipped out. Governments do not fulfill their responsibilities and fail when they fail to tell business what rules are in the public interest, as it was never in the first role of business to protect the public interest. That the European Union has simply followed the US in this has created a problem for both the US and the European Union of deviating from what plain Americans or Europeans see as abundantly clear.  Even in plain dollars and cents business and economists fail to grasp the true cost for the whole country or whole people compared to the benefit for an individual or an individual company. The cost of wars even small wars can be be trillions of dollars which are borne by the whole country or people, and most of it by the middle and less economically well off classes in a country. Creating a belligerent competitor in world affairs and the risk of conflict and war is to lose trillions of dollars when the benefit to an individual, groups, or individual companies is no more but a tiny fraction of that trillion dollar cost, not including what all the plain people pay in human lives. It is not that anyone benefits as the people in the belligerent competitor country follow the same pattern of loss that would happen in the US. One should ask is it not a loss for China also? The example of Imperialist Japan is not so far off in time for Americans or Asians including the Chinese and Japanese people who suffered so greatly to forget. Business remains oblivious to the public interest not just for America but for the world, individual companies do not see it as their role beyond that of pursuing individual company interest. Is it not then for the government to set the rules. Is it alright for government to not fulfill its responsibilities? Even when this pushes the world faster to into conflicts as technologies take the place of exercise of wisdom in conflict, and even when there are unmet challenges such as climate change that affect the whole planet.  ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The full text of the letter is given here. In this letter the U.S. sets out some important facts about events that happened during the coronavirus crisis during the crucial 4 month period from December 2019 to March 2020. Every week lost in this time due to reasons of a lack of transparency, openness meant hundreds of thousands of people more infected and tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. There are questions of transparency, of openness and this raises questions about the manner in which the World Health Assembly operates with hundreds of small countries in Africa and Asia having votes equal to that of the U.S., India, Brazil, Mexico with votes taken of over 200 countries. The entire election process can now be seen as questionable, when over a billion people in one country alone such as India or hundreds of millions in Brazil and Mexico would have to bear the consequences of poor decisions made by small countries that can be swayed in one direction or another based on political bias and other considerations that have nothing to do with global health.  At the conclusion of the letter by the U.S. to the current WHO shaped by a controversial election in 2017 the following is stated about the standards set by Gro Harlem Brundtland and which helped the world prevent the SARS crisis which originated in China in 2003 from spreading to the large countries of the world India, Brazil, Mexico, and other such countries in Asia and Africa, Latin America, and the U.S. European Union. "In 2003, in response to the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in China, Director-General Harlem Brundtland boldly declared the World Health Organization’s first emergency travel advisory in 55 years, recommending against travel to and from the disease epicenter in southern China. She also did not hesitate to criticize China for endangering global health by attempting to cover up the outbreak through its usual playbook of arresting whistleblowers and censoring media. Many lives could have been saved had you followed Dr. Brundtland’s example." Even this does not come to grips with the flawed way in which the election of WHO head is done. It can no longer be relied on when there is the danger that lack of transparency can emerge in the WHO leadership itself because of a flawed process. It risks endangering the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions in countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico, as well as in the relatively small countries of Africa and Latin America where even basic water supplies are at risk but which could tilt elections at the World Health Assembly. Consider that a cyclone just hit the Indian state of West Bengal and Bangladesh on May 20 just as the coronavirus pandemic is spreading. That this region of 1.5 billion people had just 2 votes out of over 200 cast at the World Health Assembly in 2017 shocking. And even these votes cast based on old geopolitical considerations not how good the candidate is, and how good the country he is coming from is in terms of its record  on public health. The irony here is that private foundations in the advanced countries in the U.S. and Europe some of whom are major donors to WHO did not think that more experienced candidates in their own countries with a better record of public health such as in France or Germany are better qualified, in a flawed NGO support mentality left from the Clinton years. Basically the people in these large countries such as India, Brazil, Mexico were disenfranchised, when the austerity policies were consuming the European Union, and the U.S. had just elected a new administration itself groping for ways to reverse years of neglect of public services and infrastructure priorities. They would trust good leaders no matter where they come from, who have a record of transparency, leadership, and all the values we cherish together no matter where we come from. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The knowledge that the virus  caused human to human transmission and that it spreads to wide parts of the population very quickly were critical pieces of information that remained with Chinese epidemiologists, doctors and medical researchers, and were suppressed by local authorites in Wuhan.  Yet China's version of the U.S. CDC, China's Centre of Disease Control and Prevention, modeled on the U.S. control efforts worked effectively to identify the problem. Virologist Gao Fu, heads China's CDC. This report in Germany's Der Spiegel says Mr. Fu made it a habit to scan China's internet before bedtime for any signs of possible disease outbreaks. On the night of December 30 he came across rumors of an internal memo from the Wuhan Health Commission of an outbreak of a vaguely worded lung disease. When he called the Wuhan health authority he found their answers to be evasive which alarmed him. The next morning December 31 Mr. Fu sent the first of three teams to Wuhan which is how China was able to identify the problem, in the sense that Chinese authorites in Beijing were to rely on Dr Gao Fu to overcome the problem of Wuhan provincial authorites. He informed the World Health Organization Beijing office on that day. The Der Spiegel report says "shortly afterward," the Seattle Times in its report says this was about New Years Day 2020- Mr Fu made a call to Dr. Redfield, head of the U.S. Centre for Disease Control, who was on vacation. Redfield is deeply disturbed on hearing this from Fu and they have conversations over the next few days to the point that Dr. Gao Fu is in tears about what has happened. On January 1 Taiwanese public health authorites shared the information with WHO that the cornonavirus was a human to human transmission, would the Taiwanese authorites not have shared it with the U.S. the same week during calls from the U.S. CDC or other public health authorites alarmed about the situation. (The WHO was proving useless by Jan 14 when it contradicted Taiwan's more reliable assessment  on Jan 14 going by the letter from president Trump to WHO). On January 6 a few days later Dr Redfield and Dr. Azar head of Health and Human Services ask China for permission to send a team of CDC U.S. experts to China. This is cited in the U.S. letter to the World Health organization- the lack of human to human transmission information being given to the U.S. officially early by China. A risk that could have been a topic of conversation between the U.S. and China heads of CDC. That letter from president Trump also points out that the team of experts the U.S. planned to send was not accepted by China till Feb 16, one and half months after that series of conversations between Dr. Gao Fu of China CDC and Dr. Redfield of U.S. CDC in an alert message.  In effect removing one of the key defences for the U.S. and Europe in making their own defensive actions and plans, laying the basis of the worldwide coronavirus pandemic affecting millions of people. Dr Redfield is a AIDS researcher at the University of Maryland who spent most of his life trying to control spread of HIV and was appointed by president Trump to head CDC agency in 2018. He set a goal of eliminating AIDS by 2030 and is more comfortable with aids patients and research than the bureaucratic nature of agencies- CDC has about 11,000 employees. Once it was clear that a team of U.S. experts was not given permission to make its own assessment in Wuhan in the few days after January 6 offer to sent the team to China by Redfield of U.S. CDC and Dr. Azar, would it have alerted the U.S. that something was seriously heading the wrong way for a epidemic risk. That letter of president Trump cites how the head of WHO during the first SARS crisis in 2003, Dr. Harlem Brundtland acted when she faced China's lack of cooperation during that crisis by saying openly that this was a danger to world public health and millions. Could CDC in the U.S. and the other connected health authorites have taken the responsibility and filled Dr Brundtland's role in this crisis, that the WHO failed to perform?    ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Air pollution concerns are leading China's National Development Reform Commission to set a higher goal for cleaner energy. The NDRC plans a 52 gigawatt increase in installed capacity for green energy in 2013, an increase from 36 gigawatts in 2012. This includes 10 gigawatts for solar energy. Clean energy will take up 57% of additions to installed capacity in 2013, compared to 35% in 2010, according to Tian Miao, an energy anayst at NSBO.

LyrArc Article Gist
The constructive contribution made by the G-20 meetings of leaders towards building agreement on economic and other policies for peace and progress in the global economy. The meetings were especially useful for coordinating policy and addressing issues arising in the global economy after the 2008 financial crisis. Here Li Baodong, China's vice minister for international organizations and conferences, international economic affairs, describes the path ahead: IMF reforms implementation, better coordination of macroeconomic policies, pursuing the anti-protectionist and free trade policies with further support to the WTO and ministerial MC9 meeting in Bali in Dec. 2013, and infrastructure financing proposals for developing countries on the agenda at the St Petersburg, Russia, G-2- meeting in Sept. 2013. Baodong says the mechanism called the Framework for Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth as part of the G-20 meetings is a major achievement. Each G-20 economy submits it macroeconomic policy plan for a Mutual Assessment Process under this arrangement. The progress from the Bretton Woods financial architecture to the new arrangement- from the G-6 to the G-20 to include developing countries from India to Mexico and Brazil- is another major achievement, not fully recognized by the public, says Baodong. Interestingly Baodong makes particular mention to global rebalancing, rather than pushing what he calls the impossible task of increasing demand to get growth. This is a realization coming to China's economic policymakers under the new Jinping-Keqiang administration after the overly aggressive effort to stimulate demand in the 2009-2011 Stimulus, and the ensuing financial problems in the banking and credit system. It is indicative of the policy shift and its implementation underway in China in 2013-2015....

LyrArc Article Gist
Efforts to bring the textbook industry under state control by selling the firm "Enlightenment," which had a 30% share of the market, to Putin ally Rotenberg. "Enlightenment" has now received further support as other competitor's textbooks were not given approval by the Ministry of Education and Science. Apparently Putin sees western ideas introduced in some textbooks as harmful to the development of Russia's youth. All schools will now be given state inspections, and where textbooks are not on the approved list the schools will see cutoff of state funds. Putin was chairman of the publisher "Enlightenment" when it was under state control, Rotenberg is the new chairman. During Soviet times "Enlightenment" as a state publisher controlled all textbook publication. The industry was opened up after 1990, resulting in a large number of new publishers. Now many small publishers are being pushed out as the industry is being consolidated under the state's private sector allies with an educational agenda being set by Mr. Putin....

LyrArc Article Gist
Individual investors reacted strongly to declining prospects for emerging markets with slowing growth, depreciating currencies, corruption and political uncertainty in 2013. As of the beginning of June, retail investors pulled $18.1 billion from emerging market bond funds, about one third of the amount that went in to emerging markets since the financial crisis in 2007, according to fund tracker EPFR Global. Institutional investors have pulled out less, about $9.3 billion, or 10% of their investments in emerging markets bonds since 2007. A similiar pattern is seen for investment in the stock markets of emerging market countries. The U.S. Federal Reserve's monetary expansion helped pull more money into emerging markets such as India, Indonesia, Brazil and Turkey. As the Fed shifts away from these policies in 2013 emerging market countries have large current account deficits and less money to finance imports and debt.