LyrArc Article Gist
Duke Energy's CEO, Jim Rogers, talks to Charlie Rose about the U.S. nuclear industry and the future for nuclear energy in the aftermath of the nuclear disaster in Japan.

LyrArc Article Gist
The astounding fact in this French FR24 report on the Paris Climate Change Agreement and country carbon emissions show that China's emissions accelerated to rise 3 fold in 2015 to about 12 billion tons of carbon emissions from about 4 billion in 2000. US remains at about 6 billion. India is at about 3 billon tons of carbon emissions, about where China was in 2000 when it had about 4 billion tons of carbon emissions. This is shown in the graph on carbon emissions from FR24. The US, European Union graph curves on tons of carbon emissions since 2000 are all flat or declining, India rising slowly from a small base, China's curve is rising straight up from a large enough base at an unbelievable and dangerous rate. What has happened and is it getting worse? China's economy expanded too quickly as globalization was accelerated by banks, and business in the US and Europe, and by the Chinese governments at the local level and the state level. This had negative consequences for US, Europe and China. The too fast growth in China at rates of 10-15% based solely on False GDP indicators that did not take into account damage to the environment and workers was that it hurt manufacturing and working class in US and Europe and contaminated the environment. This was not like growth of Japan in 1960-1980, a smaller country in the way it affected the US and European working classes. Hyper Growth at 10-15% of a large country with 1 billion people compressed over a short period, is cited by Greg Ip in the WSJ as the cause of the negative impact on America.  It hurt China through pollution of rivers and land at an accelerated pace. It hurt China as trade with US and Europe became unsustainable with the loss of manufacturing in the US and Europe leading to a trade war. From these graphs of emissions it now appears that the 3 fold rise in carbon emissions from about 4 billion tons in 2000 to about 12 billion tons in 2015 is the result of unregulated business activity of all those who preferred to push hyper growth in China purely for reasons of profit such as investment banks and corporations in US, Europe, and state or local companies in China.  This has also aggravated inequality in US, Europe and China, and hurt rural populations. Xi Jinping is attempting to correct this in China, Biden is trying to correct this in the US, and Scholz will now attempt to correct this in Germany and the European Union. It is also to be noted that China in 2000-2015 did not have the benefit of the newer technologies that India now has access to, which is why India says it is able to reduce carbon emissions per each unit of GDP by 35% from 2005 levels by 2030. It is this efficiency in producing units of GDP with newer and newer technologies that China lacked in its period of hyper growth 2000-2015 that now looks to have hurt China- with overflow of highly polluting steel mills and other factories which it would prudently and wisely have cut back on. Looking back at this period one sees the wholesale transfer of highly polluting plants in Germany being sold and put up in China, a poor developing country in 2000. Was this a good decision for Germany or for China? In this way the banks and large corporations in the US and Europe who use economic indicators that are limited such as dollar profits, without overall indicators that include negative effect damage to the environment that requires huge investments to correct, problems of trade wars leading to political conflicts, are acting like a person walking blindly in one direction.  With some foresight China and all its trading partners would have done better with slower but more careful Chinese growth of 7-8% that would have better met societal goals in US, Europe and China, avoiding high carbon emissions segments of industries from Day 1. Jinping is doing this in China, and Biden is doing this in the US- cutting out highly polluting factories and segments of industries- but in a climate of mutual distrust, which could have benefitted the world when conducted in a climate of cooperation and trust. The pandemic made the situation even more difficult. Power shortages in factories and blackouts in Chinese cities have led to a reversal of policies on use of coal in China months before the COP26 Glasgow conference and G-20 summit leaving a huge gap. Without the presence of Xi Jinping at COP26 in Glasgow and with Chinese participation uncertain significant progress on climate change is elusive. Estimates by US Renewable Energy Agency is that it would cost $131 trillion to pay for limiting emissions to global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Some major share of this cost can be attributed to the increase from about 4 billion tons in 2000 of carbon emissions in China to about 12 billion tons in 2015, increase by 3 times. One can clearly see from this sudden jump in carbon emissions in China that policies of hyper growth with unregulated polluting industries adding to GDP growth figures was bad policy for China, bad policy for US, and Europe, even if it offered temporary profits for individual companies. India has the advantage of learning from this experience and charting its own wiser course as a partner with US, Europe and Japan and by Modi's vigorous efforts in renewable energy. The lesson- look at all indicators of progress, including climate and society, not just economic indicators in profit or dollar terms, take the tough decisions early in regulating polluting companies and industry segments, and bring full and active public participation with transparent access to data on climate damaging activity in real time because climate and the environment we live in free of polluting substances belongs to all the people, belongs to all life on the planet from trees to animals and birds, not companies that can choose to ignore it. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Zalmay Khalizad, a former diplomat to Iraq, reports from Iraq after discussions with prominent Iraqis, describes the state of U.S. relations with Iraq under the Abadi government. He says the Ayatollah Sistani in Iraq prime minister Abadi, and Iraqi public opinion, now favor improved relations with the U.S. following the sectarianism promoted by prime minister Maliki and Iran's expanded role in Iraq. Other reports show Iraqi opinion in transition as the U.S. withdrawal promoted by Maliki has led to 2 million refugees, and huge dislocation of people with the expansion of Islamic State from Syria into Iraq. The change in opinion is also towards promoting better relations with Sunni countries. People in the region do not see a bright future with an increase in religious tensions that only lead to more destructive behaviours and increase in refugees. Towards the end of the Bush administration there was some hope that Iraq would see a bright future, only to see this reversed under Maliki's sectarian policies. U.S. public opinion has shifted away from any involvement following the failure of the people in the region to resolve differences and live peacefully. The cost of the wars with little gained as a result of the failure of the people in the region to work together in the common interest is a part of the public debate in the U.S. presidential election of 2016. Sectarianism in the region is the root cause of the growth of the Islamic State and the expansion of the war in Syria, and this has not only worsened the situation for the people in the region, delayed economic development given large oil resources, and left the region worse off than before. It has also led to the refugee flow into Europe worsening the situation in the European Union, adding to tensions in European societies such as France, Germany, Denmark and Sweden, following terrorist attacks and political parties promoting fear of immigrants. What started as a U.S. response to terrorism originating in this region in New York, followed by the war in Iraq, has led to more convulsions in this region, a huge number of refugees, whole country populations displaced, and requires a fresh rethinking about what people in the region can do to live and work together and promote the peaceful participation of people in their own development and growth, before Western societies consider further involvement. The statement about lost to Iran in the title also suggests framing of statements in the old way that are the root of the problem. When the dust settles years from now Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, Yemeni, Turkish, Pakistani, Indian and other Muslim societies may want to look back at this period as reflecting the dangers of getting caught up in the geopolitics of world powers, letting religious sentiment override calmer thinking, and reflect on the brighter aspects of the common Islamic heritage in Iran, Turkey, India, expressed humanly as it is always is in different ways and forms. They can also take hope and confidence in the fact that European societies have struck the same rocks and emerged calmer, wiser, and better than before....

LyrArc Article Gist
Important year end reveiw of the oil price forecasting work of so many anlaysts and where they failed . The IEA and the US Enery Dpt forecast have year after year underestimated this pirce by over 20%. Analysts change the price forecasts within a couple of weeks based on changing information and assumptions. Of all this the Saudi Arabian forecasts have ben within 12 % of what has actually ocurred according to a study by Ronald Berger Strategy Consultants of Muich, Germany. And whats their forecast for 2008. By extrapolating from the Saudi budget and the assumptions, used such as giving a wide margin to avoid a deficit in the budget if oil prices undershot by a wide margin, one gets $75 for US benchmark crude. Forecast by experts are in the neighborhood of $80 average for the whole year 2008. Goldman recently revised theirs upwards from $85 average for 2008 to $95 within a 4 week period. How good is the Goldman forecast. No one really knows. Lehman has a forecast of $84 average for 2008 and bases it on the opacity of the market because no one knows what OPEC will do with supply and China does not provide good information on demand. So basically anlysts are adding an uncertainty premium to the price of oil. And this is especially so because as the Chief Economist at IEA says global space capacity is so thin and any event can influence price. Last year the rhetoric about Irans nuclear intentions was enough to stir up the price, as were other smaller events disrupting supplies. But the Iranian situation has since cooled down and diplomatic solutions are in the works. So what to expect in 2008 in the way of political uncertainty. Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon have all seen a cool off in the ast couple of years and the Bush administration rhetoric has become outmoded as has other rhetoric from Iran so that does'nt look like it will stir up oil prices in 2008. Still there will be some uncertainty premium about supply from OPEC and demand from China and India. And demand from the Middle Eastern oil producing countries themselves as well as the increasing demand in India and China will mean that lower demand in the US because of a recession will still mean an increase in global demand over 2007 of 1.5 million barrrels a day over 2007's 85 million barrels a day. What will change the dynamics of this situation is the government mandated fuel economy for all vehicles on the road with Europe more aggressive in this area under the pressures of global warming. If this impacts India, China and Russia as these fuel saving technologies are transferrred there overall consumption should see an impact. Europe's targets are only 4 years away for 2012. And the environment may cause China to bring in newer technologies that both contribute to improving environment and conserving energy. Because China's environmental record is almost catastrophic one could see some of this happen much sooner than expected after the Olympics in 2008. All that might change the way the world looks at oil and its use, and all energy sources and their use. ...

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
As the USA and Europe move into a deep and prolonged recession China loses some of its biggest export markets and faces a significant slowing down of its economy. China's leaders are pondering how to respond to the crisis which will affect China, and meet the challenges of lower living standards of a neglected rural countryside and farmers compared to the urban coastal areas. This is still where some 800 million of the Chinese people live by official count, so something needs to be done to improve prospects and help generate higher incomes and opportunities for people in the farming countryside. Making land use rights of farmers able to be bought or sold for the first time would generate additional income for farmers, and help consolidate farmland into larger plots, which can use technology and improvements for better yields to keep China self sufficient in agricultural production. Keeping the situation the way it has remained for the last two decades, where local party officials and local leaders controlled the land and where farmers rights were ignored leading to suppression of farmer's protests for illegal land seizures and corruption, may have made it easier for plants to be setup across China and attracted foreign investors. But it has not been good for China's farmers. Chinese party officials at the local level who realized the advantages to them by controlling land and making it easier to set up manufacturing plants with foreign investors may have steered state policy in this direction from the early days after Deng's opening to capitalism and trade. Now with a success in the urban coastal areas and in building infrastructure Chinese leaders in the central government must be faced with a difficult issue of how to move on from here with the loss of China's export markets for its heavily export dependent economy. The need to generate a domestic consumer driven economy must not be lost on the Chinese leadership in Beijing. Something that will keep China's economy moving in the new situation. This is the context in which land use rights may be extended from 30 to 70 years and able to be bought and sold to improve farm incomes and generate internal momentum in the rural areas where most of China's people live. It also offers a contrast to the situation India faces where even the Nano plant of Tata Motors had to be moved from W. Bengal state to Gujarat state over farmers rights to land which in that case was also used as an issue for political agitation. The move by China accelerated industrialization and setting up manufacturing plants as land was taken over by local officials for use with foreign investors but also ended up neglecting the countryside, and created too big a dependence on exports....

LyrArc Article Gist
Narendra Modi is now the choice of the BJP party in India to lead it against the ruling Congress party of Sonia and Rahul Gandhi. The corruption in government and the slowing growth have improved the chances of Modi, the chief minister of Gujarat state in northwestern India, near Mumbai. Modi has done well in Gujarat state in a number of areas- from foreign investment in manufacturing, infrastructure development, and better governance. His plan is to replicate this at the national level. His slogan is minimum government and maximum governance.

LyrArc Article Gist
The U.S. government's National Climate Assessment report in November 2017 says observational evidence proves that human action is the main driver for climate change. It warns of sea levels rise as high as 8 feet by the year 2100. It shows damage from climate change that is already happening from a rise in the U.S. by 1.8 degree Fahrenheit of global warming since 1900. Trump has announced withdrawal by the U.S. from the Paris Climate Change Agreement that would cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent by 2025 compared to 2005 levels. The Trump administration is relaxing rules by the EPA that would have contributed to the goals of the Paris Agreement.

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
Ishaan Tharoor provides a brief history of Russia's intervention in Syria and its role in the Middle East since 1950. This does not mention the Dulles period under Eisenhower in U.S. politics when the U.S. engaged in the Cold War withdrew support for building the Aswan High Dam, thinking that the Soviet Union would not come up with support. The Soviet Union under Krushchev provided $1.2 billion at 2% interest in 1958 for building the Aswan High Dam- constructed from 1960-1970- which helped increase irrigation and crops in the Nile river region and reduced the damage from droughts and floods. Soon after the dam was built it provided about 50% of Egypt's electricity. This was the high point of Soviet Union's economic engagement, latter support was defined by military arms supplies and led to the Six Day War, and the economic stagnation of the economy under Nasser's successors from the military. The Soviet Union was actively engaged in Iran with a Russian and British zone in the country in 1907, soon after the flowering of an effort to write a democratic constitution 1900-1907 for Iran with the help of British intellectuals, similar to the failed effort of the Arab Spring today. In neighboring Afghanistan the Soviet Union fought a long war under Brezhnev, contributing to the unravelling of the economic structure of the Soviet Union before the fall of the Berlin Wall. The British were primarily focussed on protecting oil interests in Iran in the period 1900-1950, yet contacts with British civil society led to the first grasp of democratic constitution and processes in Iran during this period. The American intervention funnelling arms support to the Saddam regime in Iraq in a war Iraq initiated against Iran 1980-1988, marks a low point in American intervention similiar to the Russian intervention in Iran-Iraq-Syria today. It may also define some of the problems of today because of the length of that war, the entrenching of military in the government in Iran, suspicions of the U.S., and the possible sense of a need for nuclear weapons to prevent attacks on Iran, as Pakistan has done in its conflict with India, though this is rarely brought up in discussions. The American arms support intervention, led to a series of cascading conflicts since 1980 with the invasion of Kuwait by the Saddam regime in 1990, the destruction of Shia in the marshlands of Iraq after a flawed peace agreement, and the follow up to that conflict with George Bush's invasion of Iraq on grounds of WMD development in 2003 for the 2003-2011 Second Gulf War including the Surge. The arms support of the Saddam regime in the war it initiated against Iran, was policy designed under President Reagan 1980-1988 following the hostage crisis and the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. The cascading crises with Iran and Iraq may not have led to this level of conflict and disruption, refugees and deaths in the Middle East, if American policymakers had heeded George Washington's advice during his presidency, that your enemy's enemy is not your friend when it comes to framing policy- for this reason Washington as president did not see it in the national interest to get involved in conflicts between Britain and France beginning in 1793, France having aided the American side against the British in the War of Independence. In the Proclamation of Neutrality, Philadelphia, April 22, 1993, he says: "Whereas it appears a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain and the United Netherlands, on the one part, and France on the other; and the duty and interest of the United States require, that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial towards the belligerent powers.." And in a letter to Patrick Henry offering him the position of Secretary of State from Mount Vernon, October 9, 1795, Washington says: "My ardent desire is, and my aim has been, to comply strictly with all our engagements, foreign and domestic; but to keep the U States free from political connexions with every other Country. To see that they may be independent of all, and under the influence of none. In a word I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others, this in my opinion is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home and not by becoming the partizans of Great Britain or France, create dissensions, disturb the public tranquillity, and destroy perhaps for ever the cement which binds the Union." At a time of passionate political debate, it is time to step back and reflect on lessons that can be learned from the founding fathers about the way they tackled the important issues of their time....

LyrArc Article Gist
The US gets the lowest score among the large industrialized nations- way behind Europe- in its record on greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution policies, agricultural policies, smog, and other environment criteria in a survey done jointly by researchers at Yale and Columbia Universities. On regional smog the US has a very poor score.

LyrArc Article Gist
Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman's view of Afghnistan differs significantly from New York Times correspondent Filkins understanding from years of reporting going back about a decade. Filkins sees the complexities of Pastun country inside Afghnistan and Pakistan and the military and ISI's involvement, and other correspondents have pointed to the narcotics trade and corruption. Kerry's simplistic view is that the Taliban do not enjoy much support, when actually Americans are seen on the ground as foreign occupiers. These correspondents in the field point to this as an everpresent danger, which would tilt support to those fighting foreigners, with nationalist and Muslim sentiment prevailing over everything else. And Kerry appears to be too willing to dismiss allegations of narcotics involvement of the Karzai administration with the "show me" comment. For critics of the Bush administration this is simply astounding, when so much is at stake. Does patient mean digging in one's heels slowly? But that is how the Vietnam intervention ran into trouble, without public sentiment in support of the plans....

LyrArc Article Gist
As Japanese prime minister Noda prepares to restart the Oi nuclear plant in June 2012, former prime minister Naoto Kan, who was premier during the Fukushima nuclear disaster, answers questions in a parliamentary inquiry. He says he realized how dangerous nuclear power can be when it got to the point where the evalcuation of Tokyo was being considered, Japan was then on "the verge of national collapse." His fears were that a number of meltdowns could together " release into the air and sea many times, no, many dozens of times, many hundreds of times the radiation released by Chernobyl." The Japanese public has focussed on the parliamentary hearings because the previous inquiry is thought to have been perfunctory, and not really examined in depth all the issues the Fukushima disaster had raised, and the general feeling is that a proper public dialogue had not taken place. In contrast in Germany the issues had been discussed openly, and the Angela Merkel government which had been receptive to nuclear power reversed its stand on nuclear power. Germany is phasing out dependence on nuclear energy. Kan pointed out that the "nuclear village," the network of nuclear power companies, bureaucrats, and researchers, had hijacked national nuclear policy and was putting Japan back on the same path. He went so far as to compare it with the situation facing Gorbachev in Russia after Chernobyl: "Gorbachev said in his memoirs that the Chernobyl accident exposed the sickness of the Soviet system. The Fukushima accident did the same for Japan." In his assessment of what happened Kan said: "It is impossible to ensure safety sufficiently to prevent the risk of a national collapse. Experiencing the accident convinced me that the best way to make nuclear plants safe is not to rely on them, but rather to get rid of them."...

LyrArc Article Gist
Chandrasekeran looks back on the troop surge ordered by President Obama on the advice of General Petraeus and General McChrystal in Afghanistan, and the results in Afghanistan as the U.S. withdraws troops in 2012-2013.