Green Conservatism - Πράσινος Φιλελευθερισμός

I just saw this excellent video with a speech by Newt Gingrich, where he defines and makes a case for "green conservatism", where market forces will be used to save the environment. He also shows how catastrophic the leftist activism can be for the environment, by giving the example of the anti-nuclear energy movement (Jane Fonda et al.) in the early 80's: If nuclear energy had been adopted in US at the same level as it had in France, emitted carbon would have been reduced by more than 2 billion tonnes by now, number much higher than the cuts proposed in Kyoto Treaty for US.

I do not however want to underplay the irresponsible position (at least until recently) of the American right that tends to react so emotionally to whatever "the other side" is saying. More on that, here

Krugman - The tax-and-spend liberal that I read

Here is his interesting latest NYT piece on commodity prices. (Note the payback to The Economist in the beginning)

Πότε θα κάνει ξαστεριά;

Όχι σύντομα

Ακριβά τρόφιμα: Ποιός φταίει;

Μετά τα τελευταία στοιχεία για την αύξηση των τιμών των τροφιμών, ο πολύς Zoellick της World Bank:

"called on rich countries to provide $500m (£250m) to meet emergency food needs identified by the United Nations, stressed the need for an expansion in safety-net programmes for the poor, and said there was a need to boost long-term financial support to boost production."

Και άλλες επιδοτήσεις και άλλες παρεμβάσεις. Μέχρι τώρα όμως πως έχει βοηθήσει το κράτος;
Εδώ είμαστε:
-Επιδοτήσεις για βιοκαύσιμα: με ένα σμπάρο δυο τρυγόνια ο W. Και ικανοποιούμε τους γεωργούς στην Iowa (κρίσιμη εκλογικά πολιτεία) και κάνουμε υποτίθεται πράσινη πολιτική. Αποτέλεσμα; 25% της παραγωγής καλαμποκιού στην Αμερική πάει για βιοαιθανόλη και παράληλα μειώνεται η παραγωγή άλλων γεωργικών προϊόντων, που σημαίνει γενικότερη έλλειψη.
-Δασμοί στις εξαγωγές γεωργικών προϊόντων: πολλές χώρες για να ικανοποιήσουν την εγχώρια ζήτηση έκαναν δυσκολότερες τις εξαγωγές τους, με το προφανές διπλό αρνητικό αποτέλεσμα να ανέβουν περισσοτέρο οι τιμές στην διεθνή αγορά αλλά και να χτυπηθούν τα εισοδήματα των γεωργών που ζούνε σε αγροτικές περιοχές ευάλωτες σε λιμούς.
-Απαγορεύση των γενετικά τροποποιημένων προιόντων: οι αγνοί ιδεαλιστές τραμπούκοι της Greenpeace ξέροντας καλύτερα από όλους τους σχετικούς ερευνητές αποφάσισαν (και επέβαλλαν) ότι η μοντέρνα τεχνολογία, ακόμα και αν μπορεί με την αύξηση της παραγωγής να λύσει το πρόβλημα της πείνας, δεν πρέπει να έχει θέση στην γεωργία.

Σε μια αγορά ελέυθερη από κρατικές παρεμβάσεις δεν υπάρχουν μακροπρόθεσμες ελλείψεις -η ζήτηση δημιουργεί αργά ή γρήγορα προσφορά. Αν θέλετε μακρόχρονια προβλήματα και ελλείψεις, βάλτε το κράτος υπεύθυνο.

Give China a Break

Watching today the angry protestors in London, I thought that after stopping globalization, the activist left has found a new raison d’être: bashing China. It would be funny though to see the faces of these uncompromising idealists when someone tells them that this China-bashing sport was actually invented and funded in US by their beloved neoconservatives and hardcore Republicans that want to see the growing superpower China facing as many problems as possible.

In regards to Tibet, here are some facts for the angry boys and girls that I am certain they never came across before:

• The recent riots in Lasha were nothing less than a planned pogrom against the wealthiest Han minority in the region. As this piece in The (not-especially-friendly-to-China) Economist describes,

"The destruction was systematic. Shops owned by Tibetans were marked as such with traditional white scarves tied through their shutter-handles. They were spared destruction. Almost every other one was wrecked."

To get a picture, remember the pogrom against the Greek community in Istanbul in the 1960’s.

• The reported (13?) dead that were presented in the western media as if they were rioters, were all ethnic Hans that were killed, most of them burnt alive, by Tibetans.

• In this pogrom, the Chinese police was totally absent in the beginning and showed up only after few days, when the destruction of the Han property by the Tibetans was almost complete. Even then, the only victims of violence were the police and ethnic Hans. As the Tibetan head of Tibet's regional government said:

"Chinese police did not fire their guns or use anti-personnel weapons against the Tibetan protesters, even though the Tibetans wounded 61 police officers, including six in serious condition"

In other words, the Chinese police in Lasha was as “brutal” and “threatening” as the Greek police is in riots and looting in Athens.

• The big picture now, China is not your typical oppressor. China consists of 56 nations and minorities tend to have more rights than the majority of Hans -for example, the one-child policy does NOT apply to the minorities. Personally, I find this a bit weird behavior for an oppressor.

• At the same time, Tibet enjoys a very high degree of autonomy in China, it has its own local government and increased legislative rights. Btw. it also has one of the highest economic growth rates in the country, due to deliberate infrastructure development from the central government.

• Historically, Tibet was almost always part of China. Given that China is multicultural with several regions (sthg like Canada), it will be impossible for any Chinese administration to allow the full independence of the biggest region, Tibet.

Now, China is far from a saint country and has a lot to answer when it comes to political liberties, environmental issues etc. But in this specific issue, don't believe the hype -give China a break