Left Flank

The reason why I'm lately obsessed with disasters, like the earthquake in PRC and Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, is rewarded by Ross Douthat's post questioning liberal international hawks...

...offering a long-term agenda as a response to a question - how, when where and why the U.S. and our allies should intervene abroad - that tends to manifest itself as a series of discrete and very immediate challenges. It's all very well to say that the United States should be trying to build a world order in which great powers like Russia and China are willing to sign on whatever sort of Burmese intervention might theoretically be sanctioned under the "Responsibility to Protect" umbrella, but even if you're optimistic that such a world order is attainable - which Matt is, and I'm not - it's still far enough off that we can expect many more Burma-style (or Darfur-style, or Kosovo-style, or Rwanda-style) quandaries in the meantime. And answering the "what is to be done?" question that invariably accompanies these crises by saying that "American officials ...should keep pushing the international community to move to a world where something like the Responsibility to Protect has some force in the real world" amounts to answering it by saying "in the short term, nothing."

I have two problems.

Firstly, interventionism, as manifest in R2P, is the flip side of gunboat diplomacy, which to work requires a substantive military threat lurking over the horizon. Many more states would be willing to call America's bluff here, and so, the risk of appearing weak increases.

Secondly, the emphasis is wrong. It's not, in these two cases, that the CCP or SPDC are despotic, or even completely incompetent. According to Art Lerner-Lam in Foreign Policy, "[t]he Chinese have a very sophisticated system of response, even relative to global standards. They rely heavily on their military, and they have a large civilian component of engineers and scientists who assist. The problem is not with the system, but with the particulars of this event." The problem, then, is, that a disaster occurred. The international community needs to ask, why did a disaster occur? The answer is not primarily military, but is extremely political.

FP: There have been a number of natural disasters in East and Southeast Asia in recent months. Is this region particularly susceptible to disasters compared with others, and will it become increasingly so in the years to come?

(Art Lerner-Lam) ALL: To answer your first question, yes. East, South, and Southeast Asia are all highly susceptible and have what we call a multi-hazard risk profile. They are subjected to typhoons, cyclones, flooding, earthquakes, landslides, and in the case of Indonesia, volcanoes. From a geographic perspective, [these regions] are very susceptible to a whole range of hazards.

Whether the risk is increasing depends on two factors. One, are the hazards themselves increasing in frequency or severity? And two, are people becoming increasingly vulnerable in terms of population density and infrastructure? In the first case, you have to be a bit careful. We are not seeing increases in geological disasters such as earthquakes; you wouldn't expect that. Those are geological processes, so the rate of occurrence should be somewhat consistent over time. But with sea-level rise, which we accrue to global warming, there is some potential for there to be an increase in cyclones.

But the changes in the natural frequency and severity of hazards are dwarfed by the changes in urbanization and construction practices. The key issues in vulnerability are related to social, economic, and political factors more than they are to the geographic factors: building cities near coastlines, improper construction, having institutions that are incapable of understanding the magnitude of a disaster and putting together a response—Myanmar being a case in point. You can attribute most of the increase in disaster losses to changes in the patterns of development.

In other words, the SPDC's human rights record and its development record are two separate issues. ANY government that allows urbanization and hyper-density in high risks areas is in a sense irresponsible, These problems are geological and climatological. The UN, or the US or France, can condemn Yangon for slaughtering Karen. But, until any government devises a way to avoid setting poorer humans atop a veritable time bomb of questionable terrestrial real estate, it needs to stop wagging fingers. There are thornier issues involved here than gunboat diplomacy. There is no way to compare PRC's response to the American response to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, because no one has done well addressing the fundamental issue of why so many people would want to live in areas no sane animal would want to squat on.

Again, one can question how Beijing treats Tibetans, or the SPDC treats most of its population. But, it's convenient hypocrisy to pass moral judgment on any government whose territory includes dirt of marginal, or even, dangerous, quality, when no one is brave enough to question why unfortunate people just have to live in hëll, and on top it, have to endure a spectacle of fortunate, so-called educated people yelling over their struggling heads ignoring them.

Liberal hawks vs. neocons vs. realists...old quarrel! The relic of a pampered elite in a golden age. Move on!

Brad DeLong pits Megan McArdle against Greg Clark on the odds, that food prices will cut global economic growth. DeLong backed Clark's optimism about "...the race between technological improvement and growing demand...". Still, the price of rice continues to rise.

It seems DeLong was right. Technological improvement might save the day.

As far as I can tell it hasn't hit the English-speaking media yet, but researchers in Chile announced this week (warning: links in Spanish) the discovery of a new genetically engineered variety of rice that can be cooked with 1/4 the amount of water needed for normal rice.

Here's the official University of Santiago release, reviewing the new strain of rice and also the crush of press interest since the first reports on Monday. The project was cosponsored by Chile's governmental Foundation for Agricultural Innovation, which is sponsoring a number of other projects to help increase Chile's agricultural output.

In the context of the ongoing global food crisis, the discovery won't provide more rice, even if widely adapted. But it could reduce the costs of cooking rice in terms of both water and fuel used to heat the water, giving poor consumers a partial break. In Chile alone, economists have estimated the jump in food prices could raise the poverty rate at least 2%.

This isn't the same sort of innovation as dwarf wheat, so what Gary Gardner argues, still goes: "What's needed is a new model of prosperity that meets people's needs within the boundaries set by nature. It's what we call sustainable development. Embrace it and we can bury Malthus for good. Ignore it and we'll find that Malthus was simply ahead of his time."

Image via Wikipedia

The Orlando Sentinel offers two analyses showing how a public good, environmental protection or transportation, hits the wall of interest-group retrenchment. It's a good example of good intentions and rhetoric withering in the face of the latest rationalization.

Welcome to the state of Florida. The nation is on the brink of a fuel crisis. Prices are headed toward $4 a gallon and destined for even greater heights as the thirst for fuel grows in China and India. God forbid the terrorists ever pull off a major attack on a Saudi oil facility.

Florida responds by killing one mass-transit project and crippling another. On top of that, the Legislature also has jeopardized a major I-4 widening project because there isn't an alternative transportation network to use during construction.

Meanwhile, Orlando has moved to fourth in a national ranking of congested cities.

You expect the Tallahassee trial-lawyer lobby to view the world through the myopic lens of huge settlements. You also would hope that political leaders, for once, could set aside that cynicism and look at the big picture.

Alas, this is Florida.

This state not only needs commuter rail but a corridor linking Orlando and Tampa, which are slowly merging into one huge megalopolis. It needs to connect this rail line to the East Coast and hopefully hook up with a passenger service that one day will link Miami and Jacksonville.

And off of these main routes we need to build a feeder network of smaller rail lines and buses.

We can't plan 50 years ahead based on the notion that we'll always be able to drive to the Mobil station and fill up with gas at prices the middle class can afford.

The target of the Florida Justice Association's ire was a proposed $100,000 cap on jury awards for accidental injuries or deaths.

«A lot of the reason for this is the frustration a lot of the senators had with the way this deal was put together,» said Paul Jess, an official with the trial-lawyers association.

«It never came to them originally. It was a done deal and presented to them on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.»

The commuter-rail bill would have granted sovereign-immunity protection to the private contractors hired by government to run the commuter-rail line -- handling everything from switching to security. This protection would cap jury awards at $100,000 per victim in cases of accidental injuries or deaths.

In 2002, the Legislature gave that protection to the Tri-Rail commuter system in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. Trial lawyers didn't want the same arrangement cropping up elsewhere, even though the state has regularly waived that cap to settle with injury victims on Tri-Rail.

«Another governor or DOT secretary could come in, wave their hand and say 'No more,' » Jess said.

Two weeks ago, Webster tried to, in effect, buy off the trial lawyers with higher sovereign-immunity caps and doubled attorneys fees. To appeal to South Florida Democrats -- the trial lawyers' base in the Senate -- he offered a $2-a-day rental-car surtax to help pay for Tri-Rail and Central Florida's trains.

But Jess said the group had never sought that concession -- and was insulted by it.

Webster and Senate Minority Leader Steve Geller, D- Cooper City, ultimately met with the trial lawyers late Thursday with a desperation deal: eliminating the sovereign-immunity protection from both Tri-Rail and Central Florida's rail line.

But it was too little, too late. The lawyers had dug in.

«We're just trying to keep them from repeating a mistake they made in 2002,» Jess said.

No, Mr. Jess, the mistake happened when you received a college degree.

Image by Gregory.Skibinski via Flickr

The southeastern states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia have had a water problem for two decades. Two river systems, the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) start in Georgia and flow through Florida into the Gulf of Mexico. Water consumption in Georgia, particularly the ACF watering Atlanta, affects Alabama and Florida downstream. The US Army Corps of Engineers and the three states have fought in Federal court, and so far the Corps is trying to keep an even hand, by ruling in favor of Florida's aquaculture assets against Atlanta city dwellers' need for water. The Bush administration is also mediating the dispute through the Interior Department.

I performed a qualitative analysis of the State of the State addresses of the three disputant states, Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, for responses to this situation, or to the other two parties to the water dispute. Is there any indication of future policies on this issue in these three speeches?

Alabama's Governor Bob Riley rhetorically adopted the most combative language. Riley begins by exhorting Alabamians to conserve water. He then calls for a «Statewide assessment» of water resources. Riley mentions «Georgia» or «Georgians» eight times in three paragraphs (and mostly alone, or juxtaposed with «Alabama», «Federal» three times, «Florida» twice, and «Alabama» or «Alabamians» five times. The following paragraph speaks for itself:

Now there are some in Georgia who believe the water in those federal reservoirs belongs only to Georgians. However, Georgia didn't build those reservoirs and Georgia didn't pay for them. No. They were built with federal dollars, which means Alabama helped build them, Alabama helped pay for them, and Alabama has as much right to them as Georgia has ever had or ever will have.

Riley sounds most like someone willing to take strong measures to redress grievances.

Georgia's Governor Sonny Perdue's seven paragraphs on the water issue are as combative as Riley's, only a bit more understated. Generally, Perdue congratulates local and state initiatives to tackle the issue, stressing disagreement with Corps and Federal decisions. «Now, we don't want the state of Georgia to usurp the rightful role and responsibility of local government to provide for the adequate supply of clean drinking water. But we do want to support them in this endeavor.» Perdue also advocates conservation and responsible business decisions. «But hear me now – we will not allow others outside this state to hamper our progress by limiting our access to the waters that fall on our land. That will not happen on this Governor's watch.» Perdue skillfully never mentions either state, the Corps, or the Federal government.

Diametrically opposite in tone and substance to both Riley's and Perdue's speeches, Florida's Governor Charlie Crist never mentions the water dispute, either Alabama or Georgia, or the Corps or the Federal government. Crist also exhorts Floridians to conserve resources, and advocates a «gold to green» policy with businesses. Crist sticks to his campaign promise to make Everglades restoration a priority.

All three governors stress conservation efforts. Both Crist and Perdue adopt positive measures to correct the situation. Both Perdue and Riley adopt combative language aimed at each other. Crist sidesteps the issue entirely by sticking to his campaign promises. As an indication of future policy, these speeches characterize a preliminary, preparatory phase.

Now, Florida Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Mike Sole has stepped up, criticizing the US Army Corps of Engineers.

But Soles' letter challenged whether Lanier is low enough to jeopardize the region's supply of drinking water. He said only the part of the lake now accessible by intake pipes has been described as nearly depleted.

«Bottom line, nearly half of Lake Lanier stored water is currently available, but is not being factored in, and therefore is no threat to municipal and industrial demands,» Sole stated.

The Apalachicola Riverkeeper group had yet to review Sole's letter but lashed out with its own criticism of the corps plan.

Georgia officials «intend to get the rights to as much water as they can, and the corps is working to their advantage,» said Dan Tonsmeire of the group.

Is this the Crist administration's style, walk softly, and deploy Mike Soles?

Image via Wikipedia

Maryland's Department of Agriculture can't just cut to the chase. After telling homeowners to treat their gardens and lawns like commercial farmers do, there's the hard truth.

And perhaps the boldest suggestion made today -- get rid of your lawn, or at least consider making it smaller. Trees and shrubs capture more carbon than grass, and they need less maintenance and fertilizer than a traditional turf lawn.

«In so many cases people are trying to grow turf where it doesn't grow well,» causing fertilizer overuse and pollution, Traunfeld said.

The backyard conservation tips being pitched by the Department Agriculture won't directly help farmers. But they could lead to water-quality improvements that help everybody, officials said.

«All of these small yards, put together, done properly, will have a huge effect on the Chesapeake Bay,» Hance said.

The fact that statistics rate homeowners as egregious a cabal of polluters as commercial farmers says a lot about the consequences of peer pressure in suburban America.

State environmental officials worry about the condition of the Chesapeake Bay. Or, is that the crabbing lobby? Anyway, more crabs, less vegetables, all make a Marylander smelly, healthy, and broke.

Peter at The Duck reminds readers of the larger cycle leading to higher food prices worldwide.

To recap, this implicates:

• Global Warming causing a drought
• High oil prices, raising costs for farmers, shippers, and sellers
• Ethanol and bio-fuels (meant to reduce the first two) sucking corn off the market
• Farm subsidies distorting food prices
• Lack of open markets
• Development in large countries (China, India) leading to increased meat consumption
• Integrated global commodities markets, allowing for speculation

Add in Australia's water pricing policies.

So, I assume the solution will be just as complicated. That hasn't stopped Tyler Cowen form trying to advocate one: «...governments are making matters worse by constraining what farmers can store and export.»

Yet, Dani Rodrik comes along and complicates the picture again.

I am puzzled more generally by how the commentary on the world food crisis misses this basic point. It's all about how the price rise is an unmitigated disaster for the world's poor, with nary a comment on the fact that some of the beneficiaries are also among the world's poorest. (Some of you will say that all the price increase is absorbed by margins, with little of it showing at the farm gate--but I doubt that is true.) The panic on the part of governments is understandable. They are much more sensitive to the urban poor, who can create greater havoc than the rural poor. But what about the rest of us?

So, that's the new way to change the world? Laziness? Self-indulgence? Check out Jared Diamond!

I wonder how far trademark American frugality lasts when vacation choices include one's lawn and walking. How will American households make ends meet?

Just to be clear, the other typical escape route—to save less—is already closed off. In the fourth quarter of 2007, the personal saving rate was zero percent.

This leaves very few other areas where consumers can make sacrifices to accommodate the pressures from higher prices at the pump. Traditionally, more spending on gasoline was also associated with less spending on cars. People are already buying fewer cars and smaller cars as the cost of driving goes up rapidly. And eventually, families will spend less on gasoline simply because there are fewer jobs to drive to.

With all of these added pressures, many more families will find themselves in an untenable financial situation. This will be especially true for lower-income and moderate-income families who spend disproportionate shares of their income on gasoline and fuel. These also tend to be the same families who feel the brunt of an economic slowdown first.

But, how will those patriotically energy-saving stand up long enough to vote for John McCain?