The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The US has accounted for approximately 27% of world GDP for decades (essentially unchanged over the last 40 or more years, which compares to an EU-27 decline in percentage of world GDP from 40% to just over 30% and an increase in Japanese, and later Chinese and Indian, proportions accordingly). If you're correct that the US accounts for 25% of consumption of total world oil production, it means that the US already uses less oil than its proportion of economic output, and this means that capping oil use by rising economic powers in China and elsewhere is likely to be a more important factor in smoothing the transition from oil to more sustainable energy sources.
In order to do that, Obama will have to abandon his "pro" rhetoric on free trade, which the WTO has already done, and begin to open a discourse which allows greenhouse gas reduction compliance to be a part of domestic trade policies -- that tariffs can be placed on exports from countries that don't do enough to reduce emissions of GHGs. That is what will produce that smoothest and fastest transition from oil to other energy sources and use infrastructures. But that project also entails co-opting former colonial areas to once again surrender their interests to those of former imperial powers, and that's not an easy political objective, even for a whiz like Obama.
A large part of the Chinese GHG pollution goes towards producing stuff for The WestTM. What about proposing that as long as they cut GHG pollution but a set target (say 3 percent of 2010 levels every year), we'll make them whole on any current accounts losses they might incur.
And, of course, the most important thing we could do vis-a-vis China would be to give them unfettered access to state-of-the-art European energy conservation technology (possibly subject to export restrictions), rather than putting up artificial barriers to technology transfer.
Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
However, if they have to reduce their exports, it means that they can't lend much money to the West to cover our current account deficits, which means that our capacity to help them with their current account losses is pretty restricted, so I think it might be a catch-22. I think they'll be smart enough to see through the shell game and just say, "hey, maybe we can just reduce trade with you and still increase our automobile usage through domestically-oriented growth at the same time, so go screw yourselves."
Besides, the whole point of making China whole on a loss to their current accounts would be to keep the current system running, except with less production of junk that's shipped to The West. If China can afford to lend us money to cover our current accounts deficit with them by exporting, then they can also afford to lend us money to cover our current accounts deficit with them if we pay them for not exporting.
All these cash flows are just bookkeeping - what matters is the flows of resources and products. If we use fewer Chinese-made toasters and cars, then there is a slack in the resource flow that can be put to more productive use. The bookkeeping can always be juggled around to make it work, if there is a serious political will to do so.
And the Chinese are not stupid - they know that global warming will smash their political system - their population is concentrated on the coast, and migrating upwards three quarters of a billion people in-land is not going to be a trivial exercise.
Also, it makes sense, strategically, for the Chinese to slow their own transition to more costly forms of greener energy as long as they know that others are doing it more quickly and that they can expect lower costs of such transition in the future as technologies and methods become more mature. The problem, of course, is that it creates a prisoner's dilemma situation between the Chinese and already industrialized countries that can jeopardize any progress.
From the perspective of The WestTM, that train has sailed. If the dollar crashes, we'll lose the third-world debt service colonial tribute just as surely as if we simply hand it to China.
From the perspective of China, keeping the US$-based system, even beyond its useful life as a trading framework, allows them to kick the Weimar-style currency meltdown in the US a little bit down the road. And, probably more importantly, avoid being seen as the people who pulled the trigger on that meltdown.
As for green technology being expensive... well, that depends on what you mean by expensive. If they get the production licenses gratis from Europe, then the only resource in which high-tech energy sources are more expensive is man-hours. In terms of basically everything else - steel, coal, copper, rubber, etc. - rail is cheaper than car, efficient power plants are cheaper than inefficient, wind is cheaper than coal, solar is cheaper than oil, and so on and so forth and etcetera. And China has a lot of man-hours to go around.
What about proposing that as long as they cut GHG pollution but a set target (say 3 percent of 2010 levels every year), we'll make them whole on any current accounts losses they might incur.
by ARGeezer - Apr 29 19 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 29 39 comments
by Oui - Apr 27 1 comment
by Oui - Apr 30 15 comments
by Oui - Apr 27 16 comments
by Bernard - Apr 19 6 comments
by gmoke - Apr 24
by gmoke - Apr 23
by Oui - May 9
by Oui - May 8
by ARGeezer - May 65 comments
by Oui - May 375 comments
by Oui - Apr 3015 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 2939 comments
by ARGeezer - Apr 2919 comments
by Oui - Apr 284 comments
by Oui - Apr 2716 comments
by Oui - Apr 271 comment
by Oui - Apr 248 comments
by gmoke - Apr 24
by Oui - Apr 2353 comments
by gmoke - Apr 23
by Oui - Apr 2114 comments
by Oui - Apr 2036 comments
by Bernard - Apr 196 comments
by Oui - Apr 1911 comments
by gmoke - Apr 18
by Oui - Apr 1610 comments