Poverty and the Greens

Bill Gates thinks if there is one thing we could do to fight global poverty it would be to provide the world with abundant, inexpensive energy. His answer is nuclear energy based on thorium. It is much safer than conventional nuclear energy, doesn't produce so much toxic waste, and isn't suitable for use in weapons. There is enough of the stuff lying around to supply the world's electricity needs for thousands of years. Everything I read suggests he may be about thirty years ahead of himself on thorium technology but if he is right he could be about to change the world for the better. He is spot on about the benefits of inexpensive energy. I would take Mr. Gates' argument a step further and say that if there is one thing we could do about global warming, or climate change if you prefer, it would be to make the world a more prosperous place. For one thing prosperous countries tend to be cleaner than poor ones, a lot cleaner. Take a boat ride down the fjord from Stockholm toward the sea if you want to see an environment about as pristine as it gets. Contrast that with the all too evident pollution you would see in any given third world country, or emerging country for that matter. For another, a more prosperous world will be better positioned to deal with climate change when it comes, and you don't have to be an anthropogenic global warming alarmist to know that it will come. We don't have to wait for thorium technology either. Americans are currently blessed with an abundance of natural gas. We are about to begin exporting it. That will provide a boost to the global economy and to our own. It is inexpensive compared to alternative supplies even when liquified for shipping. It is much cleaner and safer than coal, the only viable substitute for at least the next few years. It's extraction has been one of the few bright spots in an economy that has been in the doldrums for more than five years. There are other exciting technologies out there too. In situ coal gasification may be about to open up major new supplies without the hazards or mess of conventional mining. Pyrolysis, the chemical process used in making charcoal, is being used to produce electricity from everything from forest debris, to corn stover, to animal waste. It comes without the emissions of conventional incineration, and with the added benefit of a residual that can be used as a valuable soil amendment. Plasma arc gasification, a process that uses such intense heat that virtually any compound breaks down into its atomic elements has the potential to eliminate the need for new landfills, and to clean up old ones. Organic compounds produce a synthetic gas that can be burned for electricity, or converted to ethanol, gasoline, or diesel. Inorganic compounds can be stripped of hazardous materials and used for construction aggregate. The principle objections to all of this come from Malthusian environmentalists who believe the world is on an unsustainable course to exhaust its resources, or to make the planet uninhabitable. But all of these technologies have potential environmental and economic benefits that far outweigh the negatives. My church teaches that the first measure of any public policy should be its impact on the poor and vulnerable. She also teaches that we are stewards of creation. Both of these obligations have moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored. Over the past sixty years or so we have made enormous progress towards balancing those obligations in the developed world. We must find ways to extend those benefits to the world's remaining poor. I wish Mr. Gates the best.

Drums Along the Potomac

War tocsins are sounding in Washington again, and in London and Paris. I don't have a good feeling about this. I'm not sure where it all ends. One of the principles of war is that there must be a clearly defined, achievable objective. It is hard to see what that might be in Syria. Beyond drawing red lines, vague warnings of consequences, and pronouncements that President Bashar Assad must go, no one has articulated what western military forces might actually do, or what the result might be. I don't expect to see western troops on the ground. Nobody has the stomach for that. But we seem to have acquired a taste for what is for us the relatively sterile and painless use of air power, especially unmanned cruise missiles and remotely operated drones. But those are blunt instruments. Civilian casualties are unavoidable. As the bodies pile up some moralists have begun to object on the grounds of just war doctrine. Not that I agree with the just war reasoning. The prohibition against intentionally targeting civilians doesn't apply. Not since WWII have American forces done that and even then I thought the alternative to bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was far worse. The argument that non-combatants in a nation that sends its armies to war are all innocent bystanders is not a sound one. If an air campaign were successful in toppling Assad it seems likely a sectarian struggle for power would follow with attendant carnage that would make what we've seen so far look mild in comparison. Is that what we want? Do we think it could be contained inside Syria? Any prolonged intervention would need broad public support and it isn't there. The president doesn't seem to have discussed his plans with congress, certainly not with Republicans. Efforts to impose sanctions have been stymied by the Russians and Chinese in the UN Security Council. Even NATO, with its requirement for unanimous agreement, doesn't look a likely candidate for an intervening body. I doubt the political will exists for a prolonged military effort and a short term one seems certain to do more harm than good. This is a fine pickle we've gotten ourselves into. The case for intervening in Syria is essentially a humanitarian one. If I thought the slaughter of innocents could be stopped by force I might even be for it but I don't. Nothing short of a full scale invasion and follow up occupation to separate and disarm the warring parties would do that and we are not going to do anything like that. The best thing we can do now is eat a little humble pie, admit that there are limits to American power and influence, and for heaven's sake stop making empty threats. We also need to get over this naive notion that democracy is the solution to all the world's ills. America is not honor bound to support every democratic revolution, or every democratically elected despot. Liberal democracy is the most just form of government we know about but it only works when institutions and culture are in place to support it. It is not the same as mob rule. It cannot be imposed by fiat in conditions of chaos. A broad swath of Central and Western Asia and North Africa is more dangerously unstable today than at any time in my memory. What peaceful people in those regions need most is stability and order. We should be doing everything we reasonably can to promote it. Maybe someday democracy will follow as it has in much of the rest of the world. The last thing we should do now is encourage more turmoil. That is exactly what a military intervention in Syria would do.