Biodiversity Convention

 This week, environment officials, diplomats and other observers from around the world gathered online, and a small group assembled in person in Kunming, China, for the meeting, the 15th United Nations biodiversity conference.

The United States is the only country in the world besides the Vatican that is not a party to the underlying treaty, the Convention on Biological Diversity, a situation largely attributed to Republican opposition. American representatives participate on the sidelines of the talks, as do scientists and environmental advocates.

Washington Post

The person primarily responsible for the US not being a member of the Biodiversity Convention is William Kristol, who was Vice President Dan Quayle’s chief of staff when the Convention was negotiated. It was to be signed at a big UN meeting on the environment in Rio de Janeiro. There were two big agreements on the table, biodiversity and climate change. Because of pressure from the Republicans, mainly exerted by Kristol in Quayle’s office, then-President George H.W. Bush felt that he could not sign both. So he signed the agreement on climate, but refused to sign the agreement on biodiversity.

Fission vs Fusion Power to Fight Climate Change

The New Yorker article by Rivka Galchen “Can Nuclear Fusion Put the Brakes on Climate Change?” raises the question whether fusion energy can be the panacea to prevent global warming.  I don’t think that it can, if only because it will be too late. 

Fusion is seen as the energy source of the future, but one which always will be.  Climate change is becoming a more and more immediate problem, while fusion, despite the progress described in the article, is still a futuristic technology, perhaps even an unreachable one like the mythical philosophers’ stone which could change any metal into gold. 

There are still daunting technical and engineering challenges to be met before even a demonstrations fusion reactor can be built.  Once a demonstration reactor is built, a functioning, industrial-scale reactor, or many of them, would have to be built.  This will require years, years we don’t have before a global warming tipping point is reached. 

Meanwhile, we have proven technology and plans for building industrial-scale, nuclear-fission power reactors.  Even though the plans are drawn up, it would take years to build new fission reactors under current circumstances. Much of the delay would be due to the environmental challenges to their construction, brought by the very environmentalists who say they are concerned about climate change.  Without the legal challenges, construction of existing-design reactors could be carried out quickly. 

The New Yorker article dismisses fission because “fission generates waste that remains radioactive for tens of thousands of years….” This is true, but compared to the waste from burning coal, for example, it is relatively small, and can be stored safely, if with some difficulty and careful planning.  It produces no waste or byproducts that contribute to global warming.  It is available 24/7, unlike wind and solar power, and pretty much 365 days a year, except for occasional maintenance and refueling.

We should continue to work on renewable sources of energy like wind and solar, but we need a reliable backup which does not damage the climate and nuclear provides it.  The following chart from the US Energy Information Agency shows the current contribution of various energy sources.

Currently, hydropower is threatened by the drought in the western US, where most of the hydroelectric dams are located.  The power shortage with Europe and China are experiencing now is being met with much higher prices in Europe, and with increased use of coal in China.  The US had a somewhat similar crisis last winter in Texas, where wind and solar energy failed when they were needed. 

Nuclear energy from fission reactors is unloved but could save the planet. 

 

Rise of the Super Rich

From a Bloomberg newsletter: 

Speaking of economic inequality, America’s middle class now holds a smaller share of U.S. wealth than its top 1%. The middle 60% of all U.S. households by income saw combined assets drop to 26.6% of national wealth, the lowest in Federal Reserve data going back three decades. The super rich now have 27% of it all.

Chinese Financial Crackdown

 After the Chinese tech crackdown, the Evergrande debt crisis, the electrical shortage, and the cryptocurrency ban, the US financial community has taken the position that the Chinese are incompetent idiots. I don’t think so.

The Chinese are trying to rein in irrational exuberance in their economy, while the US Federal Reserve has opened all its flood gates to pump out money and let the good times roll.

In 2020, the US Government spent $6.6 trillion and took in $3.4 trillion, leaving a deficit of $3.1 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Federal revenue decreased 3% in fiscal year 2020, while spending grew 45%, according to usafacts.org. The three rounds of stimulus checks alone will cost around $867 billion, according to as.com.  From low to high during the pandemic, March 2020 to October 2021, the stock market went up about 60 percent. Bloomberg reports that Gen X’s wealth has gone up 50% during the pandemic. The pandemic has been a financial windfall for a substantial portion of the US population, subsidized by the US Government and the Federal Reserve.

The Federal Reserve’s “quantitative easing” has kept bond interest rates artificially low, making it extremely profitable for people who can borrow lots of money to invest with almost no cost for more cash to invest. In America, the pandemic has made the rich much, much richer. The Fed has threatened to turn the money spigot down a little, but so far has not done so.  The Congress is debating whether to add another two or three trillion to the river of cash.

China has been going through a similar period of financial excesses but seems more concerned about the expanding bubble than the US does. No doubt there is some autocratic element to the crackdown by Xi and his government, but he may also be motivated by concern about the future of his country. He may be concerned about the power of the Chinese financial elite, but he may also want to let some air out of the balloon before it bursts. China may have gained control of the Evergrande crisis before it became a Lehman Brothers debacle. Chinese have been among the most avid Bitcoin miners and traders, before Xi clamped down on it. The US remains enamored of Bitcoin, although it looks too much like the tulip bubble of the 1600s. Xi is motivated by the desire to be able to track the financial activities of Chinese nationals, hence his interest in a Chinese cyber coin, but be may also be worried that Bitcoin is an accident waiting to happen. The US seems concerned about cyber “stable coins” but not so much about Bitcoin and other investable cyber coins, which are not pegged to the dollar.

Thus, it is too early to write off the Chinese financial crackdown as a move to preserve the power of the Communist Party leadership. It may also be an effort to shore up the Chinse economy. If so, the Chinese economy may be on more solid footing five or ten years from now, while the US is trying to climb out of a humongous hole of debt which it has dug itself into during the last few years. Xi may be keeping his powder dry for the future economic war with the US, while the US is just lazily cruising down the river of endless borrowing as if there were no tomorrow.