Iraqi Elections

 Fareed Zakaria wrote:

Just weeks after the tragic fall of Afghanistan, something important has happened in the other country in which the United States conducted a great nation-building experiment over the past two decades: Iraq held elections, which were mostly free and fair. Assuming this process leads to the formation of a new government, it will be the sixth peaceful transfer of power since 2004. Although turnout was at a record low, this election marks real progress. A senior Iraqi official described it to me as “a political earthquake.”

Fareed Zakaria, Washington Post

I am not so snaguine about the Iraqi elections, but I hope Fareed is right.  I am worried that Iraq may follow Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, maybe Tunisia, Lebanaon, and others down the tubes.  Corruption, religion, and triabalism make democracy difficult in the Middle East.  I am not sure the unifying forces in Iraq can overcome the forces of fragmentation.  

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.