Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Add another myth to the list: Elisabeth Rosenthals reported in the NY Times that
Biofuels cause more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional fuels, when the output required to produce them is taken into account - and not only the emissions that leave the exhaust pipe of your car.

Two things jump out: first, Kant was right. People process information by placing new tidbits into existing categories. Given a new fact, we are much more likely to make it fit into what we already know than to re-examine. We "know" that scarce resources causes market volatility, we "know" the Sudan and Darfur suffer from scarce resources, so it's easy to take the logical step that scarcity caused the political volatility too. Unfortunately no one (and a mea culpa here, for I include myself) bothered to check the underlying thesis.

Second, we seem to view things only from the final product, instead of looking at the historical picture - a very short term view, instead of a long view. This is true when looking toward the future or the past. At the final stage of consumption, ethanol produces less waste than petroleum. So it must be better. Who bothers to look all the way down the production line?

Critical thinking folks - it's the only way to overcome our own cognitive laziness.

Tom, as you and I have had this conversation previously, I'll just reiterate my salient points for the blog readers:

1. That "there is 'little systematic empirical evidence that resource scarcity and changing environmental conditions lead to conflict'" is because we have not looked at the potential links so closely before. Few groups have looked at the links between water and conflict, but one that has is the Pacific Institute. The potential role of climate change has primar impacts on pre-existing human practices, specifically of water allocation in international river systems. Another Foreign Policy article in 2001 by Postel and Wolf looked at this issue in appropriate detail.

2. That "the usual curse is too much" applies to more traditional "resources" in the developing world: oil and gas, timber, minerals. Norway, Canada, and Brazil are not "cursed" with an abundance of water, but the SW US, Egypt, and central China are "cursed" for the lack of same where no other significant natural resources have been identified.

3. None of the natural issues (climate change, poor water resources, abundance of other resources) can be blamed on local bad actors. The lack of effort on their part to determine what is available, develop in a responsible manner what they have, and obtain supplemental resources by trade with neighbors, can indeed be blamed on them. Regionalization of trade can and will go a long way toward sharing of such resources, provided the actors remain open to cooperation.

4. Democracies do indeed have famines--look at India in recent history. They are less likely, however, to have famines because liberal democracy is most often linked closely with open capitalist trade, despite the presence of tariff barriers in many places. Overall, an open approach to trade allows food surpluses to flow more freely in the direction of need, and famines are averted with the help of one's partners in the global economy. This does not at all discount accountability, especially when the leaders must swallow their pride and ask for help when it is needed, and other leaders must step up and offer assistance at any level.

Q. Should we vote against all American leaders who do not support grain shipments to Ethiopia or sub-Saharan Africa, or should we consider that there are larger forces at work sometimes (as in Sudan, which you have discussed previously)?

Q. What about the American leaders who subsidize non-cropping in the US because a glut of corn on the global market would lower commodities prices, put many small farms out of business and allow the factory farms to expand, make the ethanol industry less profitable, and yet still feed so many around the world when that grain is exported?

5. And finally, regarding your third point, much of Lomborg's arguments in Cool It come back in to play. The reader can search your blog on that to get the necessary background, which has covered the topic nicely over the past year or so.

Tom! Excuse me for being obtuse but is your point democracy does better at resource allocation and mediation of resource disputes? Or is democracy in part a reflection of political developments in resource rich areas of the world? Seems could be argued both ways but interesting to read updated analysis on this issue! Any books you like in this arena not just articles? Seems pretty fundamental to the future.

A key difference between Sudan and Indonesia would seem to be the nature of the disaster. The tsunami was one big ouch then over; a drought is a sustained lack of something vital for human life stretched over months or years. The same could be said for the difference between areas lacking water and areas lacking energy or material resources-- houses can be built out of rock and dirt, and made quite warm that way, but if you don't have enough to eat or drink . . .

That said, good leadership does make the difference between, say Sudan and the south-western US. Or between Indonesia and Sri Lanka.