A Man, a Central Plan, and One Big Dam

A Man, a Central Plan, and One Big Dam
posted by: Dave R. 20 hours ago

Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.
Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.
9 comments
If we could reduce our coal dependency by 50 million tons per year (reducing 100 million tons of CO2 annually in the process), but would need to relocate over a million people to do it, would we? The Chinese news service recently posted an update on the massive Three Gorges Dam, highlighting completion of the project, including the relocation of 1.3 million people.

The dam, which spans the Yangtze river, is over a mile long and five times larger than the Hoover Dam. The project has many critics, which cite changes to local ecosystems which could have unforeseen consequences, the potential for the reservoir behind the dam to become a cesspool of sewage and industrial pollutants, and accumulating silt, and the social impact of forcing so many people to leave their homes. The official party line is that the country needs clean energy, and the project will protect millions from flood waters, and millions of acres of farmland. Both sides are probably right.

Reduction on coal dependency in China is a critical element of a global approach to fighting climate change, but is this sort of central planning approach really the only way? Thomas Friedman wrote recently in the NY Times: "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century...China's leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar."

Yikes! I for one hope that our democratic system can lead to an equally positive climate outcome, without trampling on personal rights to do it.

Rather than promoting Chinese-style government, Friedman is really lamenting the failure of our congress to act in a bipartisan fashion to come up with a new energy and climate policy which reduces our overall consumption and dependence on fossil fuels. As Friedman says, "The fact is, on both the energy/climate legislation and health care legislation, only the Democrats are really playing. With a few notable exceptions, the Republican Party is standing, arms folded and saying 'no.'" What you end up with is what he calls "one party democracy."

This potential logjam created a pretty clear contrast between the Chinese president's speech to the UN climate summit - full of targets and planned action - and President Obama's, which was heavier on rhetoric, calls for action, and restatement of the problem, but lighter on specifics.

Even so, Obama's acknowledgment of urgency and strong statement of support for action on the global stage is significant progress. The signals are pretty clear that we need a new energy/climate policy, and we should be discussing "how" rather than "if". The beauty of cap and trade (if designed right), renewable energy targets, or even a carbon tax is that each points towards the needed outcome, without resorting to autocratic measures to get there. There are plenty of ways to change our footprint, from conservation, to wind and solar investment, to changing what we buy, what we make, and how we get around. We simply need to create more urgency and some choice.

Do our legislative officials have the will and public mandate to at least acknowledge that there is a problem, so that we can work on the solutions? Or will this be just another issue for bipartisan bickering and lobbyist influence? As Obama said "...the journey is long. The journey is hard. And we don't have much time left to make it." But the alternatives are not very appealing.
Read more: global warming

comments9 comments add your comment

Terry S. says
Sep 24, 2009 11:55 AM
Daniel S.- I think you are missing some very obvious facts. First, Global Change is not a law of science, it is just a theory. For it to be a law of science it must be absolute. Now just because one party disagrees with the other, does not mean that either party is disfunctional. Debate is the bases of the government in the US. As well, unlike China, the citizens can petition grievances with the government. I would also like to state that all progress is not always forward. Unless the progress improves the lives of the citizens, it is really not progress. The primary responsibility of government is to improve the lives of its citizens. No where is it written that the minority party must bow down to the majority party. While this may slow progress, it may also stop a trip down a dead end street of wasted time, energy and money. So while you may disagree with what the minority party has to say, you still need to hear what they say and fully research their documentation. While both parties are spouting data, the true path will lie somewhere down the middle. In doing the research on anything, you must look at the data as published, and the monetary gain or loss to the entity publishing it. This includes government. Governments are ultimately corporations. Just like any corporation, their job is to perpetuate themselves. Then of course you must factor in human nature. This is usually the easiest since it is based on Cheapest and Easiest.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.

Terry S. says
Sep 24, 2009 10:45 AM
Interesting that everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon for wind and solar. Well to start, They have already started to complain about wind mills killing birds. As well, they have posted objections to the pollution created by the production of solar cells. I have to laugh when I read the article about China setting goals, since everything I have read states that no numbers are offered by the Primer's speech. To point to that dam and say it is an improvement, is a joke. Every American knows that you could never build such a thing in the US today. For that matter, people are trying to get the dams we have in place removed. Three Gorges Dam is a disaster waiting to happen. Earthquakes will loosen it and the silt will add the weight and as well clog it. The project was a dumb idea in the first place, and was stated as such when conceived. As for how long that chunk of concrete will stay in place is unknown, but at the same time, has any one else noticed that China is having more earthquakes and stronger ones at that?

send green star | flag as inappropriate

why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.

Elaine K. says
Sep 24, 2009 10:11 AM
In VA Old Dominion Electric wants to build a new coal fired power plant near Hampton Roads at a huge cost. If they would help people to have solar panels on their roofs and wind turbines or thermal energy instead we would be much better off. There is no need for a new power plant if they help everybody to have alternative energy at their own homes and with batteries and inverters many people could still have some power even when the company has a power outage. They should spend the money on providing alternative energy sources at peoples homes and farms.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.

James G. says
Sep 24, 2009 9:12 AM
If China's leaders, or for that matter leaders anywhere in the world, had an full "understanding", they would not accept an "exploding population" as inevitable and they would begin to work on a solution to a problem that will undue all of the benefits of reducing carbon emissions through any of the meager proposals currently being considered. And climate change is only one of many problems resulting from over population that threatens the hopes and dreams of people everywhere on the planet to enjoy a comfortable existence.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.

Michael M. says
Sep 24, 2009 8:56 AM
wind and solar power are the way to go, but definatly top graduaally replace the coal industry. updating the old coal plants and reverting to the clean coal type is good for the short term but we definatly must start switching to wind and solar. I'm for nuclear fussion power plants if done correctly and safely,

send green star | flag as inappropriate

why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.

Daniel S. says
Sep 24, 2009 8:28 AM
Apparently decisions must be made by the one political party that is functioning. It's not possible to be bipartisan with a party that's been taken over by people who reject modern science and seem to want to return to the 19th century. Let's not forget that the problems we're having are the result of the actions of that non-functioning Republican Party. The Republican Party replaced the Whigs. Now we need to replace the Republican Party.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.

Jenny T. says
Sep 24, 2009 6:56 AM
Obviously we can't shut down all our coal fired power plants now. But we can start making them more efficient and less polluting. And we can replace the aging ones with wind power. We can also offer alternatives that spread over time. In Spain all new commercial buildings are required to have solar pannels. Twenty-five percent of their electricity is generated by renewable sources like solar and wind power. We can't do it overnight, but we can do it over time.

send green star | flag as inappropriate

why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.

Glyn P. says
Sep 24, 2009 4:56 AM
I sure would not want to live down stream --------------- I'm pretty sure there will be plenty of bipartisan bickering even though the clock is ticking .

send green star | flag as inappropriate

why is this inappropriate?
submit cancel Submitting...
Your report of abuse has been received and will be reviewed.
The response report you have submitted was unable to transmit. Please try your submission again or contact support.

Dennis Wells says
Sep 24, 2009 4:36 AM
that's easy- shut down 50% of our power plants right now .