Justus For All

Well, seeing “industrialisation” is such a vital part of the future of Africa - and I will suggest the Amazon basin as well - you could tell us what climatic impact there might be from widespread deforestation.

As well, perhaps you could share your ideas for “carbon conversion” when the trees are gone.

Oh. Replace the trees with carbon removal factories… now there is a novel thought.

(And in case you missed it, that is all intended sarcasm).

Deforestation is caused primarily by increased use of land for agriculture, not for industry, so I don’t see what your point is.

Industrial societies tend to increase, rather then decrease the land used for forests, partially as a result of more efficient agricultural techniques.

Might I kindly request that when you comment, you actually say what your point is rather then attempting to engage in sarcasm?

Agreed. Well-developed economies in Africa will be a boon not just to the United States, but to the world as a whole, as more consumers will be available for products currently being produced. The way things are now is not beneficial to neither the people living in African countries nor those countries that could benefit if they had a customer base to do business with there.

As far as what Probligo talks about, he’s probably thinking more about the environmental impact from “greenhouses gases,” but with advancements in technology, I think they are becoming less of an issue than they have been. Improvements can still be made, of course, but I don’t forsee an industrialized Africa having the stereotypical “factory smokestacks.”

Have either of you really thought about the implications of “industrialised” Africa? It has nothing whatever to do with race or creed and much to do with reality and practicality.

Nah, this is just another instance of typical American glib solutions - like bombing the crap out of Iraq, or how easy it is to instal democracy in a foreign country.

“Industrialise Africa!!” It must work because it has more letters than “bomb Africa”.

If you want to help Africa, how about paying more for your coffee and chocolate instead of contributing to the profits of the many middlemen. How about stopping the kind of ecological disaster that Shell Oil is leaving in Nigeria. How is about making it illegal for the producers of “GM improved” crops from selling seed with a Doomsday gene that makes the crop infertile. Nothing wrong with it as a crop except that you have to buy more seed from the supplier next year rather than using some of this year’s crop for next year’s seed.

Does any of that sound familiar? It should, because it is a good part of why Afghanistan is a major supplier of opium.

But then, who has never preferred a glib answer in the face of existing realities?

I don’t think that “carbon credits” are the essential answer to the causes of pollution and increasing CO2 levels. Retaining existing forest and encouraging the planting of new forest is not going to be counter-productive - it will do no harm - and it does create resources for the future.

The implications I see for an idustrialized Africa is escaping the crushing poverty of the place and allowing them a standard of living similar to what the western world enjoys. Perhaps you think this would be a bad thing. I suspect though that if a New Zealand politician ran under the platform of ‘Making New Zealand just like sub-saharan Africa’ he would not in fact do well at all. Perhaps you would vote for such a person, I certainly would not.

I am unsure how paying more for either coffee or chocolate would reduce the profits of the middlemen, indeed it seems that the reverse would be true.

As for Shell’s ecological problems in Nigeria, I freely admit to being ignorant of the issue. I would imagine though that a well educated industrialized Nigerian society would be better able to look after its natural resources and environmental status then a poor barely-subsistance one. That is after all what has happened in other places.

As for GM improved seeds, the issue their is somewhat complex, but if we had to choose between modified seeds that had to be bought each year, versus non-modified seeds that could be used to create new seeds, it is obvious that the former choice is superior, which is why so many people have made that choice. I would also hope that future modifications will make seeds that are even better, but if no company can make money by developing such seeds (and that would be the situation if they reproduced into viable seed crop) then I suspect such things will not be developed.

My understanding about Afghanistan being a major supplier of opium is that opium sells well and makes a tidy profit. How us not paying more for chocolate or coffee or Shell drilling in Nigeria relates is confusing to me. I suppose if we were spending more on chocolate, perhaps we couldn’t afford opium, but that seems unlikely.

Once again, your final paragraph seems to assume that more industrialized societies will have less forest and natural areas then agricultural ones. That is simply untrue.

“The implications I see for an idustrialized (sic) Africa is escaping the crushing poverty of the place and allowing them a standard of living similar to what the western world enjoys.” High ideal!!! Congratulations - I think. What will they make? Hummers for mum to drive to the supermarket? Cheap clothing from jute fibre? Cheap shoes from hippo hide?

“Perhaps you think this would be a bad thing” Why? Why should industrialisation be a bad thing? That is not the focus of my previous criticism. Industrialisation for the benefit of non-Africans is a bad thing. Industrialisation which brings direct benefit to Africans is a very good thing, as long as the goods produced have value on the world market. The criticism is that the statement and the ideal ignores totally all of the immediate problems of food, water, education, housing, health, capital, skills…

“I am unsure how paying more for either coffee or chocolate would reduce the profits of the middlemen, indeed it seems that the reverse would be true.” There is an organisation here in NZ called “Fair Trade”. AMong other things they sell a pretty good coffee. It costs about 50c per pack more than the supermarket coffee. The fact that it is reputedly sponsored by CHurch organisations should give them some credence (if what I am told about Christianity is true… ) Look out for them in US - that is where they started from. Oh, and the return to the growers is (reputedly) over ten times the normal growers’ price.

“As for GM improved seeds, the issue their (sic) is somewhat complex, but if we had to choose between modified seeds that had to be bought each year, versus non-modified seeds that could be used to create new seeds, it is obvious that the former choice is superior, which is why so many people have made that choice. I would also hope that future modifications will make seeds that are even better, but if no company can make money by developing such seeds (and that would be the situation if they reproduced into viable seed crop) then I suspect such things will not be developed.” Yep, now we start getting closer to the reason why you think it would be a good idea and that an industrialised Africa would be good for the US. What you miss in the process is that you need a start point. Your ideal means that Africa will be able to buy high priced (read over-priced) American goods - like Hummers to drive to the local McD…

How can an African man work in a factory when he needs food to eat first?

How can an African woman work in a factory when she spends half her day carrying water from a near dry well that is 5km away from her home?

How can an African farmer afford to buy $300 worth of GM seed when his annual income is perhaps less than that? How many kilo’s of seed would $300 buy? Why should he buy any when he can get enough for his family from last years’ crop for free - just as long as the rains don’t fail again? And no amount of GM seed is gonna grow if the rains fail. Yes I know that there are “drought resistant” GM grains on the market. Good selling point - sell some to the Aussies, they need the snow job to counter the loss of 40% of their national agricultural capacity as a result of drought.

The choice is not complex at all. It is a simple case of what an African farmer can afford to pay - and that is very little indeed.

“My understanding about Afghanistan being a major supplier of opium is that opium sells well and makes a tidy profit. As would shiploads of vegetables if they were allowed to be sold into Europe and America and if shipping was available to get them there…

And so it goes on - shooting pigs in a barrel… can’t miss.

Nah, this is just another instance of typical American glib solutions - like bombing the crap out of Iraq, or how easy it is to instal democracy in a foreign country. So too, might I add, are carbon credits in the war against global warming. But as I said before, they might encourage the retention and renewal and re-creation of timber as a valuable natural resource. At least Auntie Helen says so. WHAAAA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!

I don’t believe I ever implied that African nations becoming wealthy and industrialized would be easy. Indeed, there is perhaps no harder challenge on the planet, and the challenges you mention to that are very real.

My post though claims that African selling of carbon credits would make that very challenging world problem nearly impossible.

You close with talking about the retention, renewal and re-creation of timber as a valuable resource for African Governments. That may indeed be a fine thing, but in this case the cost would be making the African people a less valuable resource for those governments. My goal is make the people of Africa a valuable resource, and I believe that other good things will follow from that.

Some of the answers to your questions above are programs I support. Disease eradication in Africa, Increased educational assistance, micro-loans for small businesses. Others I don’t have an answer for.

I am pretty sure though that paying the African governments to ensure that their people don’t create more CO2 isn’t on the list. I would imagine, for example, the under Robert Mugabe Zimbabwe’s carbon footprint has shrunk considerably, indeed many farms are returing to a wild and natural state under his stewardship. That is not however the sort of thing I wish to encourage.

No, Dave, but Bob Morris does -

“Agreed. Well-developed economies in Africa will be a boon not just to the United States, but to the world as a whole, as more consumers will be available for products currently being produced. “

Sorry - hit the wrong button by mistake - where was I?

Ah, yes, Bob’s comment…

My post though claims that African selling of carbon credits would make that very challenging world problem nearly impossible.

Yes, and then glibly slips over any explanation of why you believe that to be so. As my earlier comment (was intended to) shows I am not totally persuaded that the carbon credit system will work, despite Auntie Helen’s determination that it will work.

I make the point though, once again, that as an interim step any programme which has the effect of conserving existing resources or promoting the development of new resources for the people of Africa would be an improvement…

Probligo,

I am sorry, I thought it was obvious how this would harm African development. Selling ‘carbon credit’ by the governments of Africa doesn’t require any investment in either the infrastructure or the education of the African people. In fact, an educated people and a developed infrastructure would reduce the amount of carbon one had to sell. The fewer, and poorer, people you have, the less carbon you will emit and thus you will have more credits.

Even a very good government would be hard pressed to overcome this sort of negative economic growth incentive, and a bad one could potentially get paid for some truely horrific policies. As I mentioned, I imagine that the economic collapse of Mugabe’s Zimbabwe has resulted in a lower CO2 output, hence it would have more carbon credit to sell.

This isn’t an ‘interim step’ in African economic development, is a pay off to African Governments to keep their people poor and undeveloped so the Western world will feel better about its carbon output.

And there we differ, because the NZ efforts to introduce carbon credit trading are based upon the value of NEW carbon sinks.

One of the points on which Auntie Helen’s scheme is foundering is the introduction period (between now and 2011) which is being marked with severe tax disincentives for the exploitation of existing forest (to give a related example). So, if I have an existing forest, it is getting to be “uneconomic” to harvest those trees (even with the intent of replanting in 5 years time to earn carbon credits).

But that point illustrates one of the things that I think many have missed. “Carbon credits” do not come free, as some kind of handout. The intent of the scheme that NZ is following (and it is similar to that being implemented in Europe) is for the creation of “carbon sinks” of which tree farming is a fairly popular form (the subterranean disposal of CO2 down expired and empty oil wells in the North Sea is another in Europe). Carbon tax credits are earned from the amount of carbon “turned into trees” during the course of a year. Obviously, more trees mean more carbon retention. More trees also require more land. Most importantly, young trees convert more carbon in a year(because they grow much faster) than old trees. The fact that (irrespective of the cause) CO2 levels are increasing, and need to have some kind of action taken to limit that increase, is of little more consequence than idle gossip. After all, what do scientists really know?

Yeah, I guess that the “haves” will continue to “have” irrespective of which path Africa might take. The same with politicians and Presidents. As you have already intimated, the best answers are already consigned to “the too hard basket”… In the African context, the idea of converting poor and otherwise marginal land to crops such as trees would be a no-no, simply because someone else can use the same land to graze cattle or plant millet, just like their great-grandparents did. Failing to do so will mean starvation rather than riches.

Certainly, the “poor” NZ investors who planted Monterey Pine “tree farms” 20 and 30 years years ago with government subsidies, as a weekend diversion from their normal toil as lawyers and accountants and teachers and business leaders and farmers, are now quite happily selling that crop for whatever price they may. And, no doubt a good number of them will be happy to replant their otherwise marginal land with Monterey Pine to earn carbon tax credits that they can then use to offset income tax that I will have to pay more of, or that they can sell to rich Americans who can then continue to run their Hummers…

Carbon Offset, which is what you describe, are only part of all the carbon trading programs I have seen. In addition to the offset, nations also get an ‘allowance.’

This reflects the impossibility of a ‘carbon neutral’ earth in the foreseeable future. For example, New Zealands ‘allowance’ or ‘target’ under the Kyoto protocol is the same ammount as it produced in 1990. If New Zealand gets below that amount, it can sell the excess, if it goes above it it would have to buy more.

While African nations don’t currently have ‘allowances’ (i.e. no limits) the concept is that as the program is expanded they and other developing nations would get an allowance that is higher then what they currently produce, while other nations such as the U.S. and the EU have targets lower then their 1990 outputs (of course the U.S. did not ratify this treaty.)

So basically an African nation would be given X carbon credits that they could use. They could either emit that carbon domestically, or they could sell it on the market. Initially they would have an excess to sell. If they lowered their carbon output they could sell more, this could either be done by carbon sinks, as you mention, increased environmental efficiencies on factories etc. or simply a reduction of carbon emitting activity (close down the power plant.) In addition, any economic expansion that would emit carbon (and pretty much all of it does) would lower the amount of carbon those governments had to sell.

Currently I don’t believe any nation that has signed Kyoto has managed to live up to its agreement. For example, here is the New Zealand chart.

As I said, Dave, NZ’s approach to reducing carbon emissions and the carbon trading regime is not working. Can you find for me the corresponding data for the US? There is nothing I can see on OECD or US Govt sites.

How is the US getting on with controlling CO2 levels? That is not a bone at the wildfires in Ca; that is not a justified poke at all. Planting lots of maize? Read somewhere that the amount of maize required to produce 100l of ethanol would feed a man for a year. Seems like a pretty good return… Food for one man for a year will get your RV about 700 miles (45 gallons and 15 mpg) down the road.

The U.S. has not real program for controlling CO2. I never said it did (although it least we didn’t promise we would an the renege) CO2 growth since 1990 is about 20%, which puts us about even with world growth, although the EU and others have done better then us (China and India are huge drivers in the world increase.)

And the ethanol idea is simply stupid and is mostly corporate welfare rather then serious environmental policy. Although since in the U.S. our primary food problem is obseity due to too much corn syrup in all our food, it might make sense as a public health propossal.

Of course it is interesting that despite all that, North America is a carbon sink, not a carbon exporter.