Bottom Billion by Paul Collier
This was a economic theory of the countries that could be categorized as being in the "bottom billion" in terms of development and growth. He goes into detail on how growth is sort of a complicated topic-more leaders in the field are focused on "poverty reduction and the other Millennium Development Goals, not about growth rates". According to Collier, there is a suspicion of growth that has (inadvertently) undermined genuinely strategic thinking.
He outlines a series of "traps" that countries in the bottom billion typically fall into which slows down growth or reverse it completely. Interesting that globalization comes into play here as well-China and India are two countries who were poorer than the current countries on the "bottom billion".
I thought this was an interesting approach to a complicated issue.
Fear of Small Numbers by Arjun Appadurai
Anthropologist Arjun Appadurai delves into the syndrome of ethnic hatred, which he links to globalization. As he puts it:
"Ethnic minorities do not come preformed. They are produced in the specific circumstances of every nation and every nationalization. Minorities, in a word, are metaphors and reminders of the betrayal of the classical national project."
Nationalization can breed marginization and in an extreme form, ethnic cleansing.
Globalization is such a new concept that has created incredible wealth for the more advanced countries who are willing to embrace new technologies (verterbrae vs. cellular world systems). That wealth has resulted in a fundamental imbalance between rich vs. poor nations.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Thoughts on Readings 1/28/09
Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change
Interesting attempt at quantifying the economic impact of BAU (Business As Usual) carbon-dioxide emissions in terms of global GDP changes. The review was separated into 2 parts: the first was considering the economic impacts of climate change and on the costs and benefits of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the second examines the appropriate form of such policy, and how it can be placed within a framework of international collective action.
The tone of the review is clear: action is absolutely urgent and critical at this time and should be pursued immediately to ensure that future generations will not inherit a "planet in peril".
There is an interesting manipulation of statistics and data going on throughout. While I personally believe that global climate change is the most significant world problem that we face today, there were some interesting statistics of "probable outcome" to climate change with only cursory admissions that the data is dealing with the unknown.
Aside from all of the strong scientific research that supports the claim that global warming is a real issue, we do not yet know what change the increase in global temperature will have on regional climates in various parts of the globe.
Specifially-in Figure 2 of the Stern Review "Stabilization levels and probability ranges for temperature increases", the arrows in the bottom half of the diagram predict catastrophic consequences to our food systems (enitre regions experience major declines in crop yield), water systems(sea level rises threaten major cities such as New York and Tokyo), Ecosystems, Extreme Weather Events, and Risk of rapid climate change and major irreversible impacts. Yet, if you look at the last sentence above there is a disclaimer:
"The relationship between global average temperature changes and regional climate changes is very uncertain, especially with regard to changes in precipitation".
Therefore, we are "very uncertain" at this point the inevitability that global temperature increases will cause regional changes in weather (drought or flooding that would impact crop yields and ecosystems).
However, to ensure that the world takes note of this issue, you have to make certain "assumptions" of what will happen to create a sense of urgency and to initiate global economic policy change.
Another thing that I thought was interesting was the statement of cost savings through mitigation with the use of low-carbon technologies. A simple graph is shown (Figure 5) which states simply that with increased use of new technologies, the costs will be initially high but will decline over time. A disclaimer again appears at the bottom:
"But the relationship is more complex than the figure suggests. Step-change movements in technology might accelerate progress, while constraints such as the availability of land or materials could result in increasing marginal costs".
Sooo.....using this new technology COULD be cheaper over time, but ONLY if the right set of circumstances were met.
A quick internet search of the Stern Review uncovered many criticisms of the methodologies used. Harvard economist Martin Weitzman stated that "the Stern Review consistently leans towards ... assumptions and formulations that emphasize optimistically-low expected costs of mitigation and pessimistically-high expected damages from greenhouse warming"
Interesting attempt at quantifying the economic impact of BAU (Business As Usual) carbon-dioxide emissions in terms of global GDP changes. The review was separated into 2 parts: the first was considering the economic impacts of climate change and on the costs and benefits of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the second examines the appropriate form of such policy, and how it can be placed within a framework of international collective action.
The tone of the review is clear: action is absolutely urgent and critical at this time and should be pursued immediately to ensure that future generations will not inherit a "planet in peril".
There is an interesting manipulation of statistics and data going on throughout. While I personally believe that global climate change is the most significant world problem that we face today, there were some interesting statistics of "probable outcome" to climate change with only cursory admissions that the data is dealing with the unknown.
Aside from all of the strong scientific research that supports the claim that global warming is a real issue, we do not yet know what change the increase in global temperature will have on regional climates in various parts of the globe.
Specifially-in Figure 2 of the Stern Review "Stabilization levels and probability ranges for temperature increases", the arrows in the bottom half of the diagram predict catastrophic consequences to our food systems (enitre regions experience major declines in crop yield), water systems(sea level rises threaten major cities such as New York and Tokyo), Ecosystems, Extreme Weather Events, and Risk of rapid climate change and major irreversible impacts. Yet, if you look at the last sentence above there is a disclaimer:
"The relationship between global average temperature changes and regional climate changes is very uncertain, especially with regard to changes in precipitation".
Therefore, we are "very uncertain" at this point the inevitability that global temperature increases will cause regional changes in weather (drought or flooding that would impact crop yields and ecosystems).
However, to ensure that the world takes note of this issue, you have to make certain "assumptions" of what will happen to create a sense of urgency and to initiate global economic policy change.
Another thing that I thought was interesting was the statement of cost savings through mitigation with the use of low-carbon technologies. A simple graph is shown (Figure 5) which states simply that with increased use of new technologies, the costs will be initially high but will decline over time. A disclaimer again appears at the bottom:
"But the relationship is more complex than the figure suggests. Step-change movements in technology might accelerate progress, while constraints such as the availability of land or materials could result in increasing marginal costs".
Sooo.....using this new technology COULD be cheaper over time, but ONLY if the right set of circumstances were met.
A quick internet search of the Stern Review uncovered many criticisms of the methodologies used. Harvard economist Martin Weitzman stated that "the Stern Review consistently leans towards ... assumptions and formulations that emphasize optimistically-low expected costs of mitigation and pessimistically-high expected damages from greenhouse warming"
Sunday, January 25, 2009
First Post!
This is my first blog post. Ever. Welcome to the age of technology. Time to explore new modes of expression and exchange. Better late than never.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
