Judge nations by per capital carbon emissions

Americans continue to generate carbon dioxide at unfair levels

Since Nationalist Public Radio (NPR) constantly says that China is the world's largest carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas producer, and they pass for liberal in these United States, I assume most Americans have a distorted view of how our nation fits into the problem of global warming.

If all people are created equal, we should set an average target allowance that is safe. Then everyone should work to push down the carbon emissions of those who are, in effect, cheating the rest of humanity (and all living creatures) by consuming more than their fare share.

So let's look at a few national averages, remembering that within each nation there are also high consumption carbon emitting individuals, and below average individuals. The following table is a sample. You can find fuller tables at Wikipedia List of Countries by carbon dioxide emissions.

Nation	kilotons CO2 emitted	tons per person
United States of America	5,334,000	16.5
Russia	1,766,000	12.4
European Union	3,415,000	6.7
China	10,540,000	7.6
India	2,341,000	1.8
Mexico	456,000	3.7
Indonesia	452,000	1.8

Of the nations with large populations the U.S.A. clearly consumes far more than its share of carbon per person. The global average is 5.0 tons per day, so we are at over 3 times that.

There are a few nations with per person carbon emission higher than the U.S.: Australia at 17.3, a coal producing nation; and Saudi Arabia at 16.8 are notable. But the E. U., with a standard of living similar to the U.S., is under half.

China is, on a per person basis, is at 46% of the U.S. Its total emissions are higher than the U.S. because of its much larger population (1.38 billion vs. 322 million).

When you throw in history, the unfairness of the situation is heightened. The industrial revolution started in Great Britain in the late 1700s, in Europe in the early 1800s, and in the U.S. around the mid 1800s. So we have had very long periods of carbon emissions compared to the rest of the world.

In the aftermath of World War II pretty much every factory in the world had been damaged. Except the factories of the U.S. With our vast petroleum fields and array of factories, we dominated the world economy and dwarfed the emissions of other nations. Other nations' factories came on line gradually. By the 1970s Americans had to compete again, and had grown soft, and so began losing the economic competition to other nations. We were just so wealthy by then that it took a while for the truth to sink in.

China made stabs at industrializing going all the way back to the 1800s, but did not really start to grow production faster than America, Europe, Japan and Russia until the 1980s.

The competitive advantages to nations that continue to burn fossil fuels are enormous. Clearly, if it were about fairness, the U.S.A., which has done the most historic damage, should do the most to cut its per capita fossil fuel consumption. Instead gasoline and natural gas are cheap right now, so consumption is increasing rather than decreasing.

Fairness is all fine in a game of tennis or baseball, but in the real world people who are unfairly privileged typically don't want to play fair. I've talked to people across the spectrum of American wealth and poverty, and the response is almost uniform. People want scientists to fix the problem without any substantial personal impositions on themselves.

Scientists can't change the laws of thermodynamics. That is why they are called laws. It takes energy to keep buildings warm in winter and cool in summer. It takes energy to move cars and planes around. It takes energy to fertilize farms, plant and harvest food, and get it to markets. It even takes energy to separate silicon from silicon dioxide to make solar panels, or to extract and transport fossil fuels.

It is clear that their are too many people in the world and that their standard of living is too high. In the United States we should probably do our share by immediately limiting families to one child, turning off all air conditioning systems (except, perhaps, hospitals), and adding a punitive tax to sales of fossil fuels, something like $3 per gallon of gasoline. Also all flying of any kind should be prohibited.

But we won't. The rich will buy Teslas and pretend they have done their part. They will meet with politicians in exotic locations and pat themselves on the back for closing the occasional coal-fired generating plant and putting in a few solar panel. The middle class will continue to aspire to the luxuries of the rich, and the working class will aspire to middle-class luxuries.

The coral will die, and the plankton will die, and sooner or later crops will wilt. Nature will will unleash plague and famine, and balance will be restored. Hopefully when humans die off, it won't be entirely random. Hopefully the humans that survive will give birth to an improved species.

Agree? Disagree? You can comment on this post at Natural Liberation Blog at blogspot.com

Mexican-American War Timeline

Note: throughout the period covered, Native American Indian tribes did not accept the right of Spain, Mexico, the Republic of Texas, or the United States to occupy their lands.

Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 sets the boundary between the United States and Spain at the Sabine River, the Red River, the Arkansas River, then the 42nd parallel west to the Pacific Ocean. Spain ceded Florida to the United States, and "The United States hereby cede to His Catholic Majesty, and renounce forever, all their rights, claims, and pretensions to the Territories lying West and South of the above described Line." [See text of Adams-Onis Treaty]
Mexico becomes independent of Spain, 1821. The new government encourages immigration to the Texas region, including by U.S. citizens.
1828. A Mexican government fact finding mission finds U.S. citizens are seizing land in Texas by fraud and by force and are suspected of plotting to annex Texas to the United States.
1836. Texas War of Independence. A Mexican army led by Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna enters Texas to restore order. U.S. citizens form militias, and after suffering a string of military defeats, defeat the Mexican Army at the Battle of San Jacinto on April 21, 1836. Captured and as a prisoner of war under duress, Santa Anna signed papers (Treaties of Velasco) promising to cease hostilities. Mexican troops were to relocate south of the Rio Grande, but this was not stated as an actual boundary of the Republic of Texas. The boundaries were to be established in a later treaty. Texas reneged on some of the provisions, and the government of Mexico refused to ratify the agreement, as it was beyond Santa Anna's authority and extracted under duress.
1837. The United States of America recognizes Texas as an independent nation. President Martin Van Buren turns down a formal request from Texas for annexation.
1842. Faced with bankruptcy, Texas again pursues annexation by the U.S., with the alternative of stronger ties with Great Britain. Mexican troops capture San Antonio, but later withdraw. The U.S. and Great Britain continue to haggle about where to draw the West Coast line between the U.S. and Canada.
October 18, 1842. U.S. Commodore Thomas Gatesby Jones seizes Monterey, California in Mexico. He had orders to "protect American interests" on the Pacific coast and thought that war between the U.S. and Mexico was imminent. Thirty hours later, receiving news that in fact the U.S. and Mexico were still at peace, Jones apologized and withdrew.
1844. Possible annexation of Texas is a major issue in the presidential election campaigns. An annexation treaty was signed on April 12, 1844, but because of the slavery issue (Texas practiced slavery), Congress does not pass its own bill for annexation until February 28, 1945. John Charles Fremont first enters California on a military exploration expedition.
November 1844. James K. Polk elected President. He and fellow expansionists plan to find a pretext to admit Texas to the union and buy or take New Mexico and California from Mexico.
October 1845. Thomas Larkin, U.S. consul in California, writes Polk that France and Britain have opened consulates there and were urging Mexico to send troops to counter the large influx of American adventurers in the region. Secretary of State Buchanan encourages Californians to revolt against Mexico, as Texas had. The commander of the U.S. Pacific Squadron is given orders to seize San Francisco if he were to "ascertain with certainty" that war had broken out.
July 1845. Brigadier General Zachary Taylor moves U.S. troops into Texas, and Polk insists the Rio Grande is to be the boundary with Mexico once Texas is annexed.
August 29, 1845. Polk orders General Taylor to regard any crossing of the Rio Grande by Mexican troops as an act of war. Taylor given permission to attack first, at his discretion, and take Matamoros on the south bank of the Rio Grande, but not to penetrate further into Mexico. But Taylor, cautious, advances only to Corpus Christi.
December 29, 1845. President Polk signs resolution of Congress admitting Texas to the United States.
1845-1846. The Mexican government repeatedly rejects offers to sell California and the land north of the Rio Grande to the United States.
January 13, 1846. Polk orders Taylor to advance to the Rio Grande and construct Fort Texas opposite Matamoros.
January 27, 1846. Fremont arrives in Monterey, telling Mexican authorities he just wants to resupply before marching north to the Oregon territory. Instead he fortifies Gavilian Peak (now Hawks Peak) and raises the American flag. When confronted with 200 Mexican troops, Fremont and his smaller force abandon their fort on March 9th.
March 1846. Taylor begins construction of Fort Texas on the Rio Grande.
April 12, 1846. Mexican General Pedro de Ampudia sends General Taylor a demand to withdraw his troops to the Nueces River.
Mid April, 1846. General Mariano Arista takes command of Mexican troops and informed Taylor that in his opinion, the war had begun. This was not authorized by the Mexican government, which enduring a civil war.
April 25, 1846. U.S. forces under Captain Seth Thornton clash with Mexican forces north of the Rio Grande; Mexicans win the battle.
April 28, 1846. Polk discusses with his Cabinet asking Congress to declare war.
May 8, 1846. Battle of Palo Alto.
May 8, 1846. John Slidell reports the failure of U.S. attempts to buy the desired lands. Polk says he is preparing to ask Congress to declare war.
May 9, 1846. Battle of Resaca de la Palma.
May 9, 1846. Morning. U.S. Cabinet votes to declare war with 1 dissent.
May 9, 1846. Bearing secret orders from Polk, Lieutenant Archibald H. Gillespie meets Fremont at Upper Klamath Lake. [The orders had been given in on October 30, 1845]
May 9, 1846. Evening. Dispatch from General Taylor handed to President Polk, reporting the Thornton disaster and declaring that hostilities had commenced.
May 11, 1846. Polk asks Congress to declare war on Mexico, stating "Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil." Later that day House of Representatives passes declaration of war 174 to 14.
May 12, 1846. Senate, after a lengthier debate, approves war 40 to 2.
May 13, 1846. President Polk signs the Declaration of War with Mexico, making it official.
June 14, 1846. A few people in the small town of Sonoma declare California an independent republic (Bear Flag Republic). This is before news of the war arrived.
December 22, 1847. Abraham Lincoln, Whig Party congressman from Illinois, introduces his Spot Resolutions, challenging the idea that the war began when American blood was spilled on American soil.
February 2, 1848. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Mexico cedes Texas and what later became the states of California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona and parts of New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming to the United States.

Sources:

Walter R. Borneman, Polk, The Man Who Transformed the Presidency and America, trade paperback edition, 2008, Random House, New York.
Wikipedia, used to double check and fill in some dates.

Immigration, the Economy, and Globalization

I have been avoiding writing about the topic of immigration into the United States of America. I have found most political people, the kind who would be reading a relatively obscure blog like mine, have set views that they do not want challenged by the many facets of the issue. Left and right, people want a simple position they can get their emotions behind. To differ from your crowd risks social rejection. As we have seen in the recent federal funding debates, factions digging into their positions and not seeing an overview (which would give some validity to opposing views) leads to paralysis. Which is great if you want to be frozen into the dysfunctional status quo. I believe that truly understanding all aspects of an issue leads to the best possible (though not necessarily ideal) solutions. So here we go, starting with a legal dissection.

There are two types of immigrants into the United States: legal and illegal (allowing for a handful that occupy gray areas). While many anti-immigrant sentiments, and arguments, may apply to legal immigrants, most Americans seem to be okay with legal immigration, to the extent that it currently exists. Legal immigration can be addressed by Congress, and most people are willing to let the issue be fought out there. Illegal immigrants provoke different reactions. These two types of immigration get tied together when there are proposals to legalize illegal immigrants who have become long-term residents, something also in the power of Congress. I will start with an initial look at illegal immigration, since this is where greatest controversy has been.

One common attitude towards illegal immigrants, the welcoming one, is usually rationalized on a civil rights basis. If all people are created equal, as it says in the Declaration of Independence, then an illegal person is still a person, and standing on American soil should be treated as an equal person, with a path to official citizenship.

There are typically three main reasons many American citizens want illegal immigrants to be removed and to have no pathway to a legal status. One is economic: in effect such immigrants are scabs who lower wages and take jobs from citizens. The second is a dislike of the cultures (or ethnicity) of illegals. The third is based on the act of entering the country illegally: there are legal ways to enter, and illegal entry is a criminal act. This initial act of defiance of U.S. law puts them at odds with those who style themselves as law-abiding citizens.

For me only the racist or ethnic argument is easy to dismiss. I like for new spice to be added to the American melting pot. I don't like narrow-minded or racist culture. The other criticisms, however, are not so easy to dismiss.

There are two good, yet contradictory arguments about the economic effects of illegal immigrants. One is that they take jobs that no one wants, and like any other paid persons, spend their pay mostly on local goods and services and so help keep the wealth creation cycle intact. The others is that they lower wages and use taxpayer funded services to which they contribute nothing or little. I have seen that both of these phenomena exist (ideology bound thinkers refuse to notice one or the other), but the question is, to what extent? The reality is that no single snapshot gives the whole picture. The economic impact varies according to whether the U.S. is in a boom or a recession, and it varies by locality and economic sector. It can be subtle too: according to contractors, for the same rate of pay, many illegals will work harder, with fewer breaks. That benefits the construction corporations, but does it benefit the general economy is nearly-as-productive workers are idled?

To the extent that illegal immigrants do benefit the economy, the obvious solution would be to bring them in legally, either through temporary work programs or by expanding quotas. Then, to the extent that some people focus on the illegality of immigrants, that can be separated from economic impact arguments. The Republican Party has had quite a problem with this aspect of the immigration issue. Capitalists want cheap labor, and love the union-busting tendencies of illegal immigration. Rank and file conservative Republicans feel threatened economically and culturally, and so oppose increasing quotas and temporary work programs. Bachmann, Perry, Romney and crew have to balance the need for big campaign donations from their bosses against the need for the votes of the little people.

I am for maximizing economic benefits to the downtrodden American worker. That means I favor temporary work visas only when there really are no workers already present in this nation who want the jobs available. That means the law would have to be flexible, letting more workers in during booms, maybe excluding them during recessions. Also, such work should really be temporary. If a worker is needed most of the time for a period of say, over two years, they should be given the opportunity to choose to become first a permanent worker and then a citizen.

If this rational policy were followed, illegal immigrants would only be here for their own benefit. They have made a choice to not go through the quota system or temporary labor programs. They have, in effect, stolen someone else's place in line. I think the civil rights argument is inappropriate in this context. I don't believe scabs have a civil right to lower other people's wages or take their jobs. I want to emphasize that I admit to thinking narrowly here, within the context of a national economy box that I think is outmoded. My problem with applying the civil rights argument, in its present context, is that it provides a giant loophole for American capitalists to maximize their own profits while starving working people. We don't need that kind of help.

So far I have kept the argument in a national context, and I think that is part of the problem. We live in a regionalized economy where capitalists think nothing of packing up a plant in Rhode Island and reassembling it for production in Wuchou. NAFTA unites the economies of Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but our freedom to work where we choose in these three nations is excluded from the deal.

Mexico is the Godzilla of the immigration debate. Often illegal immigrant is synonymous with illegal Mexican immigrant. Anti-immigrant sentiment sees Mexico as a horde of people seething to inundate the U.S., held back only by immigration and anti-immigration laws.

This is absurd. Open the borders and there would be some brief acceleration of immigration from Mexico, but it has never been all that hard to get into the U.S., despite tragic deaths in the deserts near the border. There just are not that many people in Mexico. The population of Mexico is about 112,000,000. The U.S. population is about 312,000,000.

If anything, open borders would be a problem for Mexico. Remember, the Mexico used to include Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. American birth rates and illegal immigration into those states in the 1840s were a precursor of their theft by the U.S. government. I believe that given the lower cost of living in Mexico today, a lot more Americans would move there if they were free to come and go, buy housing, and work there. 10% of the American population moving to Mexico would have a far greater impact there than 10% of the Mexican population moving to the U.S. The failure of Canada and the U.S. to arrange for mutual citizenship is even more absurd.

What is true regionally is true globally. While I believe there would be enormous cultural and economic benefits to having global citizenship, to everyone being able to live and work where they choose, in the short run I would want the transition to be well-managed. The gates should come down slowly. If someone is coming to America, they should have a plan, basically a job lined up, and the same for Americans emigrating to greener pastures.

Another big context is overpopulation. I believe it is a fact that the world is overpopulated with humans. I believe the global number of humans needs to be substantially reduced over time if the environment that supports us all remains healthy. Therefore I support a two-child maximum policy in the U.S., and think that is appropriate in much of the rest of the world as well.

I don't think my immigration ideas are likely to be implemented by the U.S. anytime soon (even though they have been implemented within the European Union). To allow for mutual immigration between the U.S. and any other country, notably Mexico, I would like to require that the partner country recognize women's rights to birth control and abortions, and implement a two-child maximum policy. Of course if every nation did that, less people would feel compelled to emigrate from their native lands.

Go West Young Man: Japan and Manchuria

I just began reading The Rising Sun, The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945 by John Toland, and it looks to be a fascinating book. In its first few pages he has fleshed-out some of the events I only learned about after beginning research on my U.S. War Against Asia. I was particularly struck by his evocation of Japanese sentiments towards Manchuria, on pages 7 and 8:

"The two officers felt that Manchuria was the only answer to poverty in Japan. It could be transformed from a wilderness into a civilized, prosperous area, alleviating unemployment at home and providing an outlet for the overpopulated homeland, where more than two-thirds of the farms were smaller than two and a quarter acres."

Was that not exactly the attitude of European settlers towards America, and of the citizens of the United States towards the Indian nation lands of the West?

Were not the problems, including ethical problems, the same? After all, people already lived in Manchuria and felt they owned it. The dominant tribe was the Manchu (or Qing Dynasty), who had conquered China in 1644 and ruled it until 1912. In addition to non-Manchu indigenous groups, many ethnic Chinese, Koreans, an others had migrated to Manchuria over the centuries.

For Americans, the American west (and here I mean that ever-shifting West that originally was just few miles west of the shores of the Atlantic ocean) was considered to be essentially empty. American Indian tribe oral land titles were voided by murder. The attitude of the Japanese was that Manchuria was essentially empty. Land that was not mined, tilled, or urbanized was land wasted. Had the Japanese colonized Manchuria before 1850, no one would think much about a Manchurian state dominated by ethnic Japanese today. But the Japanese were coming late to the land-grab game. The United States had already grabbed Hawaii, Alaska and the Philippines by the time the Japanese got serious about Manchuria. Russia and China both wanted Manchuria. England, France, Germany, and the United States wanted Manchuria to be kept open to their own commercial exploitation. So Japan had to fight two major wars to get a grip on Manchuria, first with China and then with Russia.

It is still an interesting question, the relative rights of natives in thinly populated areas against the rights of intruders to settle. Religion aside, it is the fundamental question in Palestine right now. It is also a fundamental question in Tibet. I've heard it is a fundamental question in the states of Washington and Oregon, who look with horror upon the masses of northward trekking Californians who (except in the current recession) keep pushing up real estate prices.

One might also ask about Hawaii. As I recently found out, when the United States seized Hawaii, the biggest ethnic group there was not native polynesians, nor American colonists, it was Japanese. They were not consulted in the deal. Neither were the natives consulted when the U.S. grabbed the Philippines. Lucky for the Filipinos, not many Americans wanted to emigrate there, although about two million Filipinos were murdered to clear the way just in case.

There does not seem to me to be anything fundamentally wrong with Han Chinese emigration to Tibet, as long as the native Tibetans have equal rights and land transfers are fair and transparent. The fear is always that the new majority (or more powerful group even if it is in a numerical minority) will discriminate against the old majority. In American history, brief though it is, we see this happened in Texas. The Mexican government made the mistake of allowing American (northern European-descended) settlers. As soon as they could they rebelled and established a nation, Texas, that discriminated against Mexicans (and the remaining native American Indian tribes), often simply murdering them without a trial or any pretext.

The peaceful process of immigration into the United States, though sometimes politically contentious, actually serves as a good model for the world. I would like to see more mobility, not less. Every person should have the full human rights recognized by mankind. That should include the right to relocated provided you follow reasonable rules. You should be able to buy land, a residence, or a business from someone who is a willing seller. But doing what the Israeli state does: bulldozing communities off their land, then sending in settlers, is wrong. No matter who does it: Chinese, Americans, Japanese, or any nation or group of people.

Beware of Obama Bearing Infrastructure

Aside from keeping the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the key announced component of Obamonomics so far is heavy infrastructure spending. Given that many members of the Barack Obama economics team are Bill Clinton era globalizers and deregulators, this bears examination.

Infrastructure is a broad word. Spending on infrastructure could mean that the potholes on your street will be fixed, or you might finally get broadband Internet access. It could mean repairing old infrastructure, or building new. It is the choice of what new infrastructure is to be built that concerns me.

Infrastructure is typically roads (including bridges and railroads), sewers and utilities (including communications), and public buildings.

Infrastructure can be a make-work boondoggle, often on a Congressional district by district basis, that creates profits for a segment of the building industry but little long term public benefit. When massive amounts of money are spent, be assured the taxpayers will be buying a healthy dose of this kind of infrastructure.

Money for schools I can go for. You can't make our public schools too nice, in my opinion. They are often a long way from being close to nice.

Infrastructure can serve special interests. The developers of a new mall or housing development, for instance. It can hurt particular interests too, as when a megastore drains the economy of nearby small towns.

What most concerns me is the likelihood that a big part of any infrastructure spend will be on globalization projects, in particular the free-trade, low-wage corridors being developed under the SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership) plan. This plan would drain the life blood of main street America to build up the global corporate elite. It is a really, really bad plan for the environment and for most American citizens. Promoted by the corporate elite of the United States, it also encompasses Mexico and Canada.

Are you worried about global warming and carbon emissions? Then you should be very wary of new infrastructure. One of the largest components of carbon dioxide emissions is seldom talked about: the creation of cement for concrete. This involves roasting limestone, which releases its carbon dioxide. Limestone itself, which is mostly calcium carbonate, is one of the great carbon dioxide sinks of the planet. When you are talking infrastructure, you are almost always talking substantial, even gargantuan, quantities of concrete. The SPP is particularly concrete intensive. As envisioned, it will use more concrete than any previous construction program in the U.S.

What the country and the world really need is a population program. That is, humans need to start consciously managing the size of the human population for long-term environmental sustainability. Building massive amounts of new infrastructure at this point in time, without a population program, is an exercise in economic or environmental suicide, or probably both.

So follow the infrastructure spending plan. Let your Congress know that if there is spending, you want it to benefit local economies, not international corporations.

Can the leaders of the Democratic Party serve the same corporate interests that the Republican Party serves? Yes We Can!

More data:

SPP (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America) at Wikipedia
U. S. Government SPP Propaganda site

"Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts" - English folk saying

"Put not thy faith in any Greek" - Euripides, Iphigenia

"I fear the Greeks even when they bring gifts" - Virgil, the Aeneid, Book II, line 49

Generally believe to be a reference to the story of the Trojan Horse in Homer's Iliad.