Southern China will be stressed by global warming

INTERNATIONAL: "Wangzhi Journal: Spring Harvest of Debt for Parched Farms in Southern China," by Michael Wines, New York Times, 5 April 2010.

Worst drought in a century for southern China, climatologists say.

Southern China lies below the 35 parallel that, by most accounts, serves as the dividing line between where it will be okay or better to grow food in a warmer world (north of the line) and where it will be much harder.

Image found here

The same latitude runs through America, delineating roughly the bottom third of the continental US from the upper two-thirds.

I see this as being a huge problem for China, given how important that region is for China's food supply.

The age of great aging

ARTICLE: "The shock of the old: Welcome to the elderly age," by Fred Pearce, New Scientist, 8 April 2010.

Killer para:

Homo sapiens is ageing fast, and the implications of this may overwhelm all other factors shaping the species over the coming decades - with more wrinklies than pimplies, more walking frames than bike stabilisers, more slippers and pipes than bootees and buggies, and more grey power than student power. The longevity revolution affects every country, every community and almost every household. It promises to restructure the economy, reshape the family, redefine politics and even rearrange the geopolitical order over the coming century.

Half of all the people who've ever lived past 65 in human history are alive now.

Just imagine what happens with the serious life-extension technologies kick in.

Still see a future of "perpetual war" the world over?

[thanks to my brother Andy]

The conspiracy of events

Found here

WORLD NEWS: "Hope for thaw in Moscow ties: Putin in rare display of emotion; 'Wave of sympathy towards Poles,'" by Jan Cienski and Catherine Belton, Financial Times, 12 April 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "Clues Sought in Crash of Polish Plane: Many Russian Jets Lack Safety Equipment Common on Western Commercial Aircraft; No Engine Problems Reported," by Andy Pasztor and Daniel Michaels, Wall Street Journal, 12 April 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "Russia blames pilot error for Polish jet crash: Crew warned over landing in thick fog; Black box data raises questions,", by Catherine Belton and Jan Cienski, Financial Times, 13 April 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "Kyrgyz leader refuses to stand down and call for UN troops," by Ben Judah, Financial Times, 12 April 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "Kyrgyz interim leader asks for Moscow aid," by Isabel Gorst and Catherine Belton, Financial Times, 9 April 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "Kyrgyz Leaders Say U.S. Enriched Regime: Newly Installed Government Complain U.S. Ignored Increasing Repression, as U.S. Halts Flights at Key Air Force Base," by Alan Cullison and Kadyr Toktogulov, Wall Street Journal, 10-11 April 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "U.S. Reaches Out To Kyrgyz Leaders," by Alan Cullison and Kadyr Toktogulov, Wall Street Journal, 12 April 2010.

ASIA: "Kyrgyzstan: Tear gas, not tulips; An uprising watched throughout Central Asia, with implications for Russia and America," The Economist, 10 April 2010.

ECONOMICS & POLICY: "Belarus: Capitalism's Unlike Frontier: With Russian subsidies declining, President Lukashenko is looking westward for investment," by Carol Matlack, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, 19 April 2010.

Truly an interesting week for Moscow, so much so as to wind up the conspiracy buffs.

And yet nothing seems quite what it might appear to be at first glance.

The Russian-built plane that goes down with all those Polish leaders on it was ferrying them to a Katyn forest massacre memorial (70th anniversary) following Russia's unprecedented recent willingness to accept responsibility (in its past Soviet guise) for the tragedy long blamed on Nazis.

Like the Katyn massacre, when the Polish nation lost 22k of its best and brightest, this plane crash of so many dignitaries pushes many to describe it as the sequel national tragedy.

All that is well-enough expected, but then the surprises come: Putin relents to a rare display of public emotion, the Russian people issue this outpouring of empathy, and the Poles themselves seem more than receptive to it.

In short, the original goal of the plane trip (to mend relations with Russia) appears to proceed nonetheless.

As for the conspiracy buffs, the prosaic facts abound: the 20-year-old Tupolev 154 lacked a lot of safety gear that we'd assume it'd have--especially when you're talking the Polish equivalent of Air Force One. And so you're left with this preventable accident that normal ground collision warning systems should have handled (indeed, all indications now are that the pilot ignored what danger signs he did receive).

And here's the truly believable bit: the ground-warning systems mandated in much of the world has been rejected by the former Soviet Union because the equipment continuously collects data about the terrain around airports and sends it back to US computers where the system was originally developed. The Russians reject the technology out of their usual knee-jerk security concerns, and are rewarded with this entirely preventable tragedy.

From the Economist story

Meanwhile, in Central Asia, you have the events of the sort-of popular overthrow of the much disliked and grossly corrupt Bakiyev regime. I say "sort of" because it seems plenty wanted him gone, but that it was a relatively small and quick affair (less than 5k demonstrators and poof!).

The new leadership has plenty of bad things to say about the old, linking America to his corruption through payments we made on the Manas air base and the fuel purchasing we made through the previous leader's son. The deposed Bakiyev speaks bravely from his home and asks for UN troops while the new leaders plead for Moscow's help. The US, playing catch-up, now reaches out to the new leaders, who seem plenty smart enough to talk tough with us while not closing any doors on future collaboration (many of the new leaders are very pro-Western).

Upshot? Hard to see any Moscow advantage in these events either. America's base will remain, and Putin-clones across the region have to feel that much more nervous.

And then you come across the Belarus piece and you start thinking, for all this babbling about "resurgent Russia," it seems to be losing influence everywhere across its old Soviet empire, and the primary reason is because Russia's economic pull is weakening with each passing year. To get ahead is to connect economically beyond Moscow, whether it's Eastern Europe connecting to the EU, the Central Asian states connecting with China, or even Moscow itself casting it's lot more directly with its energy buyers West (like that new pipeline to Germany) and East (China, naturally).

And I have to admit, as a former Soviet expert on the former Soviet Union, that to have a week of news events like this and to come away feeling this way is kind of weird. It was just three years ago that Time names Putin "man of the year" and then just a year-and-a-half ago that Moscow smacks down Georgia. But now you come across this week, coming as it does on the heels of the START accord and all those stories of the Red Army being reduced to trying to buy French military platforms, and you realize just how mundane the old Soviet threat has become, despite our recently resurgent fears.

Russia's not rising anywhere. It's barely treading water.

I mean, when we're reduced to talking about the Russian-Iranian-Venezuelan "axis," it makes you realize how pathetic the pol-mil competition has become, especially when compared to the network-economic competition out there--like China, India, Brazil, Turkey, etc.

The sweet spot for sweet crude?

ARTICLE: "Oil Prices Find a Sweet Spot for World Economy," by Clifford Krauss, New York Times, 30 March 2010.

MARKETS & INVESTING: "Will oil be the kiss of death for recovery? Can the fragile global economy withstand oil at $100 a barrel?" by Gregory Meyer and Michael Mackenzie, Financial Times, 9 April 2010.

Writing in Great Powers (p382), what I said about the future of oil prices is that the NOCs (which control the bulk of reserves and increasingly control the bulk of production) would invest just enough to make sure the price didn't get far above $100/barrel but not too much so that it would fall too much below that mark. I based that notion on the oft-expressed desire by experts to see the mark land--and stay--somewhere around $80/barrel.

Well . . .

Oil prices have done something remarkable over the last half-year or so: they have barely budged.

Memories are still fresh of the chaotic climb to $147 a barrel only two summers ago, accompanied by gasoline costing $4.11 a gallon. The spike led to accusations from drivers and politicians that oil companies were price-gouging. Then crude prices plummeted along with the economy, to around $34 a barrel just over a year ago, only to double again in a matter of months as confidence began to recover.

And there the price has stayed, more or less, since August, reaching a rough stability in the $70 to $83 range.

Economists and government officials say that if prices remain in that band, it could benefit the world economy, the future security of energy supplies and even the environment. The price is high enough to drive investment in future oil production and in supplies of alternative energy, they note, but low enough that consumers can bear it.

"It's a sweet spot," said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a Harvard professor of international finance.

Too high and we run into Thomas Friedman's bit about petrocrats running too much of the world, but too low and we're into his other great fear--too little investment in the environment.

Arguably, we have found the middle ground for now.

Yes, the fears will remain of price spikes, but now even those are reasonably bounded by the upper range of $100/barrel.

What does that mean for the emerging reality of "peak oil"? I stick with Cambridge Energy and their notion that we'll see a production plateau that will undulate for several decades as unconventional sources are suitably tapped. But when you add two US car markets in the BRICs alone over the next dozen or so years, I see the tipping point coming first in demand rather than in production. Those rising powers simply won't want to lock themselves into this pathway--especially China.

So the shift to the post-gas-combustion engine will continue, driven largely by the New Core. When I've said in the past, the New Core sets the new rules, this has always been my prime directive.

China's infrastructure build-out means exportable capacity

WORLD NEWS: "China Railway wins $4.8bn Indonesia line," by Jamil Anderlini and Anthony Deutsch, Financial Times, 26 March 2010.

The "latest in a string of offshore contracts for China's state-controlled rail companies as Beijing seeks to secure resources to fuel its booming economy."

Other places where the Chinese state companies clean up: Middle East, LATAM, Africa and Australia.

Money talks:

The deal is further evidence that the once-frosty ties between east Asia's two largest nations are rapidly warming.

The Chinese strategy is right out of rising America's playbook:

Beijing has made the transfer of sophisticated technology a prerequisite for international rail companies trying to enter the huge Chinese market and Chinese companies have rapidly become technologically competitive while offering much lower prices than their global rivals.

Experts say that 90% of the technology China now uses in these overseas deals first came to China from foreign companies.

Fear the Western card? Expand the deck.

ARTICLE: "Afghan Leader Is Seen to Flout Influence of U.S.," by Dexter Filkins and Mark Landler, New York Times, 29 March 2010.

Karzai's two outbursts have agitated both the White House and a lot of pundits, Thomas Friedman most famously.

My reply to such gamesmanship (playing the Western devil card, ostensibly to scare the Parliament into giving him the control over future elections that Karzai seeks--along with other things, one must assume) is the same as before: de-Westernize the intervention by plussing up the regional contingent.

That's not simply asking people for troops. That's signaling to everyone that your effort isn't infinite, but that you want to engage them seriously as your glidepath degrades. What results will not simply be us getting them to fill in as we see fit. They will fill in as they see fit, invariably sub-optimizing the outcome from our perspective, but that's going to be the case damn near everywhere inside the Gap, where our economic interests tend to be far more narrow than--for example--the rising Eastern powers.

Pull back your lens, I say, and realize that, in good COIN logic, it will be better for the rising great powers to do an okay job on their own than for us to try and do a better job all by ourselves.

This is the reality of our success in spreading globalization. We can try to manage it all, in our own SysAdmin effort, or we think more strategically, preserve the Leviathan (and its nukes) and use our burgeoning SysAdmin capabilities to trigger the inflow of others who are better resourced (especially in bodies) and far more incentivized to stay.

This has been my line for about a decade: our exporting of security is a great thing, but it cannot possibly cover the market that we've successfully expanded. But the good news is, we enabled the rise of new allies (if only we could see them and effectively co-opt them) to fill the place of old ones.

The problem being, we still play the field like it's the Cold War, and it's bankrupting when it need not be.

There is the force, and then there is the force that moves the force around the planet

ARTICLE: "No Shortcuts When Military Moves a War," by Stephen Farrell and Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, 31 March 2010.

The reality:

Early this year a "fob in a box" -- military slang for 80 shipping containers with all the tents, showers and construction material needed to set up a remote forward operating base -- was put on trucks here for the trip from one war to another.

Left over and never used in Iraq, the fob rumbled north to Turkey, east through Georgia and Azerbaijan, by ship across the Caspian Sea to Kazakhstan, then south on the old Soviet rail lines of Uzbekistan into northern Afghanistan. There -- the end of a seven-nation, 2,300-mile, two-and-a-half-month odyssey -- it was assembled just weeks ago as home for several hundred of the thousands of American forces entering the country.

In trying to speed 30,000 reinforcements into Afghanistan while reducing American forces in Iraq by 50,000, American commanders are orchestrating one of the largest movements of troops and matériel since World War II. Military officials say that transporting so many people and billions of dollars' worth of equipment, weapons, housing, fuel and food in and out of both countries between now and an August deadline is as critical and difficult as what is occurring on the battlefield.

From the NYT story.

FOB is a forward operating base. They are typically smallish by US base standards, but some can get pretty big. And yeah, they're mostly containers. The base in Djibouti is like that, if you remember my pix from that.

My photo, later published in Esquire.

My point in citing: Many militaries around the world have bodies, but none but America has any serious capacity for moving them around the planet and sustaining them. The calendar of such movements means "instantaneous" responses are a myth, unless you talking missile-lobbing efforts or the insertion of a few special ops people. Bottom line: surges and drawdowns are months--if not years--in the making (and unmaking).

World's biggest future economy? World's villain on resource consumption too

ARTICLE: "Countries Blame China, Not Nature, for Water Shortage," by Thomas Fuller, New York Times, 1 April 2010.

Whatever the level of truth, the larger reality will only become more prevalent: the world will increasingly view China as the scary consumer of all things within globalization--less so the United States.

This is the unfortunate downside to the trajectory that depicts China as someday soon owning the world's largest economy, yet again demonstrating that this global system we created comes with an amazing array of self-correcting mechanisms because it's based on markets.

It ain't just Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan anymore

FILM: "Chinese on a roll with Hong Kong help," by Clifford Coonan, Variety, 22-28 March 2010.

The Chinese movie box office is described as "galloping," and the "majority of the top 10 Chinese-language box office hits in China were Hong Kong movies or co-productions."

That translates into a 30% increase in movies currently "lensing" in HK compared to last year.

By accounts, a remarkable revitalization of Hong Kong's fabled film industry.

The enduring COIN reality: the boys don't come home--for a very long time

A soldier helps children cross the street in a Swat Valley town. The army presence in Swat is larger than it was during the summer offensive. (Karin Brulliard/the Washington Post)

ARTICLE: "Enduring army role in Swat spurs questions about Pakistan's civilian government," by Karin Brulliard, Washington Post, 2 April 2010.

Oh, and Condi, troops WILL be escorting kids to kindergarten.

When you've got nothing to sell, sell location

ARTICLE: "Afghanistan: Building the Missing Link in the Modern Silk Road," by Andrew C. Kuchins, Thomas M. Sanderson, and David A. Gordon, Washington Quarterly, April 2010.

In the first half of 2009, the United States established several new transit corridors to deliver nonlethal goods to its forces in Afghanistan. Collectively, these new supply lines have been termed the Northern Distribution Network (NDN). Establishing the NDN has engaged new states in cooperation on the Obama administration's first security priority, which is to stabilize Afghanistan. Some individuals are concerned that the NDN makes the United States more vulnerable to certain states, such as Russia and Uzbekistan, whose interests may not be fully aligned with Washington's. Though this worry is justified, critics of the NDN underestimate the economic and political opportunities it has created.

Smart argument. The larger doc is worth a read.

Best line: "The Afghans themselves understand that their future prosperity is tied to
Afghanistan's central role in a reconstituted Eurasian trading network."

Historically speaking, Afghans have mostly sold their location (meaning cross-transit)--and little else.

My consistent bottom line on interventions: leave the place more connected than you found it, and then let the locals exploit for economic gain. Democracy is a distant second to this crucial goal.

[thanks to WPR's Media Roundup]

Make India happy on Afghanistan, or rinse and repeat

ARTICLE: "India's Eager Courtship of Afghanistan Comes at a Steep Price," by Emily Wax, Washington Post, 3 April 2010.

The opening:

Along a rugged stretch of road in the shadow of the snow-covered Hindu Kush mountains, villagers in mud-brick huts praised the newest addition to their vista: a series of massive steel towers that reach into the clouds.

The towers, part of a $1.3 billion aid package from India, carry electricity to a crippled region that has long gone without. They also represent an intense competition between India and arch-rival Pakistan for influence in whatever kind of Afghanistan emerges from the U.S.-led war.

To blunt India's eager courtship of Afghanistan, Pakistan is pouring $300 million of its own money and resources into a nation it also views as key to the stability of volatile South Asia, as well as a potentially lucrative business partner.

The economic stakes are especially enormous for India, the far richer nation, as it seeks energy to fuel its rise as a global economic power. Afghanistan is a bridge to Central Asia's vast gas and oil reserves, which are coveted by India and Pakistan, both of which have nuclear weapons but barely enough electricity.

India's efforts have come at a cost: It has suffered four attacks on its interests in Afghanistan in the past two years, which have killed at least 101 people and wounded 239. Attacks on two Kabul guesthouses in February killed seven Indians, including a visiting musician and the chief engineer of the Chelebaak electricity project.

For U.S. officials, India's increasing presence in Afghanistan is causing new security and diplomatic problems in a country where more than 1,000 American troops have died in more than eight years of war. Washington also fears upsetting the delicate balance in its relations with Islamabad.

"Let's be honest with one another: There are real suspicions in both India and Pakistan about what the other is doing in Afghanistan," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters after a recent trip to New Delhi.

Washington is feeling pressure from Pakistan to limit India's role in Afghanistan.

Those pressures should be resisted, as I have long argued. India, not Pakistan, is the driver and center of gravity for globalization and connectivity in South Asia. Prioritize Pakistan and you indulge its mania for strategic depth and little else.

But indulge India--and its 500 million unbranded teenage consumers--and you swim with the intense current that is globalization.

This is thinking of war solely within the context of war--this intense desire to placate Pakistan so we can leave ASAP. To the extent we go down this path, virtually all our sacrifice to date will be wasted--because the whole show will inevitably be repeated somewhere down the road.

[thanks to Our Man in Kabul]

Susan Barnett's street-captured art starts receiving big-time attention

My sister-in-law, the photographer Susan Barnett, recently had some sort of show in Los Angeles (it was based on her work on t-shirts called "In Your Face"). This showing led to a blog post-profile at Lenscratch.

I mention because Susan's work has also led to posting at Popular Photography's website, popphoto.com. I've also heard, from my Mutti, that it also resulted in something in the May print issue. If anybody gets that, let me know what you think. I'll be tracking down a copy here in Indy.

I like to support Susan's work, although I will still say that her t-shirt stuff, as fabulous as it is, comes second, in my humble opinion, to her shots through store-front windows (that combine the see-through image, with captured neon signage in the window, AND the street reflection).

Whatever the route, Sue's street legend grows--as does her professional standing in the photographic community. I believe a book deal is in the works regarding the "In Your Face" shots

The lesson of Sue's life to date? Never underestimate how many careers you will have. When I met her in 1985, she was an art dealer. That was at least two careers back.

Holding back Africa because of global warming

OP-ED: "Obama keeps Africa in the dark: Warmist policies kill a million a year," by Roy Innis and Niger Innis, Washington Times, 24 March 2010.

Good example of our push on cleaner energy clashing with the on-the-ground reality of developing countries trying to improve the lot of their population regarding access to electricity. Particulars here are OPIC and Africa.

Writers are credible on the subject.

[via WPR Media Roundup]

"Simmer down now!"

ARTICLE: "Some in Indonesia praise, seek to replicate China's fight against United States," by Andrew Higgins, Washington Post, 29 March 2010.

Interesting notion:

"We should do what China has done; America must follow our rules," declared retired Gen. Tyasno Sudarto. Veiled women and bearded men, seated separately to avoid mingling of the sexes, shouted praise for Allah and jabbed their fists in the air. Another speaker hailed China for defying Washington's "neo-liberal" economic creed.

But it's a development-stage-limited argument: risers love to engage in all manner of protectionism and advanced countries see the larger wisdom and gain in keeping trade as free as possible. When America was a riser, it preferred protectionism (right through the 1930s). And when China gets "high" enough, it will embrace "neo-liberalism."

But you get the idea. Standing up to Washington has real catchet today, so we are meant to be impressed.

[back slap if you can name the SNL actress]

Come together, right now, over ElBaradei

ARTICLE: "Islamists and leftists meet to urge political change in Egypt," by Matt Bradley, The National, 31 March 2010.

Described as "the first meeting in recent memory between Egypt's secular and religious opposition," this baby-step toward combined opposition to Mubarak is presented as arising in the wake of Mohammed ElBaradei's return to Egypt. He has been openly pushing the opposition parties to unite despite their differences.

A hopeful sign.

[via WPR Media Roundup]

The China model becomes the China adjustment

ARTICLE: "China mining company causes unrest in Niger: As resource-hungry China expands its mining operations in Niger, Tuareg rebels say China enriched a corrupt government at the expense of locals," by Hannah Armstrong, Christian Science Monitor, 29 March 2010.

Get used to hearing this story. China certainly will.

The sun-wizened Tuareg women of Azalik have declared war on China. Like their ancestors, they once eked out a living selling dried salts from an ancestral well. Everything changed last year, when the government leased their land to the China Nuclear International Uranium Corporation (Sino-U) for uranium exploration. Left with no livelihood and no compensation, a hundred women gathered to launch stones at mining machinery.

"Now it is eternal war," says Tinatina Salah, their 50-year-old leader, who still seeks compensation for the loss of her salt.

Her land contains one of the world's largest uranium deposits, and Niger was the world's sixth-largest uranium producer in 2008. As resource-hungry China expands its holdings here, local groups and Tuareg-led political opposition are voicing concerns over Chinese investment in the Saharan state's graft-ridden mining industry.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not China-bashing per se. China's impact on Africa will be hugely positive, but the blowback will be fierce and justified, and it will force Chinese companies and China itself to change how it interacts with the world, taking far more responsibility.

And this will be a good process.

You have to make the locals happy. Honda and Toyota learned this in America and became truly globally integrated enterprises--to their great competitive benefit.

The same will happen with China--just on a grander scale.

[thanks to the WPR Media Roundup]

Ready-to-use therapeutic food aid runs afoul of USG laws

ARTICLE: "The Plumpy Crusader: A new resource offers hope for the hungry, but Congress still holds the keys to food aid," by Katie Paul, Newsweek, 30 March 2010.

Nice story of tilting-at-windmills type who is trying to make Plumpy'nut a routine part of America's aid flow to Gap situations of malnutrition:

As Navyn Salem starts up the machines for the first time at her factory in Providence, R.I., this month, she has all the anxieties of any new business owner: whether the equipment will work, who will buy her products, how to cover her employees' benefits, and how to raise the profile of Edesia, the food-manufacturing producer she's launching. To that list, add a few more unconventional ones: how to make Edesia the first successful nonprofit provider of ready-to-use therapeutic (RUTF) food aid in the United States, how to revolutionize treatment of childhood malnutrition, and how to transform decades of counterproductive U.S. humanitarian aid policies, which place fiercely protectionist requirements on the food products that can be sent abroad during emergencies.

The insane holdup:

There's just one problem: while the United States is the largest donor of food aid in the world, spending some $2 billion on it each year, practically none of that money has been allowed to go toward the miracle foods--by law. Statutes in the U.S. farm bill require that food-aid money be spent on food grown in the U.S., while at least half of it must be packaged in the U.S. and most of it must be transported by U.S. shippers. So while RUTFs are now manufactured on the cheap in dozens of developing countries like Niger, Ethiopia, South Africa, the Dominican Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, right nearby where they eventually need to be distributed, U.S. food aid still comes in the form of imports from afar. For one thing, it's incredibly inefficient: about 65 cents of every dollar that USAID's Food for Peace, the largest aid program, spends on food aid ends up going to overhead as a result (that's $600 million that could be saved each year through local purchase, according to the Government Accountability Office). What makes it practically farcical is the fact that those exports come primarily from the biggest U.S. commodities--wheat, soy, and corn--which don't have the nutrients needed to treat malnourished kids. RUTFs do. But the law is clear, and USAID couldn't fund their purchases.

Just another classic example of how messed up our foreign aid is.

[thanks to Jeff Jennings]

Mexico proves the environmental Kuznets Curve--yet again

ARTICLE: "Mexico City drastically reduced air pollutants since 1990s," by Anne-Marie O'Connor, Washington Post, 1 April 2010.

Classic story of a country on a development trajectory:

This megalopolis once had the world's worst air, with skies so poisonous that birds dropped dead in flight. Today, efforts to clean the smog are showing visible progress, revealing stunning views of snow-capped volcanoes -- and offering a model for the developing world.

As Mexico prepares to host world leaders at a U.N. climate-change conference later this year, international experts are praising the country's progress. Many say its determined efforts to control auto emissions and other environmental effects of rapid urbanization offer practical lessons to cities in China, India and other fast-growing countries.

International officials say steady improvement of Mexico City's air could bolster President Felipe Calderón's bid for a leadership role among developing countries seeking to address global warming.

All advanced countries got dirtier before they got cleaner, somewhere in the journey from low to medium per capita income.

This is known as the environmental Kuznets Curve. The original Kuznets Curve notion spoke to inequality within an economy (goes from low to high with development, and then levels off and decreases). This was very much the case with the U.S. where income inequality was worst during our "rising" period in the late 19th century.

The environmental version says the same thing happens with pollution, but it only seems to work with local pollution and not so much with "global" pollution like CO2.

So Mexico is now making the same journey happen, and this is very positive, providing a more recent and therefore salient example to fellow rising economic powers.

Bottom line: globalization will cause an increase in pollution in emerging economies, compared to the past, but in raising incomes, it also sets in motion the correction.

A different how-big-is-the-U.S.-economy map

From the DataBlog at The Guardian website, as part of a larger post on defense spending:

[thanks to jk]