[HOME]POLS 410 LECTURE ONE "TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIAL PROGRESS" I. Intellectual A. 19th C.: 1. Romantic (or transcendentalist) reactions to Enlightenment worldview all along; esp. 18-19th C's. 2. Utopian mvts.; Luddites; 3. Socialism: Marx (sort of) 4. Nietzsche: modernity (esp. science) as will-to-power B. 20th C. 1. Weber: rationalization (bureaucracy) & disenchantmt. 2. Heidegger: ancient Greeks merged techne & poesis 3. Neo-Marxists (postwar): Frankfurt School a. Response to both fascism & communism b. Critique of instrumental rationality 4. 20th C. Physics: Relativity & Quantum Mechanics a. End of mechanistic worldview b. All frames of ref. are relative (no objectivity) c. Matter & energy are the same (undercut materialism) >> nuclear weapons d. Matter is almost all empty space--more undercut! e. Location of subatomic particles is indeterminate 5. Postwar literature: rise of science fiction a. Response to nuclear weapons, mass society, fast change, fascism, communism b. Orwell, Huxley, Bradbury 6. Mainstream philosophy of science: What makes good theory? a. Kuhn (1962): Paradigms = generally accepted assumptions; many non-scientific factors influence acceptability b. Science intellectually dethroned: a social practice c. >> Sociology of knowledge/science II. Social movements A. Peace & disarmament: 3 phases 1. Nuclear Disarmament (50's-early 60s) Atomic scientists were key initiators Not response to A-bombs (fission), but H-bombs. Response to atmospheric testing, civil defense, MAD >> Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963) 2. Anti-war-- Vietnam (1965-1972) High tech vs. low tech (McDermott article) Automated air war against guerillas & peasants Mobilized society: indus., universities 3. Anti-nuclear (1970s-1990) Originally anti-nuclear power Response to military build-up of late 70s & 80s, especially bellicose rhetoric of Reagan years Nuclear Freeze movement: grassroots referendums Outspoken professionals: PSR, ESR, CPSR; plus church groups Connected with citizen diplomacy B. Environmental 1. Rachel Carson (1962): local air & H2O pollution >> DDT, lead 2. Problems caused by suburbanization, consumerism, car culture. 3. New scientific discipline: Ecology (interdisc.) 4. U.S.: 1970 Envtl Protection Act >> EPA 5. Intl: 1972 Stockholm >> UNEP 6. 1972-present: globalization of envt'l crisis -- Acid Rain, ozone, climate, biodiversity >> Rio. C. Consumer (1970's) 1. Who should take risks: consumer or producer? -- recalls, boycotts, new govt. agencies 2. Corporate responsibility c. Somewhat allied w/ envt'l mvt. (Nader, PIRGs) 5. Appropriate Technology -- ICs & DCs a. Linked to population, hunger, solidarity mvts. b. Humanistic and/or spiritual values combined w/ pragmatic emphasis (Schmumacher, Lovins) c. w/ envt'l mvt. >> sustainable devt. (late 1980's) 6. Civil rights & labor mvts a. No fullscale critique of technology, but look at who controls 7. Feminist a. Who controls (sci & tech. male dominated) b. Deeper critique: domination of women & nature linked; scientific rationality & technologic power linked to masculine gender identity. 8. Fundamentalist a. No clear critique of tech. among Western Christians, but strong anti-tech. perspective among most non-western fundamentalists. b. Skepticism re: modern science among Christians V. Science & technology on the defensive for the 1st time A. Esp. in most advanced industrial countries B. This is a major cultural shift in the last 20 years. Readings 1. What does Hardison mean when he says that sci. & tech. tend to be universalizing? Is it true? 2. He also says that technology leads to the "disappearance of history," which is a good thing? What does he mean, & do you agree? 3. Hardison also suggests that modern S&T are eliminating the "thingliness of things," including human beings. He optimistically suggests that "silicon man" may one day replace "carbon man." This could "realize the age-old dream of the mystics of rising beyond the prison of the flesh to behold a light so brilliant." "Silicon life will be immortal." What do you think of his prediction?
POLS 410 LECTURE 3 "SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY & SOCIETY" I. Turning point in public perception of science & tech: late 60's & early 70's. -- Science & technology on the defensive for the 1st time Esp. in most advanced industrial countries Major cultural shift in the last 20 years. Recognition of limits & scarcity Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) Paul Ehrlich: Pop. Bomb & End of Affluence (1968) Club of Rome, Limits to Growth * All human activities affect the earth's physical condition, but two are disproportionately important: energy use & population growth. 1950-1979: Fossil fuel use quadrupled worldwide Food production doubled; auto. production quadrupled Electrical generation multiplied 8-fold. 1950-1987: Population doubled II. Worldviews, paradigms & sustainability A. Neo-Malthusians 1. Malthus (writing in 1798) predicted that industrial revolution wd. permit unprecedented pop. growth which wd. eventually outstrip ability of natural resources to provide for it. Starvation, disease & poverty are mechanisms for stabilizing population. >> 1979, Global 2000 Report: Carter, interdisciplinary -- Not just romantic reaction to sci & tech. B. Cornucopians 1. Reaction to Neo-Malthusians, esp. to Global 2000 Late 70's-early 80's 2. Simon & Kahn, The Resourceful Earth 3. Stress resource abundance, human innovation, substitutability. Technological optimists: Q: What devt. did Malthus fail to see which has countered the trend toward mass-starvation w/ exponential population growth? A: Mechanized agriculture, use of petroleum-based fertilizers & pesticides 4. Enlightenment perspective (w/out deomocracy) C. Same debate continues on most envt'l problems, 1. But envt'lists can also be technological optimists: envt'l regulation gives signal for new mkts >> new tech. (ozone, acid rain, energy shortage) III. Paradigm shift (Dennis Pirages, Lester Milbrath) A. 3 realms: #2 & #3 have been dominant in social sciences, isolated from #1; Most disciplines stay within one realm in seeking explanations; but in the real world, the 3 are closely linked. Disembodied human beings (rtl minds) at center of world. B. Dominant Social Paradigm: Exclusionist -- ppl exist apart from nature & can dominate it (excludes nature) Nature = resources Last 300 years - Atypical; associated w/ industrial revolution Cultures, institutions & values assumed to evolve & exist apart from geological, biological & ecological constraints. Science & technology can overcome all or most physical constraints; can provide substitutes for limited resources. Embedded notion that nature is abundant, resources are virtually unlimited. C. New social paradigm: inclusionist Gives primacy to techno-ecological realm as ground of all human activity More humble, less anthropocentric. Offered by Pirages as a post-industrial paradigm. Most impt. feature: Can be used to predict & analyze global futures Q: what concept discussed last time reflects the new social paradigm? A: sustainable development D. Reflects 2 faces of science & technology (sort of) 1. Dominant = positive; Enlightenment Positivists: all life shd. be based on science 2. Subordinate = Negative E. Problems w/ inclusionist paradigm 1) Should technology & nature really be in the same circle? Yes, they are both on the physical plane, more so than the other two, But isn't tech. a human activity? Isn't is more closely related to social structures than natural resources per se? -- Doesn't lumping them together allow cornucopians to claim that they are inclusionists, since all of their solutions to scarcity & envt'l degradation come from technological advances? 2) Indus. revolution grew out of changes in values & social structures, not just (or even primarily, for that matter) out of changes at the material level. In fact, the roots of exclusionist thinking are historically antecedent to the industrial revolution. -- Rise of ntn-state, secularization & break w/ Rome, Enlightenment thinking. e.g., John Locke as exclusionist: defines human beings in terms of rationality, and this entails industriousness & the ability to use land IV. Conventional view of rel-ship bet. sci/tech & politics: A. Science gives objective facts from which policy decisions are made. 1. Depends upon fact/value distinction -- called into Q. by phil. of science: a. Context of discovery (observation) Choice of research topics is socially & politically determined, esp. after 1945 -- Funding (BIG SCIENCE) Industrial Revol. can be interpreted as extension of one innovation: transformation of science into capital. b. Context of justification (theory) Theory-ladenness of observation (Kuhn) Science = social inst. w/ its own rules, norms & practices -- most scientific kn. accepted on authoriy Evidence & reason are impt., but what counts as evidence & reason are socially determined. (EX: Ant. ozone hole not detected by satellites; scientists skeptical of unknown British Antarctic Survey.) B. Technology is a neutral tool, to be used for good or ill, with no inherent social value. >> R&D shd. not be limited; every possibility shd. be brought to fruition. 1. Technology takes on a momentum of its own (EX: Manhattan Project continued after German defeat) 2. Techn. doesn't seem neutral to its users or victims Positive EXs: phone, refrigerator, bike (car?) Negative Exs: Hiroshima/Nagasaki victims; women who painted radium dials on clocks; Kurdish victims of Iraqi chemical weapons; future generations who will probably not see car & fossil fuel as neutral 3. Notion of tech. as divorced from social structures is historically inaccurate. David Noble: history of engineering profession is bound up w/ corporate capitalism from its beginnings in the 19th C. to present. 4. Industrial production techniques are embedded in a particular social theory: Taylorism (Frederick) "Scientific management": prime value = efficiency C. The communication of scientific facts requires framing & interpretation (depends upon language; rhetorical nature can be hidden) 1. EX: Carcinogenic chemical may increase cancer rate from 10 in 1 million to 15 in 1 million. This can be described either as a 50% increase or an increase of 5 in 1 million. Excellent literature on psychology of risk perception: Tversky, Slovic, Fischhoff, Lichtenstein Also, cultural factors & risk perception: Jasanoff, Dietz & Rycroft D. Interactive view of sci/tech & politics Trans-scientific = questions which can be asked of science and yet not answered by science (safety of nuclear energy) >> greater role for expert advice in policy making. -- technocracy? 1. Advisers associated with turbulent conditions: * complexity, dynamism, uncertainty 2. Limitations of expert advice a. Experts can be fired, ignored, pitted against one another, their advice distorted. b. Misunderstood bec. experts & policy mkrs live in different worlds, speak diff languages. -- Time frames diverge -- Narrowly specialized experts tend to neglect soc & econ. implications of their recommendations; may be uneasy in world of compromise -- Policy mkrs. may be awestruck by technical language ( cult of doctor worship) or may ignore parts of prob. they don't understand. c. Conflict bet. democratic values & heavy reliance on expert advice (technocracy)
POLS 410 LECTURE 4 Risk and Technology: Economics & Environment I. Worldviews, paradigms & sustainability A. Neo-Malthusians B. Cornucopians II. Paradigm shift (Dennis Pirages, Lester Milbrath) Kuhn: paradigms are associated with "normal science": shared rules & standards for scientific (or, in our case, social) practice; also, share worldview. People working under the same paradigm rarely disagree over fundamentals; they take "the field" for granted. Paradigms gain their status because they are more successful than their competitors in solving major problems. Scientific revolutions occur when one paradigm overthrows another (17th C.) EXs: Ptolemaic vs. Copernican astronomy; Aristotelian vs. Newtonian dynamics; Newtonian vs. quantum mechanics -- Social science EXs not as clear ("rules" not as clear): Monarchy (king is God's rep.) vs. democracy; Adam Smith vs. Lenin A. 3 realms: #2 & #3 have been dominant in social sciences, isolated from #1; Most disciplines stay within one realm in seeking explanations; but in the real world, the 3 are closely linked. Disembodied human beings (rtl minds) at center of world. B. Dominant Social Paradigm: Exclusionist -- ppl exist apart from nature & can dominate it (excludes nature) Nature = resources Last 300 years - Atypical; associated w/ industrial revolution Cultures, institutions & values assumed to evolve & exist apart from geological, biological & ecological constraints. Science & technology can overcome all or most physical constraints; can provide substitutes for limited resources. Embedded notion that nature is abundant, resources are virtually unlimited. C. New social paradigm: inclusionist Gives primacy to techno-ecological realm as ground of all human activity More humble, less anthropocentric. Offered by Pirages as a post-industrial paradigm. Most impt. feature: Can be used to predict & analyze global futures Q: what concept discussed last time reflects the new social paradigm? A: sustainable development D. Reflects 2 faces of science & technology (sort of) 1. Dominant = positive; Enlightenment Positivists: all life shd. be based on science 2. Subordinate = Negative E. Problems w/ inclusionist paradigm 1) Should technology & nature really be in the same circle? Yes, they are both on the physical plane, more so than the other two, But isn't tech. a human activity? Isn't is more closely related to social structures than natural resources per se? -- Doesn't lumping them together allow cornucopians to claim that they are inclusionists, since all of their solutions to scarcity & envt'l degradation come from technological advances? 2) Indus. revolution grew out of changes in values & social structures, not just (or even primarily, for that matter) out of changes at the material level. In fact, the roots of exclusionist thinking are historically antecedent to the industrial revolution. -- Rise of ntn-state, secularization & break w/ Rome, Enlightenment thinking. e.g., John Locke as exclusionist: defines human beings in terms of rationality, and this entails industriousness & the ability to use land IV. Conventional view of rel-ship bet. sci/tech & politics: A. Science gives objective facts from which policy decisions are made. 1. Depends upon fact/value distinction -- called into Q. by phil. of science: a. Context of discovery (observation) Choice of research topics is socially & politically determined, esp. after 1945 -- Funding (BIG SCIENCE) Industrial Revol. can be interpreted as extension of one innovation: transformation of science into capital. b. Context of justification (theory) Theory-ladenness of observation (Kuhn) Science = social inst. w/ its own rules, norms & practices -- most scientific kn. accepted on authoriy Evidence & reason are impt., but what counts as evidence & reason are socially determined. (EX: Ant. ozone hole not detected by satellites; scientists skeptical of unknown British Antarctic Survey.) B. Technology is a neutral tool, to be used for good or ill, with no inherent social value. >> R&D shd. not be limited; every possibility shd. be brought to fruition. 1. Technology takes on a momentum of its own (EX: Manhattan Project continued after German defeat) 2. Techn. doesn't seem neutral to its users or victims Positive EXs: phone, refrigerator, bike (car?) Negative Exs: Hiroshima/Nagasaki victims; women who painted radium dials on clocks; Kurdish victims of Iraqi chemical weapons; future generations who will probably not see car & fossil fuel as neutral 3. Notion of tech. as divorced from social structures is historically inaccurate. David Noble: history of engineering profession is bound up w/ corporate capitalism from its beginnings in the 19th C. to present. 4. Industrial production techniques are embedded in a particular social theory: Taylorism (Frederick) "Scientific management": prime value = efficiency C. The communication of scientific facts requires framing & interpretation (depends upon language; rhetorical nature can be hidden) 1. EX: Carcinogenic chemical may increase cancer rate from 10 in 1 million to 15 in 1 million. This can be described either as a 50% increase or an increase of 5 in 1 million. Excellent literature on psychology of risk perception: Tversky, Slovic, Fischhoff, Lichtenstein Also, cultural factors & risk perception: Jasanoff, Dietz & Rycroft D. Interactive view of sci/tech & politics Trans-scientific = questions which can be asked of science and yet not answered by science (safety of nuclear energy) >> greater role for expert advice in policy making. -- technocracy? 1. Advisers associated with turbulent conditions: * complexity, dynamism, uncertainty 2. Limitations of expert advice a. Experts can be fired, ignored, pitted against one another, their advice distorted. b. Misunderstood bec. experts & policy mkrs live in different worlds, speak diff languages. -- Time frames diverge -- Narrowly specialized experts tend to neglect soc & econ. implications of their recommendations; may be uneasy in world of compromise -- Policy mkrs. may be awestruck by technical language ( cult of doctor worship) or may ignore parts of prob. they don't understand. c. Conflict bet. democratic values & heavy reliance on expert advice (technocracy)
POLS 410 LECTURE 7 "TECHNOLOGY GAPS, NORTH & SOUTH" Tech. gap hard to measure; many indicators, including $ spent on R&D, # of televisions, cars, phones, refrigerators; # of patents for new tech. originating in LDC's. EX: Phones: Of the world's 424 million access lines, 72 percent are in 9 countries (US = 28%) I. R&D in the Third World A. Nearly 90% of world's scientists live in the advanced industrial countries. B. R&D per capita in industrialized countries = $182; in LDC's = $3.00. C. LDC share of global R&D = less than 5%. D. Patents: Only 6% (200,000) of the world's 3.5 million patents in 1972 were held by the LDC's; less than 1/6 of these were held by nationals in those countries. The remaining 170,000 were held by foreigners, mostly MNC's. Gap seems to have widened since thend, but no comprehensive studies done recently. (These figures compiled by UNCTAD in 1970's.) E. What economic dynamics do these figures reflect? -- No savings available for investment. Investment $ comes from banks & govts. People cannot afford to pass savings along to banks or to the gov't. (thru taxes) for reinvestment in the econ. -- Same phen. domestically among blacks & whites. Whites may make only 50% more than blacks in salaries, but their disposable income is many times greater. Consequently, the real measure of the discrepancy in wealth between whites & blacks is accumulated wealth, or investment. White ppls' total assets are about 5 times as much as black ppls'. >> at least in relative terms, rich get richer & poor get poorer. >> if tech. is the basis of wealth, then those who control R&D will benefit the most. II. Dependence upon primary commodities A. Need export earnings for hard currency for investmt. Esp'ly troublesome bec. commodity mkts. are notoriously volatile. B. Some LDC's have diversified into manufactured exports (e.g., Brazil, which had relied on coffee for over half of its export income in 1960's, reduced this reliance to only 9% in the 1980's). C. But many LDC's still depend upon one or two raw materials for over half of the their export earnings. Dependence on primary commodities other than petroleum: Highest in the "least developed countries" (4th world) EX: Zambia, Bolivia & Liberia, whose econs. are based on copper, tin & iron ore, saw their export earnings cut in half by falling commodity markets in 1980's. D. Roots of reliance on primary commodities: Colonialism 1. Colonial powers did not locate production facilities in colonies, or transfer tech. in other ways >> these countries remained agrarian. 2. Colonies were exploited for one crop: sugar, coffee, tea, rubber (luxury items for colonizers) Or were exploited as sources of valuable metals (silver, gold, iron ore, etc.) >> workers were only trained in menial labor. [Hidden issue: educated, literate colonial subjects were far more likely to rebel.] E. Superficially, dominating a commodities market would seem to confer power (EX: Zaire is source of 1/2 world's cobalt, a strategic mineral). 1. NO: 1) A country with one product comprising most of its export earnings is highly vulnerable to price fluctuations. -- most basic commodity prices have fallen in comparison to the prices of manufactured goods over time. 2) The exports are usually processed & marketed through multinationals. MNC's control production facilities & so are able to control prices. 3) "Age of substitutability" >> markets may disappear (artificial sweeteners & sugar; rubber; some strategic minerals being synthesized). 4) Cannot confer collective power on LDC's because they compete w/ one another to export raw materials. 5) Post-industrial technologies do not rely so heavily on raw materials. 2. All of this has led to efforts by LDC's to institute price-stabilization programs like Integrated Program for Commodities (IPC) [associated w/ NIEO] & Lome Convention (between EC & former colonies]. -- Prob. w/ compensatory programs is that w/o strict quotas, higher prices lead to overproduction. F. Agriculture 1. Labor-intensvive in LDC's; mechanized agric. requires capital for investment. 2. Oriented to a few cash crops >> vulnerability to global markets & weather fluctuations 3. High-tech farmers in industrialized countries are often subsidized heavily by their govts. (U.S.: rice (competes w/ Asia) & sugar. 4. We'll cover this in second half of quarter. III. Concerns of LDC's regarding tech. transfers: asymmetries A. Tech. transfers to the South have occurred mainly thru the buying of patents & licenses held by Northern MNC's. -- have occurred at a slow pace, unevenly among countries (with NIC's benefiting the most), & in a say that leaves LDC's largely as consumers rather than producers of tech. -- flow of tech. runs mainly among the Northern states rather than between North & South (e.g., Japan has obtained far more overseas tech. than have LDC's). B. North controls markets >> commodities produced in the South & sold in the intl mkt. reflect demands & tastes of North. Similarly, the consumer goods of interest to developing countries reflect the production patterns & tastes of the North. C. Free trade regime of North works to detriment of LDC's. Free trade is intended to facilitate the most efficient & profitable distribution of factors of production; does not take account of equity issues. Empirically, free trade tends to benefit technologically superior countries. The free-trade push of the last 2 decades has not resulted in a real increase in GNP per capita (outside of a few NIC's). No country has ever industrialized under a free trade policy. D. Appropriateness: Much of the tech. transferred is typically capital-intensive & labor-saving, whereas the chief problem in most LDC's is unemployment and lack of investment capital. (Appropriate tech. movement will be discussed on Wed.) E. Costly: even where tech. is welcomed by LDC's, they often claim that its cost is unnecessarily inflated. EX: OECD study found that pharmaceutical ingredients are overpriced by as much as 5000%. One contributor to the inflated price of tech. sold to LDC's is that tech. is often sold in packages. For ex., tie-in clauses in contracts compel a licensee to purchase unpatented goods from the licensor; or tech. may be supplied only thru turnkey operations where supplier oversees construction & mgmt of plant in initial years >> recipient country acquires little or no new technical knowledge. LDC's argue that they have already paid enough to the dev'd countries through the exploitation of their natural (and human) resources that facilitated the dev't of the advanced industrial states at their expense. F. Brain drain: most talented & highly educated ppl. from South sent abroad to study in North, never return. = "reverse transfer of technology"; of total # of highly skilled immigrants to U.S., 80% were from LDC's. UNCTAD study: in 15 year period, 300,000 highly skilled technical workers migrated from LDC's to U.S., U.K. & Canada (the 3 main countries of immigration). 80% of Taiwanese studying in U.S. never return home. G. LDC proposed solutions: 1. Specifics: a. MNC's operating in LDC's jurisdiction shd. establish R&D centers in local setting -- virtually no R&D activities at subsidiaries; instead, concentrated in parent company's home country Reasons: economies of scale in centralizing R&D; availability of specialists; close communication w/ academic/professional arena; easier to manage when closer to home. b. Restrict foreign involvemt. in new high-tech industries EX: Brazil's new software industry. c. Adopt laws to regulate flow of tech. EX: In several Latin American countries, payments for tech. are screened by a regulatory agency before foregin exchange is released by the central bank. EX: Mexico, among others, has denied or severely restricted patent protection for pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, pesticides, anti-pollution devices, & nuclear technology. d. Adopt intl. codes of conduct for MNC's. 1974: Intl. Code of Conduct on Transfer of Tech. proposed by Group of 77, still in draft form 2. Broad: a. NIEO b. Technology shd. be viewed as part of the "common heritage of mankind"; all countries shd. have free access. IV. Advanced Indus. States' Views of Tech. Gap 1. Majority of tech. is privately owned by corps. & govts cannot mandate the transfer of tech. even if they wanted to. 2, As with any commercial item, tech. will be transferred only if the conditions for it are suitable. 3. Tech. is expensive & dev'd countries are entitled to "fair" return. EX: In 1989, $132 billion was spent in US on R&D; "suicidal" to give away results of R&D. 4. LDC's are self-contradictory: demands for easier transfer of tech. vs. demands for strengthening local capabiliity to innovate & demands for technologies more appropriate to local envt. 5. Liberalism: Markets will make tech. available in future Practices that undermine ownership & control of tech. by its developers will reduce transfer of tech. in the long run, for there will be little incentive to innovate. 6. Labor: Protectionist position: export of tech., whether in form of know-how, plants or machinery, is damaging to U.S. econ.; esp. fear of loss of industrial employment. Controversy is so linked to different sets of values, and so embedded in different standards of living, that its resolution is extraordinarily difficult.
POLS 410 LECTURE NINE Science,Technology and the Military" I. Dominant configurations A. = Patterned relationships between arenas; institution. B. Why? 1. Large-scale tech. projects expensive, time-consuming, require extensive cooperation, pol. clout, risky >> good to reduce spread the risk C. Drawbacks 1. Not democratic; poor accountability 2. May not be efficient (Pentagon & semiconductors) 3. May spur "technological imperative" II. Mil-industrial complex A. Mil services, DOD, lg. military corps., scientists & engineers B. Explanation for why arms race seemed to have a momentum of its own: interests of 3 arenas push tech., not strategic considerations C. R&D structure: state-of-the-art weapons take many years to design, test, deploy (MX research began in 1960's) >> R&D funding decisions for weapons must be made long before the exact nature of the threat the w. will be designed to counter is known >> planning not just based upon adversary's current arsenal, but on projections of what they might do (usually based upon our own potential capabilities, e.g., Manhattan Project & Nazi threat; H-bomb dec., -- U.S. had tech. lead throughout arms race (except ICBMs), always based on premise that Soviets might dev. w's. III. Corporate-managerial & Executive Arenas Very close rels. among def. industries & govt: "Government relations offices" Revolving door: based upon technical expertise & experience, not inherently corrupt Ex-Pentagon officials have knowledge of dec-mking procedures & continue relationships w/ current Pentagon officials. Defense contractors hire DoD civilian employees & retiring mil. officers (Career mil. officers begin retiring at 50; gov't. employees may take early retiremt. too) Trade associations; arms conventions (intra-arena cooperation among corporate-managerial actors to pool resources; overall goal is to keep mil. spending high) Advisory committees: provide technical advice to DoD & armed services; relies heavily on academic-professional arena. IV. Corporate-managerial & legislative arena Funding Major congressional committees: Armed Services, Appropriations, Sci & Tech. Lobbying, PAC's, honoraria. 2nd revolving door: ex-Congress members & ex-staff work for defense contractors Best for Corporate-managerial arena to concentrate or spread out subcontracts for large weapons projects? -- Spread out: jobs in as many districts & states as possible. Iron Triangle: defense corps., exec. & legislative arenas. (Gordon Adams) V. Corporate-Managerial & Academic-Professional Arenas 30% of U.S. scientists & engrs in defense. Many in university labs Benefits: Paid better, more technologically sophisticated, bigger budgets (50% U.S. R&D funds go to defense) Disadvantages: Secrecy >> little interaction w/ colleagues Vulnerable to defense budget cuts (Econ. conversion) Some indivs. are influential (Teller), but academic-professional arena as a whole is far less influential than others. -- Not agenda-setter, but reacts (mobilization against SDI) VI. Defense contracting A. Mil. corporations: risk minimizers -- focus on modifications of existing tech. (engineering over pure research) B. Very concentrated, dominated by a few big companies -- many subcontractors Overhead costs high from accounting & security documentation required by Congress & Pentagon C. Cost-plus contracting encourages cost overruns D. Production contracts much larger that R&D, go to R&D contractor on a noncompetitive basis. E. Govt- supported R&D programs >> little risk to contractors for private R&D. VII. MIRV "Technological community" -- met needs of many actors (mil. services, Pentagon,researchers, corp-managerial) McNamara: cheap way of expanding aresenal Not a new system; dev'd from engineers tinkering (technological imperative) Arms control: U.S. ahead in tech., so opposed Soviet move to prohibit MIRVs in SALT I -- Backfired: Soviet heavier missiles >> more MIRVs in 70's VIII. Does military spending benefit the civilian economy? A. Yes: 1. Lg. R&D budgets expand frontiers of knowledge 2. Spin-offs: Apollo program, Tang, 3. mil. is creative first user -- gets prices down. B. No: 1. Diverts scientists & engrs. fr. civilian economy; competition for experts drives cost of tech. up 2. Not competitve on civilian market (expensive) 3. Distort markets to have Pentagon as major purchaser 4. Civ. mkts will be larger in long run: semi-conductors 5. Empirical: If econ. benefits of mil. prominence outweighed costs, U.S. tech. superiority in 1960s & 70s shd. have increased. Instead, U.S. high tech industries were eclipsed by Japan & Europe. 6. Empirical: Few patents from military R&D because little basic research (Pentagon favors large firms which are less innovative; secrecy inhibits market-ization of new tech., e.g., inventor of transistor tried to prevent Pentagon from getting it.) C. Case study: Japan dev'd strong indus. w/o mil. subsidies How? 1. Protected 2. Licensed U.S. tech. (U.S. firms cd. not get access to mkts., so licensed) a. EX: Sony licensed transistor for approx. $100,000 3. Coordinated R&D: "Industrial policy" (MITI) IX. Nuclear proliferation: Nye X. Militarization of space: Deudney Globalism vs. Nationalism
POL S 410
INFORMATION SOCIETY
A. Post-industrialism 1. Labor Shift: production to service 2. Robotic production 3. Communications Revolution "McWorld" & cultural sovereignty a. Computers b. Satellites c. Fiber optics 4. Knowledge as power a. Mode of production vs. Mode of information b. Technocracy or global village? B. Post-industrialism & sustainability 1. Moving molecules and photons 2. Clean production or shadow ecologies? 3. Accountability in the global economy
POLS 410 LECTURE 12 "ENERGY AND WORLD POLITICS" I. Description of energy sources 79% fossil fuels; 21% renewable (15% = biomass, mostly fuelwood; rest is mostly hydropower). What are fossil fuels? Oil, coal, gas How were they made? (Pirages: dead plants & animals preserved; coal = trees in ancient swamps; oil & nat gas = dead organisms deposited on lake & ocean bottoms. Rank of dirtiness: coal far worst, then oil, then nat. gas far best. Oil = dominant form, esp. on global mkts. Why? easiest to transport Oil reserves: Saudi = 1/4 world's reserves; OPEC = 2/3 Most dependent countries = W. Europe & Japan Largest oil producer = SU (now Russia),by far. 2nd largest " " = U.S. (nearly twice Saudi productn) U.S. originally had as much as Saudi, used up in indus'tn. Uneven dist. of energy consumption: Per capita energy consumption in indus. mkt. econs. = 80 times greater than in sub-Saharan Africa. II. Global economics Oil = primary commodity; until last 2 decades, did not confer any special advantage on producer countries. Why not? -- legacy of colonialism; Britain & U.S. carved up Ottoman Empire after WWI & divided oil among 7 sisters: Exxon, Mobil, Chevron (All originally Standard, divide w/ anti-trust laws), Texaco, Gulf, BP, & Royal Dutch (Red Line Agreement) Achnacarry Agreement (same year, 1928) -- how did U.S. dominance in oil indus. shape the agreement? -- "Gulf Plus" formula pegged price to Texas price plus freight from Gulf of Mexico -- Lasted until 1960's, when new competitive forces weakened regime. New competition: Soviet exports, smaller companies, ntl. oil companies -- Lower prices bad for oil exporters >> cartel. OPEC, formed in 1960, initiated by Venezuela Initially not powerful Like all LDC's dependent upon primary commodities. 3 factors leading to OPEC price revolution (4-fold increase in 1973): 1) High inflation in West w/ low oil prices decreased purchasing power of oil exporters 2) Arab nationalism 3) Arab-Israeli conflict (= #1 cause) How does OPEC present a classic public goods problem? Each member tries to capture a larger share of mkt, either by setting prices optimally or raising production. Factions in OPEC: 1) Banker countries 2) Poor countries: hit hardest by price fluctuations 3) Radicals: Libya, Iran & Iraq How does OPEC help intl banking community? stabilizes prices >> predictability How does OPEC price mechanism still reflect U.S. dominance in oil mkt? -- Oil priced in dollars Strong $ slows growth elsewhere by keeping prices high & demand down. 2 oil shocks >> price increases >> less demand >> lower prices (very destabilizing for global econ.) >> Price stability is in everyone's int. So why doesn't it happen? -- U.S. wants mkt. forces to control prices (U.S. firms control mkt.) -- OPEC wants higher prices Social psychology of energy prob: shortages >> short-term conservation measures & govt attn to energy programs; as soon as crisis is over, consumption habits resume. III. Security issues Over 50% of world's oil reserves in Mideast: huge arms transfers & nuclear proliferation. Arab states 1st saw Western vulnerability during closing of Suez Canal (1967). Were either of the 2 major oil shocks a result of actual shortages? NO, pol & mil.: 1973 = embargo of Israel's supporters by Arab countries -- exacerbated by oil company hording to keep prices high 1979 = Fall of Shah -- minor shortages, but prices tripled -- 2nd shock deeper & longer than 1st, which suggests that the world econ. had become less resilient. -- Carter: Rapid Deployment Force. How did Third World respond to ARab oil embargo & price increases? Very supportive: symbolic politics; -- higher prices hurt them worst This, combined w/ petrodollar surplus in banks led to massive borrowing, wh. led. to debt crisis. Russian oil & gas -- perceived by some as security threat to U.S. bec. of potential for tighter links to Europe. Russia needs capital & W. Europe needs energy, esp. source besides Mideast. -- Withdrawal from Eastern bloc states + break-up of SU >> end of subsidized shipmts of Russian oil & nat. gas; econ. hardship -- Russian production drastically decreased in last 3 years: poor mgmt, depleted fields, outdated tech. U.S. response to 1st oil crisis: shifted dependence to Latin American exporters; expanded domestic exploration; Carter's Synfuels program; did not seek energy self-sufficiency or renewable energy sources. Why is U.S. gasoline about 1/2 the cost in W. Europe? -- small gas tax -- W. European gas taxes for conservation, to reduce dependency on foreign producers. IV. Pollution from fossil fuels A. Oil Pollution at sea Late 60's & early 70's: series of spills & accidents -- Torrey Canyon, Santa Barbara These were dramatic disasters, but 90% of oil spilled at sea is done on purpose during routine processes. IMO = IO dominated by shipping indus.; technical experts Accidents >> Pressure for new regime >> MARPOL (1976) B. Urban air pollution Ozone, CO, nitrous oxides, particulates. C. Acid Rain (long range) Partly a result of tall smokestacks SO2, NOx D. Global Warming V. IEA VI. Wood fuels A. 70% of ppl in LDCs use wood, avg. of 700 kg/person/year. B. Rural vs. urban Rural ppl rarely chop down trees; instead, take branches Urban ppl buy wood & charcoal; deforestation linked more to this than rural consumption. Charcoal production wastes lg. amounts of wood When fuelwood is scarce, rural villagers forced to burn cow dung, crop stems & husks -- things normally used to fertilize the soil >> robs soil of nutrients C. Short-term sol. is to treat fuelwood like food & grow it as a subsistence crop. -- Prob. is that rural ppl are generally outside the money econ. & so cannot purchase wood. -- Also a prob. of land distribution: in many places, there are plenty of trees, but they are owned by only a few people. D. Pollution Local air pollution Climate change. VII. Flavin: Bridge to Sustainable Energy Oil mostly covered above (in Pirages) Coal: dirtiest for all forms of air pollution China most alarming: trying to fuel rapid devt almost completely by coal; largest reserves in world -- Sustainable energy = hydrogen (discussed later by ?) Bridge = efficiency + transitional fuel (nat. gas) Why? Cheap, abundant, clean Can be used in power plants & motor vehicles, w/ some tech. changes. Prob: methane = greenhouse gas, highly flammable Why haven't large oil companies w/ capital & technical capabilities gone into nat. gas exploration? -- not easily sold for hard currency (dom. use) Me: Current negs. on climate change convention have mentioned carbon tax. What would it do? Is it a good idea?
POPULATION
I. Basics
Pop.= Fertility - Mortality
F = # of births
M = # of deaths
2 major growth periods:
Agricultural revolution
Industrial revolution
II. Demographic transition theory
High birth & death rates >>
low rates thru modernization
III. Pop. as a "security" issue
A. Cold War: revolution
B. Post-Cold War: immigration
IV. How to lower birth rates?
A. Birth control technology
Problems in DCs:
Sterilization
Poverty
Statist agendas
Abortion issue
B. Raise cost of children
--China
C. Women's reproductive literacy & economic devt.
V. Is the demographic transition in sight?
VI. International Conference on Population & Devt. (Cairo '94)
POLS 410 LECTURE 14
"THE POLITICS OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY"
I. The Current Situation
*FOOD: 1 billion chronically undernourished 41,000 people, mostly
children, die of starvation daily
Avg. daily food consumption in LDC's = abt. 1/2 U.S.
Inequity & waste: can of diet soda:
2,400 cals of energy to produce for 1 cal of nutrition (= to 7,000
cals food)
*POP: over 5 billion
It took all of history until 1830 to reach 1 billion.
Pop. growth rate = 2.7%; affluent countries @ 1%
Parts of Africa over 3%
Thomas Malthus: exponential pop growth will overwhelm the land
>> starvation & pop. decline.
--didn't take account of technological innovations,
e.g., mechanized farming, chemical fertilizer, etc.
Technological improvements in agriculture unlikely to keep up with
pop. growth.
Availability: production vs. distribution
Ppl in affluent countries consume twice the minimum protein required
& ppl in LDC's often get 1/2.
1. Affluent get protein from animals; poor get their's from plant
sources (incomplete)
II. Production and Markets
A. Until 1970's, domestic agricultural policies were not considered
relevant to IR.
1. Trade limited in quantity & mostly to delicacies.
B. Prior to world market, ppl were at the mercy of domestic production.
1. Pops. were trimmed by starvation & malnutrition
2. Hundreds, thousands of major famines in history.
C. Major commodities
1. Wheat = dietary staple in temperate regions;
= most impt. commodity intl. agricultural trade.
U.S. accounts for 40% of all exports.
2. Rice = staple for 1/2 of world's pop. living in tropics;
China & India produce over 1/2 world's rice;
U.S. is not the major producer, but is #1 exporter.
3. Corn: primarily used for feed, eaten in Latin Am. US produces 1/2
world's corn.
D. U.S. dominates intl agric. trade (hegemon)
20% of all U.S. export earnings come from agric.
1980's: Soviet Union & China absorbed 1/4 US exports.
Heavy farm subsidies to keep prices higher; farmers paid to hold
land out of production.
Some surplus disposed thru 1954 Food for Peace program, wh. provides
food to pol'ly acceptable countries.
E. Dramatic shifts in 1970's
1. Combinatn of bad harvests, rising energy prices, & increased demand
>> drastic decline in world carry-over stocks
2. Entry of Soviet Union into world market
a. Expansion of agric. in 1960's was mostly in Siberia, whose
marginal land produced widely fluctuating harvests.
b. US became major supplier until
Carter imposed grain embargo after Afghanistan invasion.
3. OPEC countries all inc'd food imports w/ higher oil prices.
E. Positive aspects of world food market
1. Frees countries from needing food self-suffiency, making labor
available for industrial production.
2. Permits food exporters like US to use their resources fully.
3. Countries w/ shortages due to bad weather can turn to the world
market for relief.
F. Negative aspects
1. Seduces LDC leaders away from agric. self-sufficiency, posing
serious probs. should reasonably priced food become available
down the road.
2. Scarce hard currency is needed to buy imports.
3. Greater chance of global famine triggered by simultaneous crop
failures.
4. LDC's at greatest risk: weather-related shortages
cd. lead to higher food prices & nationalistic food policies by exporters.
III. Food-energy connection
A. Throughout most of history, food production took place mostly w/i
constraints of solar energy.
B. Agric. has undergone its own industrial revolution:
Fossil fuel-based fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, machinery
all boost production.
C. World food market subject to boom & bust cycles very similar to those
in the oil industry (follows them)
1960's: superabundance of food
Green Revolution begun, went thr 70's:
new, more prolific crop strains & fertilizers
Yes, more production, but more vulnerable & less sustainable.
1970's: major famines (Bangledesh) &
oil shocks >>
>> "world food crisis"
1974 UN World Food Conference established World Food Council & Intl
Fundfor Agricultural Devt., wh. is heavily supported by OPEC.
1980's: oil glut & another pd. of world food surplus.
D. Major difference bet food & energy markets:
Oil mkt is quasi-monopolistic; food is relatively free.
E. Food mkt is sort of mirror image of oil mkt
1. Exporters of food are importers of oil & vice versa.
2. 2 Ironies
a. Affluent countries use the products of their energy-intensive
agricultural tech. to gain export revenue w/ which to pay for
the imported oil that is essential to their farming.
b. Recent gains in food production have taken place in the
affluent countries, where pop. growth has plateaued
>> main prob. is distribution, not supply.
III. FAO
A. What is it?
Largest of specialized UN agencies
B. What's wrong with it?
1. Approach to dev't
a. Promotes export-led growth in agric.
>> vulnerability bec. of unstable commodity mkts
-- undermines local self-sufficiency
-- harms peasants & small farmers
b. High-tech, capital-intensive
>> contracts go to companies in North
>> research mostly done in North
>> rural unemploymt & migratn to urban areas
-- overly promotes pesticide use
2. Bureaucratic probs.
a. Efficiency judged by how fast money is spent
>> little time to consider appropriate tech. or involve
sociologists & anthropologists, much less local
communities
b. Defines itself as an inter-governmental org.
>> no arena for NGO participation,
esp. intl. peasants union
c. Captured by agri-business, esp. chemical companies
d. Inefficiency
e.g., system of special FAO ambassadors duplicates UN
functions, costs $22 million/year.
3. Director-General Edouard Saouma
a. Autocratic, paranoid management style
IV. Green Revolution
FAO-led, 1960's-70's, focused in India
V. The Global Livestock Economy
Biologist: "An alien ecologist observing earth might conclude that
cattle are the dominant animal species in our biosphere"
Domesticated animals now outnumber humans 3 to 1;
mostly for meat (for the affluent, esp. US).
What's wrong w/ heavy meat consumption?
A. Grain consumption
1. To raise meat output, new intensive rearing technologies were
adopted relying on grains & legumes to feed animals. Virtually
all pigs & poultry in industrial countries are raised in
gigantic indoor feeding facilities.
2. In US, animals account for 70% of domestic grain consumption
(compare to 2% for India & sub-Saharan Africa)
B. Very energy & water intensive
1. 30,000 kcals. fossil fuel energy burned to produce a kg. of
pork in US (approx. 4 liters gasoline).
2. The water used to supply a typical American w/ meat, milk &
eggs each day matches that person's daily water use at home,
about 380 liters.
C. Envt'lly disastrous
1. Huge quantities of waste, much of which ends up in rivers, bays
& groundwater.
a. In Netherlands, ammonia from livestock is the single
largest source of acid deposition/rain.
2. Tropical deforestation, esp. in Latin America, Amazon
a. Trop. deforestatn = primary cause of loss of biodiversity
3. Desertification from overgrazing.
4. Lack of plant cover >> soil salinization.
5. Methane: 80 million tons from belches & flatulence (burps & farts)
6. Price of meat might triple if full envt'l costs were incorporated.
PS 410A LECTURE 16 COMPUTERS IN A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY
I. Overview
A. Role in sustainable devt:
1. Envt'l monitoring & modeling
2. Information organizing
3. Creating sustainable technologies
4. Broadening public participation
B. Environmental liabilities
1. Electricity consumption
2. Paper consumption
3. Toxic chemicals
C. What is the place of computers in addressing the 2 great
tasks of the 21st C.: reconciling hopes for global prosperity with
the need for environmental integrity?
II. Key aspects of the industry
Dev'd by military, popularized by consumer economy.
A. Miniaturization
1. 1945 ENIAC: 17,000 vacuum tubes, 10' high, 6' deep, 60' long
-- 27 tons.
1950's: Transistors replace vacuum tubes
1960's: integrated circuits
1971: microprocessor = tiny silicon chip w/ thousands of
microscopic transistors etched onto it.
1990: Intel's Pentium microprocessor in most fact PCs
today: 3 million transistors on one chip.
-- That chip, if built of vacuum tubes would fill a 3
mile-long ENIAC cabinet.
B. Power
1. Amount of computing power that can be purchased for a given
price has been doubling every 2 years for 3 decades.
1980: about 2 million computers in the world
1993: about 148 million; 135 million are Pcs
2. Measured in MIPS, total power of world'c computers has risen
11-fold in last 6 years.
C. Industry
1. Hardware: $315 B/year, centered in U.S. & Japan;
some NICs now major producers (cheap labor)
2. Software: most profitable
Microsoft = largest -- $2.8 B/year in sales
3. Comparison w/ trad'l heavy industries
a. Mobility
i. Small size & high value of products makes them cheap to
ship long distances
ii. Computerization of mgmt. >> offshore prod.
iii. Highly competitive & mobile nature of computer industry
gives it enormous leverage over ntl. govt. & local
communities.
b. Great gap between production workers & mgmt.
i. 70% of mgrs. & 60% of professionals are white males;
only 17% of semi-skilled production workers are
white males; 63% are women, 1/2 of whom are non-white
(U.S.)
c. Unionization figures
Steel & auto 50%
Aircraft manufacturing 32%
Overall U.S. workforce 17%
Electronics 3%
III. Applications to envt'l protection
A. Monitoring
1. Satellite: atmospheric gas concentrations (ozone, greenhouse
gases), forest cover, crop health.
-- Intl. Geosphere-Biosphere Program, NASA, Earth Systems Science
a. Still no global monitoring of transboundary air pollution
flows, desertification, ultraviolet radiation, ocean
productivity, or biodiversity
2. Animals: computerized animal collars w/ radio transmitters,
motion sensors & sedative darts
3. Pollution tracking:
1986: U.S. environmentalists pushed through Emergency Planning
and Right-to-Know Act
>> world's most comprehensive pollution database
(Toxics Release Inventory).
-- 1st federal database ever required by Congress to be released
to the public in a computer-readable format.
-- Public knowledge has dramatically changed industrial
practices in some places.
-- Only covers approx. 5% of U.S.'s total toxic emissions.
-- Other countries copying this model.
-- Rio endorsed the concept of community right-to-know & urged
all nations to establish TRI-style tracking systems.
IV. Environmental Networking
A. Activists & Scientists use E-mail & computer conferencing
B. APC (Assoc. for Progressive Communications) = a group of 10 computer
networks on peace, envt'l, labor, developmt & human rights issues.
-- connects 17,000 activists in 94 countries; cheap.
-- some networks hard to use, don't communicate w/ others
C. Internet
= a rapidly expanding collection of computer networks that can talk
to each other
-- now serves approx. 11 million people
-- # of users & volume of info. flowing thru the system are doubling
every 5 months.
-- started as a link between computer centers doing mil. research in
U.S.; expanded to academic researchers in 1980's; now reaches into
over 50 countries.
V. Computers & Developing Countries
A. Many obstacles to DC computerization
1. Little hard currency to import computers & spare parts.
2. Few computer-literate office workers, programmers, technicians.
3. Electrical & telephone systems overburdened, outdated.
4. Software too expensive, mostly written for U.S. market, not in
native languages >> limits users to those fluent in colonial
language.
B. Nonetheless, computers can be powerful tools for DCs.
1. Though indivs. are too poor to own computers, they belong to orgs.
that do.
2. APC networks reach into dozens of Dcs, esp. Latin Am.
3. FidoNet: low-cost network in Dcs built by U.S. computer hobbyist.
-- overcomes inadequate phone systems by contacting each other at
night; keep dialing until they make a connection & only stop
transmitting when they are assured by machine at the other end
that all messages have been received.
-- can even operate w/ no phone system: "packet radios" transmit
their messages via low-orbit satellites. Motorola now dev'ing a
system of 77 such satellites that will give continuous coverage
everywhere on earth.
-- Doctors in sub-Saharan Africa get medical info.
VI. Computer Toxicity
A. Clean image, contrasted w/ heavy industry. Microprocessors made in
"clean" rooms where every dust particle is filtered from the air.
B. Silicon Valley contains the largest concentration of hazardous
waste cleanup sites in the U.S.
-- Only recognized because of efforts by citizen groups.
C. Miscarriage rates among workers & nearby residents much higher than
normal.
D. Coalition of citizens groups (Campaign for Responsible Technology)
persuaded Congress in 1992 to allocate 10% of the federal
contribution to SEMATECH (govt-indus. consortium to dev. U.S.
microprocessor tech.) for devt of envrmnt'ly sound chip production
processes.
E. Experience w/ CFC substitutes may provide precedent:
-- IBM found that soap & water is an easy substitute for one its
chemical processes.
VII. Resource Consumption
A. Consumes 5% U.S. electricity & is fastest growing segment.
-- mostly used by machines left on >> EPA's "Energy Star" computers
have special "sleep" mode
B. Paper: new laser printers do 2-sided printing; "printing" fonts use
much less paper than "typewriting" fonts.
C. Disposal of used computers: Next year, Germany will require
manufacturers of all electronic goods to take back their products
at the end of their useful lives.
-- Shd. never have to throw out computers.
>> Some devt. NGOs are funneling used computers to DCs.
VIII. Summary
A. Computers can either be centralized tools operated by technocrats
or useful tools for reducing the envt'l impacts of indus.
civilization, ending poverty & strengthening participatory democracy.
B. Either way, computers increase our control (Beniger's
"Control Revolution")
POLS 410 LECTURE 17
Paradigms Shifts: From Exclusionism to Inclusionism
I. History of the envt. as an intl issue area
Typical dynamics: Leader (spurred by active NGO) & laggards;
Least common denominator effect; power of unilateral action &
over-achievement; revision w/ more science.
A. Stockholm 1972 >> Declaratn on Human Envt; UNEP
Issues: pollution, acid rain, N-S & "eco-imperialism"
U.S. leadership
B. London Dumping Convention (1972)
prohibits dumping of some substances, incl. high-level radioactive
waste, @ sea, requires permits for others; 66 ntns. now party.
SU = a lead state
Recent amendments: all dumping of industrial wastes banned by 1995
& ocean incineration of wasts banned by 1994.
C. CITES (1973): initiated by IUCN, monitored partly by WWF, now lists
10,000 species on 3 lists; includes trade sanctions; 108 parties.
EX: African elephants
D. MARPOL= Intl. Conv. for Prevention of Pollutn fr Ships (1976):
response to oil spills; ltd. oil discharges @ sea, banned it in
certain sensitive areas; strongly opposed by shipping interests
>> didn't come into effect until 10 years later.
E. Whaling (1982): bans all commercial whaling; updated 1946
IWC; inst'l mech. = open membership (not a cartel);
pushed by NGO's; U.S. = lead state;
Japan, Norway, Iceland switched to "scientific whaling"
Moratorium still holds.
F. Acid Rain (1979 LRTAP): Scand. lakes = 1st prob.;
initiated by Brezhnev thru ECE; soft law at first;
FRG forests; SO2 Protocol 1985;
NOx Protocol 1988;
Britain, U.S., Poland = laggards
FRG >> leader
G. Antarctica Treaty (1959, revised 1991): 12 ntns. agreed to set aside
national claims to the continent & jointly manage as
"common heritage" of mankind; mining prohibited for 50 years;
wildlife protected;
regulates waste disposal;
increases scientific monitoring.
Australia = lead state
G. Ozone: Vienna Conv., MP, revisions
Tech. transfer article: market intervention can make all ntns
net gainers.
MP >> CFC price up
>>tax on windfall profits
>> incentive to produce substitutes + $ for tech. transnsfer to LDCs.
Obvious precedent for climate change treaty: carbon tax.
H. Basel Conv. (1989): Prior informed consent; signed by 53 countries,
ratified by only 13, 20 required to take effect
>> Bamako Convention
Article on Latin Am. waste trade: not-so-dangerous waste trade is
also a problem (trash); "waste brokers" arrange transport deals;
response to tighter regulatns in MDCs.
I. Biodiversity (none, except CITES)
Shiva article: clear issue where South has natural resources &
North has tech. + capital; WB following model of TFAP in proposed
Biodiversity Action Plan; based on wilderness "set-asides",
virtually ignores agriculture;
WB promotes monocultures, the antithesis of biodiversity;
biotechnology: patents life forms, promotes uniformity;
indigenous ppls. give knowledge but are not compensated;
Q: Why do ntns & companies in North want genetic resources
recognized as a common heritage?
Rio Treaty: shows power of LDCs; attempts to promote sustainable
devt; employs new conservationist principle: conservation will
fail unless it integrates human activity (no set-asides); says
LDC conservation efforts will depend on flow of money from rich
nations; calls for LDCs to share in profits ; U.S. & Japan object
that it fails to give patent protection to American companies that
transfer biotechnology to LDCs & tries to regulate genetically
engineered materials.
J. Climate Change (centerpiece of Rio):
U.S. gutted treaty - - no firm targets & timetables;
EC: has already commited to stabilizing emissions @ 1990 levels
by 2000;
Germany & others will reduce by 20%;
Unanswered Q: Why didn't other countries go ahead w/ treaty & leave
U.S. out? (as did ECE to UK on Helsinki Protocol).
Issues:
N-S: MDCs = 20% pop., 80% emissions; U.S. = 20%
-- Measure by per capita emissions (good for LDCs) or by
emissions per unit of GNP (good for MDCs, esp. Japan)
-- China: 9% greenhouse emissions, not even in top 50
countries on per capita basis; economy grew almost 10% per
year thru 1980's & energy use increased 60%/year
>> by 2025 China's CO2 cd be 3 times U.S.'s, mostly from coal
(>> SO2)
-- India: same issue; energy use in 1980's increased 94%
annually.
-- Deforestation: covered in same treaty as fossil fuels?
Low oil price: $20/barrel
>> complacency; 10 years ago, analysts predicted prices
1990's for $75-$100/barrel;
price of driving a car has never been lower, when
adjusted for inflation;
America's oil bill is now 2% of GNP, or equal to what it
was in the 1960's.
-- W/ threat of global warming, low oil prices would make
now the logical time to implement a global carbon tax,
but U.S. refuses so others will not.
Effectiveness? Envt. has gotten worse.
Better than nothing, impt. for future efforts;
symbolic imptance; rhetorical shift; frameworks for
future action.