Obama Gets Starry Eyed for Space Solar Power

Many of you have probably seen the Obama transition team’s white paper on Space Solar Power. While I agree that SSP could be an important source of energy over the long term, our R&D investments would be much more useful addressing the problems of the next few decades as opposed to the next few centuries. By the team’s own admission, the barriers to entry are:

1) Achieve cheap & reliable access to space
2) Apply high-volume mass-production assembly-line techniques to spacecraft construction
3) Reduce the technical risk with basic research and technology demonstrations
4) Adopt proven government approaches to incentivize private industry investment, development and operation

Not what I would call trivial hurdles. Additionally, it is unclear how a large export market for electricity would function if the U.S were to become “the world’s largest exporter of energy for the 21st and 22nd Centuries, and beyond.”

So, in short, SSP could, and will likely be, an important energy in the (far) future, but we have more immediate concerns.

Why the United States Technically Owns Taiwan

A Primer on Taiwan – In Who’s Hands does it Belong?

(Try our free China Political IQ Test)

Part II of IV

In Part I, I began outlining the political history of Taiwan and also ruminated on the somewhat outlandish position in favor of Japanese empowerment over Taiwan. In complete frankness, neither I nor any well-respected pundit would tell you that Japan will ever again conceivably colonize Taiwan. In spite of this, I included Japan for the sake of constructive debate, because though Japan’s colonization of Taiwan is insufficient to mandate a new occupation, Japan did irreversibly impact Taiwan’s culture in a meaningful and pro-Japanese way. One could even argue that the concept of ‘Taiwanese culture’ hardly existed until Japanese customs were forced into the mix, leaving a hodgepodge of Chinese and Japanese values from which emerged the basis of the present-day Taiwanese identity.

It is no secret that in order to determine the most legitimate ruling party for Taiwan, the cultural inclination of its people is paramount.

Next we consider the position of the United States…

The United States

Basis of Position: Military Supporter, WWII Liberator

Relative Strength of Position: Spurious

Pro: Let me begin to demonstrate this position with some history. Starting with the present diplomatic position of the U.S., straight from our main website:

“In 1980, the Cold War alliance treaty between the U.S. and Taiwan was terminated and replaced with the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which authorizes the U.S. to provide Taiwan with “arms of a defensive character,” but does not formally commit U.S. forces in the event of a cross-Straight conflict. Mainland China insists that as a prerequisite for economic and diplomatic ties, foreign nations must not recognize the sovereignty of Taiwan, thereby constraining U.S. involvement. Nonetheless, the U.S. is firmly committed to its position in the matter – though the U.S. remains officially impartial in the conflict, it stipulates that the matter must be brought about peacefully with neither side pursuing unilateral action.”

This diplomatic arrangement, underscored by the recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, has resulted in a precarious relationship in which Taiwan depends on U.S. arms as well as their military backing to thwart a potential Chinese invasion. Meanwhile the U.S., China, and Taiwan each must balance their growing financial interdependencies with one another despite being at ends over the future.

So, you might ask, why is the United States so adamant about Taiwan’s separation from the mainland even though it undoubtedly irks China and hurts our relations with them? Well actually, in 1949, the U.S. was prepared to accept the loss of Taiwan to the communist PRC, that is until the Korean War broke out. Only then did the United States take an aggressive national security stance to contain communism throughout Asia, which included protecting Taiwan.

Since that beginning, the basis for favorable U.S.-Taiwanese relations has changed immensely although its character has remained relatively consistent. In the United States, communism is still looked at unfavorably, but from a national security standpoint it is now nowhere near the top of potential threats. Instead, the protection of Taiwan plays a new role in U.S. national security, not to mention that it also secures our economic interests and political values interests.

Everything began to change after the collapse of the Soviet Union. At that time, it was speculated that a revisionist China might challenge the status quo of the world order, heightening Taiwan’s value as an American-friendly strategic asset and also because the U.S. wished to prevent Chinese control over its resources. In addition to the security interest, Taiwan would soon undergo a massive political transformation, aligning itself with the U.S. intentionally in the following capacities:

• Economic Ties – The U.S. had been Taiwan’s largest trading partner until 2003.
• Bilateral Relations – Taiwan has loyally supported U.S. international policy initiatives, faithfully reciprocating U.S. support.
• Political Values – Taiwan has transformed itself from rule via martial law to a stunning example of democracy. The U.S. has a clear vested interest in promoting as well as protecting such a democracy.

All of these rationalizations of U.S. interest in protecting Taiwan are swell and all, demonstrating the familial relationship between the two parties, but they do little to suggest that Taiwan should actually belong to the United States. I suppose, hypothetically, one could surmise that the notion of Taiwanese independence is illegitimate, but even does Taiwan’s political and social alignment closer resemble that of the United States than of China? One would be hard-pressed to demonstrate this…

However, the United States does have one way through the door, so to speak, and it is a very interesting story indeed. You see, on August 15^th, 1945, after having already officially surrendered to the United States earlier that day, all Japanese and Taiwanese forces were ordered by General MacArther to surrender directly to the ROC government by way of an unofficial armistice, but never a formal treaty. Thus, at the time, the United States had technically only delegated control of Taiwan to China, but the U.S. itself remained the sole possessor.

In San Francisco, 1951, Japan did eventually sign a formal treaty, but while they formally renounced all claims to the region of Taiwan, they failed to specify a receiving nation, only specifying that it was ceded to the fighting force, which was almost entirely the United States. We can only conclude that at the time of the treaty signing there was a de facto assumption that Taiwan had been ceded back to China, but from a completely legal standpoint the United States was then and remains today the legitimate possessor of Taiwan. The international community might not be so easily swayed however.

Con: The United States is financially entangled with China in the growing global economy. This relationship works both ways, but even so if the U.S. were to impose any claims over Taiwan – at all, it would be risking a great deal its economic and foreign relations interests. In fact, China might even spin the situation and say, “Hey great, now that this technicality is resolved, you should have no problem giving our land back to us, thanks.” Furthermore, it would be a large leap to go from the fact that Taiwanese citizens are pro-American to assuming that they would embrace absorption into the U.S. I don’t have that information, but given that the ruling democratic party in Taiwan is actually pro-reunification one would think that the identity of the Taiwanese (98% Han-Chinese descent) is much more Chinese than it is American. Be that as it may, America has protected Taiwan like a son, which is a little less peculiar when we consider that America is in fact Taiwan’s legal guardian.

In part III, we will explore China’s claim to Taiwan, to be continued…

Tomorrow’s Energy Economy – Not If, But When

A comprehensive analysis of America’s Energy Future
(Take our Environment & Energy Quiz)

Part I

2009 – The Perfect Storm for All Things Energy Reform

Depending on who you ask, the energy crisis is many things. For the suburban commuter, the energy crisis is the rising cost of gas. For the policy wonk, it’s over-reliance on foreign oil. For the environmentalist, it’s the specter of climate change due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. For still others, it’s the so-called “Nuclear Renaissance”. Ultimately, all of these complex issues are interconnected and no solution to any of them can exist in a vacuum. These problems require a fundamental restructuring of our energy infrastructure…

On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama will ascend to the White House amidst an unprecedented popular desire for change in America. Unfortunately for the Obama Administration, this demand for the all-encompassing notion of “change” is not without a commensurately staggering number of unique interpretations and expected manifestations for what precisely is to be changed in America. For some, Obama has already succeeded in bringing the change they desired, that being the symbolic changing of the guard, but the majority of Americans remain apprehensively optimistic that he can bring about fundamental improvements in worrisome areas such as the U.S. economy, foreign policy, energy independence and the environment.

Indeed, even the most liberal pundits are fearful that Obama will be too financially constrained to make good on many of his promises made throughout his presidential campaign, but what if I told you that it were possible that in one grand, sweeping plan for change Obama could set in motion a plan to drastically improve America’s future outlook in all four of the aforementioned critical arenas – the economy, foreign policy, energy independence, and the environment. Well, upon first reaction to such a claim you would probably say something to the affect of, “Listen here you zealot you, if there were any practical solutions to fix the economy, and improve foreign relations, and solve our energy dependence all at the same time, even the Bush Administration would already be on top of it.” Even the short answer to such skepticism (the long answer to come in later installments) is somewhat complex.

On one side, the Bush Administration, having committed the U.S. to the reconstruction of Iraq, is far too invested in oil and its politics to change directions at this time. After all, why invest so much in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East if not under the full impression that oil is and will be the cheapest and best solution for transportation and the American economy now and in the foreseeable future? Even if Dick Cheney himself invented a working fusion engine, it would still be difficult for the Administration to let go of the ever growing sunk cost that is our oil-motivated foreign policy agenda.

Another barrier to consider is that until recently the economics associated with oil-based fuel have been far superior to the possible alternatives, and with, as of yet, no tangible price tag placed on environment impact oil continues to be among the most affordable fuels available. This is reflected by the fact that 96% of all U.S. transportation sector energy is derived from petroleum products, which, by the way, also accounts for 70% of all U.S. petroleum consumption.

This is so, quite simply, because for many decades oil remained the most efficient and effective fuel available in massive bulk. As such, it is predictable that a large cross-section of the American GDP has come to be dependent on the substance. Thus, even as our continued investment in oil becomes less and less profitable, we find ourselves so entrenched in the medium of oil that to now shift away would require a down-payment so immense that it could only be justified by incontrovertible proof of long-term benefit for American financial and political interests.

While I do not portend to supply such incontrovertible proof, what follows now and in the weekly installments to come is nothing if not a persuasive argument for change, and I’m not the first person, or organization, to think so.

There is no Time like the Present

While U.S. policymakers deliberate on potential solutions to solve the energy crisis, the American economy continues to stagnate; losing its dynamism and comparative advantage. Many of our largest corporations post record-breaking losses and consumers survive with wallets full of credit cards. The longer we proceed with business as usual, the harder it will be to change.

In order to understand what to expect out of the Obama Administration, it is wise to look not only at the problems they face, but to also consider any precedents the Administration has presented that can illuminate how they, rather than we, might go about addressing these concerns. Before we can consider the ins and outs of the U.S. energy platform, both present and future, one must start by acknowledging the fundamental relationship existing between our economy, foreign policy, and energy consumption that has pervaded American politics since the the WWII era – the time when the U.S. found it could no longer nationally supply its growing oil demands.

This relationship can be best described as an investment feedback loop: First, the U.S. invests in its military to ensure ongoing access to oil abroad, that oil security then guarantees ongoing access to cheap fuel for the transportation industry, which increases the speed and growth-rate of American businesses, thus propping up the economy and allowing for more investment all-around…Wash, rinse, and repeat, and its not difficult to see how the United States has maintained its stranglehold over the Middle East and the global economy for decades.

While America’s oil-based economy fueled tremendous growth in the post-war period, the benefits have largely vanished. The U.S. has become increasingly reliant on foreign sources of oil; funneling money out of the domestic economy and tying U.S. national security interests to unstable regimes. Furthermore, The Big Three automobile manufacturers were built on an antiquated energy paradigm, mainly stable supplies of cheap oil. As a result, they have failed to compete effectively in the global auto market (SUVs anyone?). All of this hinges on the increasingly volatile supplies of oil, prone to supply disruptions and wild price fluctuations.

Obama has said that his first priority upon taking office in January, 2009 will be to jump-start the U.S economy. Although mortgage devaluation and credit contraction are not directly related to energy, these markets might only be the tip of the iceberg if immediate action is not extended to the energy sector as well. Needless to say, the long-term health of the economy requires new energy policies. Obama himself has acknowledged this, and has laid out a new energy plan that he claims will create five million new jobs. If we take Obama on his word, change is coming. However, aside from campaign promises, there is reason to believe that action will be taken.

Reducing the price of energy strengthens the middle class; a key element of Obamanomics. Furthermore, because the domestic auto industry is such a key player in the economy as a whole, making them competitive again will provide the rare opportunity to significantly catalyze American energy policy. What shape should these energy reforms take? And how can they be implemented?

What will follow in the weeks to come is a holistic discussion of the entire U.S. energy economy. Later we will explore various energy policy proposals, from both the private and public sectors, and examine their feasibility. Stay tuned as next week we will begin by exploring (and scrutinizing) the production, distribution, and consumption of energy in the United States.