I wonder if the SCO might set up a series of permanent cooperative institutions on the paradigm of the European Union’s Agencies. For each agreed area of vital common interest an Agency is set up, by all the members willing to participate, to coordinate what they do and how they do it to enhance benefits to all. Where appropriate, members agree common standards and collectively provide staff to manage the programs. The EU has more then 40 such Agencies. Should there be disagreements on any matter, a conciliation and arbitration service would be required, something the EU Court of Justice provides. Agencies would [literally] report to the SCO’s administration.
SCO seems to have delegated these matters to ad hoc working groups which can only be a relatively temporary measure, and not very organisationally elegant.
Or perhaps they’ve already done something like it, but I don’t know about it. [as in ‘Grandmother, this is how you suck eggs’.]
The SCO has done quite a lot of institution building and it's not close to being finished. What it needs to avoid is becoming another massive bureaucracy. Avoiding that is why UN reform is absolutely essential.
You have highlighted in bold type several important subjects that speak about the inter-relatedness of the component parts of these subjects, and which hint at the types of actions that will be taken moving forward. For example, on the subject of energy transition [which I think is a nod to the problem of global warming], it is noted that in regard to traditional sources of energy, changes will be coordinated between producing and consuming countries with respect to the needs of each. I contrast this view to that of folks like the German Green Party that once in power failed to see even the inter-relationships between the parts of energy production just within Germany—the result was the pre-mature shutting down of existing nuclear power plants to the detriment of the workers in that industry and the cost of electricity to the German people. I’m no fan of nuclear power; there will always be part of the nuclear energy cycle that will be environmentally destructive, but it is clear to me that renewable energy infrastructure currently in place is nowhere sufficient to meet society’s power needs. The more wholistic approach to energy transition suggested by that single SCO paragraph is far more practical and realistic than the reductionist approach attempted in Germany and advocated by many others who don’t see the complexity of the problem. It is encouraging that SCO seems to see the interrelationships and complexities in many of the issues they address in this conference document….
Energy provides the basis for development along with education. Within the SCO, a significant part of the population doesn't have access to electricity or all the things that power source provides. That implies that basic infrastructure still needs to be erected in Eurasia, Africa, and South America--the main regions most needing basic development. For several months, I've been planning a major paper devoted to the energy issue, but I'm not yet ready to complete it as more research must be done.
I agree. Increased energy use is necessity for improved standards of living and all parameters that go with it. However, given global warming is a real process, increased energy use for the Global South must be accomplished more intelligently than via the unplanned growth characteristic of the way the West developed its infrastructure. Perhaps I’m reading into the phrasing of this SCO goal, I see it as SCO acknowledging that mutual assistance will be given from the more advanced to those advancing respectfully pursuant to the needs and plans of the latter. From the word “transitional” I see transition applying both to new less global warming-producing energy technologies of the future as well as transitioning to greater energy density in the present utilizing the best technologies of the present such as hydraulic power utilizing more efficient turbines or the nuclear power facilities Russia is building in a few countries. While China builds both nuclear power and coal power plants, it works on both goals simultaneously—providing power needed now for immediate standards of living improvement while investing in energy technologies of the future, such as its world leading fusion power research. I see no coherent energy policy developing currently in the U.S., despite hit and miss research. As my view is perhaps mostly intuitive, I look forward to your energy paper’s no doubt thorough treatment.
Actually, your intuition is on the right track. The main goal is to avoid coal use as much as possible as that was the main driver for Western development. Also, there's the lesson learned from auto-fueled suburban sprawl and very stupid development. High density living served by mass transit is most efficient. Plus, major advances make buildings net energy providers instead of sinks along with smart city tech. The density of energy use per unit gdp continues to shrink. The historical comparisons are startling, and welcoming.
I await your full thesis. In the US the lack of coherent policy is gobsmackingly frustrating. Take high speed rail, the technology of which has been demonstrated for decades elsewhere. High speed rail of up to 450 miles are more efficient time- and energy-wise than by car or airplane. Yet in air quality non-compliant California, the plan for one was passed by ballot in 2008; yet construction didn’t begin until 2015 and the first leg will not be completed until 2033. Meanwhile China built 40,000 miles of high speed rail in a decade, much of it over far more challenging terrain.
I wonder if the SCO might set up a series of permanent cooperative institutions on the paradigm of the European Union’s Agencies. For each agreed area of vital common interest an Agency is set up, by all the members willing to participate, to coordinate what they do and how they do it to enhance benefits to all. Where appropriate, members agree common standards and collectively provide staff to manage the programs. The EU has more then 40 such Agencies. Should there be disagreements on any matter, a conciliation and arbitration service would be required, something the EU Court of Justice provides. Agencies would [literally] report to the SCO’s administration.
SCO seems to have delegated these matters to ad hoc working groups which can only be a relatively temporary measure, and not very organisationally elegant.
Or perhaps they’ve already done something like it, but I don’t know about it. [as in ‘Grandmother, this is how you suck eggs’.]
The SCO has done quite a lot of institution building and it's not close to being finished. What it needs to avoid is becoming another massive bureaucracy. Avoiding that is why UN reform is absolutely essential.
Thanks.
You have highlighted in bold type several important subjects that speak about the inter-relatedness of the component parts of these subjects, and which hint at the types of actions that will be taken moving forward. For example, on the subject of energy transition [which I think is a nod to the problem of global warming], it is noted that in regard to traditional sources of energy, changes will be coordinated between producing and consuming countries with respect to the needs of each. I contrast this view to that of folks like the German Green Party that once in power failed to see even the inter-relationships between the parts of energy production just within Germany—the result was the pre-mature shutting down of existing nuclear power plants to the detriment of the workers in that industry and the cost of electricity to the German people. I’m no fan of nuclear power; there will always be part of the nuclear energy cycle that will be environmentally destructive, but it is clear to me that renewable energy infrastructure currently in place is nowhere sufficient to meet society’s power needs. The more wholistic approach to energy transition suggested by that single SCO paragraph is far more practical and realistic than the reductionist approach attempted in Germany and advocated by many others who don’t see the complexity of the problem. It is encouraging that SCO seems to see the interrelationships and complexities in many of the issues they address in this conference document….
Energy provides the basis for development along with education. Within the SCO, a significant part of the population doesn't have access to electricity or all the things that power source provides. That implies that basic infrastructure still needs to be erected in Eurasia, Africa, and South America--the main regions most needing basic development. For several months, I've been planning a major paper devoted to the energy issue, but I'm not yet ready to complete it as more research must be done.
I agree. Increased energy use is necessity for improved standards of living and all parameters that go with it. However, given global warming is a real process, increased energy use for the Global South must be accomplished more intelligently than via the unplanned growth characteristic of the way the West developed its infrastructure. Perhaps I’m reading into the phrasing of this SCO goal, I see it as SCO acknowledging that mutual assistance will be given from the more advanced to those advancing respectfully pursuant to the needs and plans of the latter. From the word “transitional” I see transition applying both to new less global warming-producing energy technologies of the future as well as transitioning to greater energy density in the present utilizing the best technologies of the present such as hydraulic power utilizing more efficient turbines or the nuclear power facilities Russia is building in a few countries. While China builds both nuclear power and coal power plants, it works on both goals simultaneously—providing power needed now for immediate standards of living improvement while investing in energy technologies of the future, such as its world leading fusion power research. I see no coherent energy policy developing currently in the U.S., despite hit and miss research. As my view is perhaps mostly intuitive, I look forward to your energy paper’s no doubt thorough treatment.
Actually, your intuition is on the right track. The main goal is to avoid coal use as much as possible as that was the main driver for Western development. Also, there's the lesson learned from auto-fueled suburban sprawl and very stupid development. High density living served by mass transit is most efficient. Plus, major advances make buildings net energy providers instead of sinks along with smart city tech. The density of energy use per unit gdp continues to shrink. The historical comparisons are startling, and welcoming.
I await your full thesis. In the US the lack of coherent policy is gobsmackingly frustrating. Take high speed rail, the technology of which has been demonstrated for decades elsewhere. High speed rail of up to 450 miles are more efficient time- and energy-wise than by car or airplane. Yet in air quality non-compliant California, the plan for one was passed by ballot in 2008; yet construction didn’t begin until 2015 and the first leg will not be completed until 2033. Meanwhile China built 40,000 miles of high speed rail in a decade, much of it over far more challenging terrain.
The US is becoming a failed state thanks to the Rent Seekers. Simplicius nails it big time. I haven't ranted in several years, so maybe it's now time.