A Deeper Look - Issue #8 | Mar 1 2021
US-China Relations, An Interview with Vaclav Smil, and An Ink-Stone
Hello Friends,
Today we look at the following items: 1) an interview with a Vaclav Smil, a little known but widely influential expert on energy, climate change, population growth and the environment, and 2) a closer look at the US-China relationship courtesy of speeches given by both the Biden Administration and China’s leadership over the last two weeks.
[Interview] “Waste Not Want Not” Interview with Vaclav Smil [25 February 2021]
[Speech] “Righting the Wrongs and Committing to Mutual Respect and Win-win Cooperation” by State Councilor Wang Yi at the At the Opening of Lanting Forum in Beijing [22 February 2021]
As I sit here drinking my morning cup of tea, I am sorry to let you know that there is no personal reflection this week. On some days inspiration strikes, on others it lies dormant. I think that the nature of inspiration itself tells us that it cannot be summoned at will, that it bestows us with its touch only when it chooses…
[Interview] ‘Waste Note Want Not” Interview with Vaclav Smil
For those who are unfamiliar, Vaclav Smil is a distinguished professor Emeritus at University of Manitoba, and a giant in the fields of the environment, energy, demography, and growth. According to Science Magazine, he is lauded as “the man who has quietly shaped how the world thinks about energy.” As the article goes on to note, “despite Smil's reach—some of the world's most powerful banks and bureaucrats routinely ask for his advice—he has remained intensely private.” Bill Gates, has remarked: “Nobody sees the big picture with as wide an aperture as Vaclav Smil.”
On February 25 Smil was interviewed by Noema Magazine: here are four key takeaways.
Four Takeaway’s:
Consumption not Population Growth: Smil explains that the pressures on earth’s resources do not come from population growth, but rather from consumption. This is often overlooked, “people don’t realize just how large the differences in consumption are. Japan is prosperous by any measurement, indisputably affluent; they live longer than anybody else. At least according to data from a few years ago, they consume less than 150 gigajoules per capita, while Americans are at over 250. China is about 95, India 25, sub-Saharan Africa 10. If even a billion people in sub-Saharan Africa reached American levels of consumption, the planet would be stripped.”
The Misperceptions of Digitalisation and Dematerialisation: Smil also addressed the misperception that the digitalisation of the economy is linked to its dematerialisation. “You can digitize the control process, but not the material force. That remains the same. The idea that somehow digitalization is leading to the dematerialization of the economy is ridiculous.” Civilisation he argues is built upon materials, “on stuff like steel, cement, plastics, copper and ammonia for fertilizers. There is no digitalization in that.”
Designed Obsolescence: Linked to the ideas of consumption and dematerialisation is the wasteful way we design products. Smil explains that we like to purchase a new phone every one to two years, yet we rarely give thought to the technology, process and raw materials that go into the material of a single phone. In his words, “we design obsolescence. We design waste into our products. It seems we always insist on doing things that are more complicated and wasteful than necessary. There is an old Yiddish saying about scratching your right ear with your left hand, reaching over the top of your head and bending your hand back instead of just scratching with the right hand. This is what we do all the time: waste effort and energy for no purpose.”
The Complexity of Climate Change: Smil made the argument that the climate change and the solutions required are complex and multifaceted, which required multiple levels of thought and action: “That’s the nature of the beast in complex systems. If you attack a single problem, it will impact, say, 6% or 7% of what ails the biosphere. There is no single energy consumption area or environmental issue where, if you fix its problems, 40% of the emissions will vanish. What we have are lots of small keys to get rid of 3% a year here, 6% there and so on. To assemble such an array of responses requires much more attention, much more consistency and much longer periods of devotion to the problem.”
[Speech] US-China Relations
On February 22 2021, State Councilor Wang Yi, China’s current Minister of Foreign Affairs gave a speech at the opening of the Lanting Forum in Beijing. The speech is timely as it represents the first public commentary on US-China relations by China since the election of the Biden Administration, and comes on the heels of Biden’s address to the Munich Security Conference, and his address outlining his Administration's foreign policy priorities.
This presents a unique opportunity to examine both sets of remarks, and read between the lines:
In his speech at the the Lanting Forum, Yi remarked:
“Over a long time, Western countries have either seriously distorted or misunderstood China on democracy. In fact, democracy is not a patent of a few countries… It is a whole-process democracy. Important legislation and policy-making must go through set procedures and extensive discussions, and the final decision must be made on the basis of scientific and democratic deliberations. It is the most representative democracy where people's matters are widely consulted for the greatest common denominator that suits the will of the whole society.”
This statement leads to an interesting interpretation of democracy, one that differs from the representative expressions of democracy we have grown familiar with in the west. Yi’s articulation of democracy is consultative rather than representative, reflective of an ethic of consultation rather than individual choice. In his mention of the “greatest common denominator that suits the will of the whole society” he avoids the question of what this denominator is, and which groups constitute the “whole” society.
The main body of his speech consisted of four key recommendations to restore the Beijing and Washington’s relationship:
“First, it is important to respect each other and not to interfere in each other's internal affairs. This is a basic norm governing international relations. A good-mannered gentleman never thrusts his knife and fork into the food on someone else's plate.”
[This of course is directed at those who have expressed concern at China’s treatment of the Uighur population in Xinjiang. There are multiple reports of China’s human rights abuses in the region, reports of forced labour, mass detention and surveillance, system of prisons. see these reports by: New York Times, Human Rights Watch, and Buzzfeed.]
“Second, it is important to step up dialogue and properly manage the differences. Given the differences between our two countries in social system, development stage, history and culture, it is natural for us to have disagreements. What is crucial is to enhance mutual understanding through dialogue and not allow our relations to be defined by disagreements.”
“Third, it is important to move in the same direction to restart mutually beneficial cooperation. Both countries gain from cooperation and lose from confrontation.”
“Fourth, it is important to clear the path for the resumption of bilateral exchanges in all areas.”
At the same time, China continues its activities in Xinjiang, and its activities into the South China Sea, and Hong Kong.
Biden Administration:
Biden’s comments by contrast, were reflective of a tone that was more, adversarial and competitive, noting in his address to the US Department of State:
“And we’ll also take on directly the challenges posed by our prosperity, security, and democratic values by our most serious competitor, China. We’ll confront China’s economic abuses; counter its aggressive, coercive action; to push back on China’s attack on human rights, intellectual property, and global governance.
His comments, sounded similar to his predecessor’s America first outlook:
But we are ready to work with Beijing when it’s in America’s interest to do so. We will compete from a position of strength by building back better at home, working with our allies and partners, renewing our role in international institutions, and reclaiming our credibility and moral authority, much of which has been lost.”
It should be noted that Biden’s claim to recapture America’s credibility and moral authority should be taken with a grain of salt. Only this week the New York Times reported that the Biden Administration will take no further action against Prince Mohammed bin Salman for the killing of Jamal Khashoggi. Unfortunately moral credibility and authority is not a game of pick and choose.
The New York Times reported that:
But the Biden administration took no direct action against Prince Mohammed, the de facto ruler of the kingdom, instead announcing travel and financial sanctions on other Saudis involved in the killing and on members of the elite unit of the Royal Guard who protect the crown prince. The administration concluded it could not risk a full rupture of its relationship with the kingdom, relied on by the United States to help contain Iran, to counter terrorist groups and to broker peaceful relations with Israel. Cutting off Saudi Arabia could also push its leaders toward China.
Ben Rhodes Former Deputy National Security Advisor (NSA) for Strategic Communications and Speechwriting under President Barack Obama observed:
So where do we stand? On the surface there seems to be an opening to restored relations by the China, but its actions elsewhere give cause for concern. From Washington comes bold rhetoric with promise of tangible action, yet it is hard to see how this will actually play out. It would be naive ignore that there are larger considerations at play, but in the quest for moral authority and credibility it will be difficult for the Biden administration to have its cake and eat it too.
Artefact of the Week:
This week’s artefact comes from the British Museum, a poreclin ink-stone produced between 1506-1521 found in Beijing and made in Jingdezhen. The curator’s comments explain that: “The three [Arabic] inscriptions of the lid were translated by Sir A.W. Franks in 1876 as "Strive for excellence in penmanship, for it is one of the keys of livelihood".
Until next week,
FK