article | posted April 19, 2007 (May 7, 2007 issue)
Elizabeth Economy
The message is clear: Shanghai under water, Tibetan glaciers disappearing, crop yields in precipitous decline, epidemics flaring. These are just some of the dire consequences that Chinese scientists predict for their country this century if current climate change is not addressed. Yet China's leaders pay about as much attention to the issue as does George W. Bush. In fact, a report issued last year by the Climate Action Network-Europe ranks China fifty-fourth out of fifty-six countries for its climate change response, just behind the United States and ahead only of Malaysia and Saudi Arabia.
Beijing knows the costs of inaction: A recent major official study on climate change predicts up to a 37 percent decline in China's wheat, rice and corn yields in the second half of the century. Precipitation may decline by as much as 30 percent in three of China's seven major river regions: the Huai, Liao and Hai. The Yellow and Yangtze rivers, which support the richest agricultural regions of the country and derive much of their water from Tibetan glaciers, will initially experience floods and then drought as the glaciers melt.
Moreover, a one-meter rise in sea level will submerge an area the size of Portugal along China's eastern seaboard--home to more than half the country's population and 60 percent of its economic output. Already climate change-related extreme weather is taking its toll: In 2006 such disasters cost China more than $25 billion in damage. Finally, a study by Shanghai-based researcher Wen Jiahong suggests that the lethal H5N1 virus will spread as climate change shifts the habitats and migratory patterns of birds.
CONTINUED BELOW
Yet China's leaders show little inclination to move aggressively to forestall such calamities. As a result of China's reliance on coal to fuel its economy, its emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide have tripled over the past thirty years and are now second only to those of the United States. In late 2006 the International Energy Agency predicted that China would surpass the United States as the largest contributor of CO2 by 2009, a full decade earlier than anticipated. China already uses more coal than the United States, the European Union and Japan combined and is the world's second-largest consumer of oil after the United States. (India, which lags well behind China in its overall consumption of coal, is nonetheless on track to become a major CO2 contributor over the next ten years and is already the fifth-largest contributor of greenhouse gases globally.)
China's development strategy suggests that little will change in the foreseeable future. With plans on the books to urbanize half the Chinese population by 2020, energy consumption will soar. City residents in China use 250 percent more power than their rural counterparts. And China's love affair with the private car is set to rival that of the United States. A conservative estimate by the Asian Development Bank predicts that the number of cars in China could increase by fifteen times present levels over the next thirty years, more than tripling CO2 emissions.
If China's development trajectory continues as planned, its increase in greenhouse gas emissions will likely exceed that of all industrialized countries combined over the next twenty-five years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol sought. In short, it's a nightmarishly bad picture.
It would be unfair, however, to characterize China as doing nothing to address climate change. The leadership's worries about both energy security and domestic air pollution--five of the world's ten most polluted cities are in China--are propelling them to set bold targets for reshaping their energy mix and enhancing energy efficiency.
The Chinese government has called for renewable energy to provide 10 percent of the nation's power by 2010 and 15 percent by 2020. Key state-owned enterprises and provincial governors must make 20 percent reductions in their energy intensity (that is, energy consumed per unit of GDP) over the next three years. On that front there is a lot of room for improvement: China's buildings consume 250 percent more energy than buildings in other countries with comparable climates. Beijing has responded with a raft of tough new building codes for energy efficiency. Much like the United States, cities and provinces are now taking matters into their own hands. Shenzhen, for example, has passed a regulation that solar power be used to supply hot water in all new residential buildings under twelve stories.
Already there is some success. With the assistance of the US-based Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), China built its first LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified building. Fittingly, the building houses the Ministry of Science and Technology, in Beijing. Ten stories tall, it uses 70 percent less energy than similar buildings and saves 10,000 tons of water annually through rainwater collection. NRDC energy expert Robert Watson, one of the chief architects of the project, claims that if every new nonresidential building in China matched this one, the electricity savings would equal the amount of energy provided by the Three Gorges Dam.
But China is littered with well-intended demonstration projects that go nowhere. If these new regulations are to have an impact, Beijing's tough rhetoric must be matched by real enforcement, a task that has proved elusive in the past. In 2002 the Chinese government pledged to cut sulfur dioxide 10 percent by 2005. (SO2 is not a greenhouse gas but is a noxious byproduct of coal power that causes acid rain and urban smog; getting rid of it is a good idea.) But SO2 emissions have increased 27 percent. From all accounts, few if any of the coal-fired power plants that China is bringing online almost every week embrace state-of-the-art clean technology. Moreover, Beijing has already missed its first-year target for the 2006-10 plan to increase the energy efficiency of industry.
Why can't this supposed command economy impose solutions if its leadership sees a problem? There are several reasons behind China's consistent failure to meet environmental goals.
First, the central government in Beijing actually has little on-the-ground enforcement capability in the provinces. Local environmental protection officials report to and are beholden to local government officials, not to the State Environmental Protection Administration in Beijing. One of the West's great misconceptions is that what Beijing says goes. In fact, local officials are often in cahoots with factory managers and allow industry to pollute well above legal limits--either because the officials have a financial stake in the enterprise or because they are afraid that closing a factory, or making it more expensive to operate, will diminish local employment and lead to social unrest, which is now a very serious problem all across China.
In other cases, local officials want to do the right thing but are too weak in the face of powerful enterprise managers.
At root, however, China's lax environmental enforcement results from Beijing's failure to create a system of green-oriented incentives and penalties. Pricing of natural resources, pollution levies and promotion incentives for officials should all be geared toward environmental protection. Instead, growth at all costs is the guiding logic. Moreover, China's leaders are afraid to unleash civil society, in the form of the media, the legal system and NGOs, to help hold local officials accountable for wrongdoing. Already there are tens of thousands of mass demonstrations over environmental pollution every year. Officials fear that opposition demands will escalate out of control, unleashing a far more powerful push for broader political reform. So the government relies on its old methods, limiting transparency, accountability and free expression.
On the international stage, China faces pressure and incentives to become more environmentally responsible. Beijing's interest in promoting energy efficiency and the development of renewable energy resources--as well as a desire to be perceived as a constructive global actor--drove China's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. And China has become an active player in the Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), tapping into opportunities for technology transfer and international investment. China already has some seventy CDM projects under way--well over half of which supply foreign investment and/or technology for renewable energy projects. According to an Asian Development Bank expert, China could generate an annual revenue stream of more than $2 billion by participating in externally funded CDM projects.
But without more substantial commitment to meet real targets for radical emissions reductions, China's greenhouse contributions will overwhelm its best efforts.
If there is a meaningful Chinese discussion about tackling climate change, it takes place largely behind closed doors, well out of sight of foreigners. Perhaps recent natural disasters will motivate Chinese leaders: Over just the past year China has suffered floods in the east that have affected more than 10 million people, while drought this spring left 13 million people and 12 million farm animals without enough drinking water.
The Communist Party's argument over the past fifteen years has been: Since China came late to the industrialization game, the core economies, with their significantly greater historical greenhouse gas contributions, must pay for a global transformation away from fossil fuels. Now it is China's turn to develop, so deal with it.
"Development is the first urgent task," said Qin Dahe, a member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and co-chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It's a firm principle and, moreover, we need good and fast development. Only then will we be able to step by step solve the problem" of climate change. Chinese officials are also quick to point out that on a per capita basis, China's greenhouse gas emissions are dwarfed by those of the developed countries: Per capita discharge is only 61 percent of the world's average and 21 percent of that of OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries.
A more subtle indication of how China's leaders understand the global climate change regime is revealed by the regulatory framework China has established for the Kyoto-related CDM projects. In essence, Beijing places a higher priority on projects that contribute to the development of the economy and transfer technology to China than on projects that make reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.
When growth and green can be accomplished together, the Chinese government embraces environmentalism. For example, it actively discriminates in favor of CDM proposals that transfer technology and advance the country's capacity in renewables, energy efficiency and methane recovery. But reforestation projects or projects that propose to reduce emissions of HFC-23--a greenhouse gas with global warming potential more than 11,000 times that of CO2--are discouraged because they do not involve enough capital or provide technology transfer. Working within these confines, the Kyoto-related CDM framework offers important ways for OECD countries to nudge China away from fossil fuels.
Paradoxically, another reason climate change is not a bigger issue in China has to do with local pollution. Anyone who has visited an inland Chinese city knows how terrifyingly bad the air is. Chinese media are replete with horrifying statistics: An estimated 400,000 people die prematurely from respiratory diseases related to air pollution each year; one-quarter of China's land is desert, and the desert is advancing at the rate of 1,900 square miles per year, producing tens of thousands of environmental migrants; and in China's north and west, severe and growing water scarcity is impinging on economic growth, limiting agricultural and industrial output. As a result even the burgeoning environmental nongovernmental sector in China discusses climate change only as an afterthought. Strangely, few outside the scientific community make the connection that climate change may be exacerbating and exacerbated by these "domestic" problems.
The world's most industrialized countries started the climate crisis, but China might well finish the job. Not having China on board for a more stringent post-Kyoto accord is simply not an option.
In late April the Chinese government is expected to release a national plan on global climate change. From all accounts, the document will reinforce the government's commitment to energy efficiency and renewables while also setting forth prevention policies for natural disasters. What it will not do, unsurprisingly, is embrace any targets or timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions. For that to happen, two things are necessary. First, the United States, preferably with Australia and India in tow, must agree to aggressive emission reductions, perhaps along the lines currently pursued by California. Without a strong US commitment, the international community has no credibility in pressuring the Chinese.
Second, OECD countries will have to be far more generous and comprehensive in compensating China in its struggle to enforce tougher energy efficiency and renewable standards. That can be done with both financial incentives and technology transfers. What finally brought the Chinese on board with Kyoto and previous international environmental agreements was the attraction of getting paid to do the right thing. If the United States joins the fight against climate change--and if the price is right--there is every reason to believe that China can commit to doing the right thing again.
Monday, September 10, 2007
The Guantánamo I Know
By MORRIS D. DAVIS
New York Times
Arlington, Va.
LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten.
The makeshift detention center known as Camp X-Ray closed in early 2002 after just four months of use. Now it is overgrown with weeds and serves as home to iguanas. Yet last week ABC News published a photo online of Camp X-Ray as if it were in use, five years after its closing.
Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo.
Standards at Guantánamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the United States and abroad. After an inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in March 2006, a Belgian police official said, “At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”
Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the “Australian Taliban,” asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”
Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees.
Each accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language; outside influence on witnesses and trial participants is prohibited; the accused may challenge members of the commission; an accused may represent himself or have assistance of counsel; he is presumed innocent until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; he is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf; he is not required to incriminate himself at trial and his silence is not held against him; he may not be tried a second time for the same offense; and he is entitled to the assistance of counsel through four stages of post-trial appellate review ending at the United States Supreme Court.
One myth is that the accused can be excluded from his trial and convicted on secret evidence. The administrative boards that determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant and whether he is a continuing threat may consider classified information in closed hearings outside the presence of the detainee. But military commissions may not. The act states, “The accused shall be permitted ... to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing.” Unless the accused chooses to skip his trial or is removed for disruptive behavior, he has the right to be present and to confront all of the evidence.
Many critics disapprove of the potential admissibility of evidence obtained by coercion and hearsay. Any statement by a person whose freedom is restrained by someone in a position of authority can be viewed as the product of some degree of coercion. Deciding how far is too far is the challenge. I make the final decision on the evidence the prosecution will introduce. The defense may challenge this evidence and the military judge decides whether it is admitted. If it is admitted, both sides can argue how much weight, if any, the evidence deserves. If a conviction results, the accused has the assistance of counsel in four stages of post-trial appellate review. These are clearly robust safeguards.
The Military Commissions Act says hearsay is admissible unless it is challenged. The party raising the challenge must persuade the military judge that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the commission, among other reasons. While this standard permits admission of some evidence that would not be admissible in federal courts, the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals.
There is no ban on hearsay among the indispensable rights listed in the Geneva Conventions. Nor is there a ban on hearsay for the United Nations-sanctioned war crimes tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Nuremberg trials also did not limit hearsay evidence. Simply stated, a ban on hearsay is not an internationally recognized judicial guarantee.
Guantánamo Bay is a clean, safe and humane place for enemy combatants, and the Military Commissions Act provides a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes. Even the most vocal critics say they do not want to set terrorists free, but they scorn Guantánamo Bay and military commissions and demand alternatives. The facts show the current alternative is worth keeping.
New York Times
Arlington, Va.
LINDSEY GRAHAM, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is right: “The image of Guantánamo Bay and the reality of Guantánamo Bay are completely different.” It is disappointing that so many embrace a contrived image. Reality for Guantánamo Bay is the daily professionalism of its staff, the humanity of its detention centers and the fair and transparent nature of the military commissions charged with trying war criminals. It is a reality that has been all but ignored or forgotten.
The makeshift detention center known as Camp X-Ray closed in early 2002 after just four months of use. Now it is overgrown with weeds and serves as home to iguanas. Yet last week ABC News published a photo online of Camp X-Ray as if it were in use, five years after its closing.
Today, most of the detainees are housed in new buildings modeled after civilian prisons in Indiana and Michigan. Detainees receive three culturally appropriate meals a day. Each has a copy of the Koran. Guards maintain respectful silence during Islam’s five daily prayer periods, and medical care is provided by the same practitioners who treat American service members. Detainees are offered at least two hours of outdoor recreation each day, double that allowed inmates, including convicted terrorists, at the “supermax” federal penitentiary in Florence, Colo.
Standards at Guantánamo rival or exceed those at similar institutions in the United States and abroad. After an inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in March 2006, a Belgian police official said, “At the level of detention facilities, it is a model prison, where people are better treated than in Belgian prisons.”
Critics liken Guantánamo Bay to Soviet gulags, but reality does not match their hyperbole. The supporters of David Hicks, the detainee popularly known as the “Australian Taliban,” asserted that Mr. Hicks was mistreated and wasting away. But at his March trial, where he pleaded guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization, he and his defense team stipulated he was treated properly. Mr. Hicks even thanked service members, and as one Australian newspaper columnist noted, he appeared in court “looking fat, healthy and tanned, and cracking jokes.”
Some imply that if a defendant does not get a trial that looks like Martha Stewart’s and ends like O. J. Simpson’s, then military commissions are flawed. They are mistaken. The Constitution does not extend to alien unlawful enemy combatants. They are entitled to protections under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which ensures they are afforded “all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
Justice John Paul Stevens, in the Hamdan decision that rejected an earlier plan for military commissions, observed that Article 75 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions defines the judicial guarantees recognized as indispensable. A comparison of Article 75 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 shows military commissions provide the fundamental guarantees.
Each accused receives a copy of the charges in his native language; outside influence on witnesses and trial participants is prohibited; the accused may challenge members of the commission; an accused may represent himself or have assistance of counsel; he is presumed innocent until guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; he is entitled to assistance to secure evidence on his behalf; he is not required to incriminate himself at trial and his silence is not held against him; he may not be tried a second time for the same offense; and he is entitled to the assistance of counsel through four stages of post-trial appellate review ending at the United States Supreme Court.
One myth is that the accused can be excluded from his trial and convicted on secret evidence. The administrative boards that determine if a detainee is an enemy combatant and whether he is a continuing threat may consider classified information in closed hearings outside the presence of the detainee. But military commissions may not. The act states, “The accused shall be permitted ... to examine and respond to evidence admitted against him on the issue of guilt or innocence and for sentencing.” Unless the accused chooses to skip his trial or is removed for disruptive behavior, he has the right to be present and to confront all of the evidence.
Many critics disapprove of the potential admissibility of evidence obtained by coercion and hearsay. Any statement by a person whose freedom is restrained by someone in a position of authority can be viewed as the product of some degree of coercion. Deciding how far is too far is the challenge. I make the final decision on the evidence the prosecution will introduce. The defense may challenge this evidence and the military judge decides whether it is admitted. If it is admitted, both sides can argue how much weight, if any, the evidence deserves. If a conviction results, the accused has the assistance of counsel in four stages of post-trial appellate review. These are clearly robust safeguards.
The Military Commissions Act says hearsay is admissible unless it is challenged. The party raising the challenge must persuade the military judge that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the commission, among other reasons. While this standard permits admission of some evidence that would not be admissible in federal courts, the rights afforded Americans are not the benchmark for assessing rights afforded enemy combatants in military tribunals.
There is no ban on hearsay among the indispensable rights listed in the Geneva Conventions. Nor is there a ban on hearsay for the United Nations-sanctioned war crimes tribunals, including the International Criminal Court, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Nuremberg trials also did not limit hearsay evidence. Simply stated, a ban on hearsay is not an internationally recognized judicial guarantee.
Guantánamo Bay is a clean, safe and humane place for enemy combatants, and the Military Commissions Act provides a fair process to adjudicate the guilt or innocence of those alleged to have committed crimes. Even the most vocal critics say they do not want to set terrorists free, but they scorn Guantánamo Bay and military commissions and demand alternatives. The facts show the current alternative is worth keeping.
Road kill
By Gregg Easterbrook
August 5, 2007
Suppose 245,000 americans had died in terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. The United States would be beside itself, utterly gripped by a sense of national emergency. Political leaders would speak of nothing else, the United States military would stand at maximum readiness, and the White House would vow not to rest until the danger to Americans had been utterly eradicated.
Yet 245,000 Americans have died because of one specific threat since 9/11, and no one seems to care. While the tragedy of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 has justified two wars, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, the tragedy of 245,000 lives lost in traffic accidents on the nation's roads during the same period has justified . . . pretty much no response at all. Terrorism is on the front page day in and day out, but the media rarely even mention road deaths. A few days ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that 42,642 Americans died in traffic in 2006. Did you hear this reported anywhere?
This phenomenon is not just American, it is global. Traffic deaths are the fastest-rising cause of death in the world. Yet you've heard far more about H5N1 avian influenza, which has killed 192 people worldwide since being detected five years ago, than about the 6 million people who have died in traffic accidents in the same period. Last year alone, 1.2 million people were killed on the world's roads, versus about 100,000 dead as a result of combat. The last decade is believed to be the first time in history that roads posed a greater danger to human beings than fighting (which is partly a reflection of the decline of war).
Global prosperity is rising fast, which means that global car ownership is rising fast, and both of those things are good -- but they also mean that global traffic deaths are rising as well. Worldwide, traffic deaths look exactly like a pandemic -- increasing in most nations, with local rapid spikes.
Two forces seem at play in skewed perceptions of these risks. The first is the fundamental difference between harm because of accidents and harm because of deliberate action; the second, society's strange assumption that traffic fatalities cannot be avoided.
The loss of life caused by terrorism on 9/11 -- or similar losses in other acts of terror or war -- has a wholly different moral standing than loss of life in accidents. Terrorists are criminals whose intent is homicide. Those who act illegally or immorally must be opposed even if that means engaging in complex, expensive, perilous undertakings, as the United States has since the darkness of 9/11. A life lost in a traffic accident is very sad, but it does not involve an offense against morality or human dignity. Most traffic accidents are just that -- accidents. In that sense, it may be reasonable that 3,000 deaths because of terrorism have a disproportionate effect on national policymaking.
Next, cars and trucks possess utility. They are vital to our economy and to our personal freedom. Having millions of cars and trucks roaring every which way is necessary for the American economy to be so productive. Environmental Protection Agency figures show that, in the last three decades, vehicle-miles traveled have risen 170% in the United States. Some of this may be unnecessary, but most vehicle-miles happen because they serve someone's interest. If the use of cars were restricted, accidents would certainly decline, but so would economic productivity and personal freedom.
Here's where the big faults in our thinking come into play. Do the media downplay road dangers in part because the auto industry is the No. 1 advertiser on TV and among the top advertisers for newspapers? Detroit would much rather Brian Williams or Katie Couric titter about Paris Hilton, or the L.A. Times feature articles on Waziristan, than hear about 42,642 dead on the roads last year.
Typical Americans are to blame as well. Because we don't want to contemplate dying in a car crash, we seem to assume that highway fatalities cannot be reduced, that they fall into the "stuff happens" category. This isn't so. Risks of driving or of crossing the street -- each year more pedestrians die in the United States than the death toll of 9/11 -- could be reduced significantly without any sacrifice of freedom by car owners.
Relative to passenger-miles traveled, traffic fatalities have declined in the United States owing to anti-lock brakes, air bags, impact engineering (a hidden safety feature of most new vehicles) and the big rise in shoulder-harness use (your seat belt is much more important to safety than air bags). Tougher laws and social awareness have reduced drunk driving. Yet fatalities per mile traveled have not fallen as much as might be expected given improved technology and less alcohol-impaired driving. There appear to be two key reasons: cellphones and horsepower.
Driving while yakking may seem harmless to you, but try telling that to the loved ones of the hundreds or even thousands who die each year in totally avoidable phone-related accidents. Holding a cellphone while driving will become illegal in California in 2008. But the odds of getting stopped are slight. Automated cameras now issue speeding tickets; why can't they issue tickets to owners of cars photographed with a driver using a phone?
Another idea is to pass laws under which, if a driver is on the phone at the moment of a crash, he or she is presumed to be at fault. It is well past time for legislatures to stop waffling on this issue and take action. People make phone calls while driving because they know they can get away with it. This is more important than human life?
The ever-rising horsepower of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks is another reason road fatalities stay high. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle had 119 horsepower and went from zero to 60 in 13 seconds; this year's averages are 220 horsepower and zero to 60 in 9.5 seconds. New cars, SUVs and pickup trucks of this model year are the "fastest and most powerful vehicles since the EPA began compiling data," the federal agency recently said. Even many new family sedans are ridiculously overpowered. Car & Driver magazine recently tested the new, 268-horsepower Toyota Camry: It did zero to 60 in 5.8 seconds, which was Corvette acceleration a generation ago.
Cars with high horsepower and rapid acceleration are easy to lose control of, especially for young drivers. Tap the accelerator in a tight curve for just an instant in that Camry -- to say nothing of socially irresponsible monstrosities such as the 520-horsepower Porsche Cayenne SUV -- and you can lose control. High-horsepower cars enable cutting off and other forms of aggressive driving; cutting off and sudden lane changes are leading causes of highway collisions. A generation ago, a small percentage of American drivers had high-horsepower vehicles. Now the majority do! Is it a coincidence that road rage and high horsepower have occurred simultaneously? High horsepower makes road rage possible, which in turn adds to the death count.
The proliferation of high horsepower cars is doubly wrong because it links to ever-rising petroleum use and greenhouse gases. Automakers have significantly increased powertrain efficiency in the last 20 years -- but the gains have gone into horsepower, not fuel efficiency. Other things being equal, if new-vehicle horsepower were reduced by one-third, miles per gallon would rise by one-third. One decade of sales of new vehicles with one-third higher horsepower accounts for the amount of oil the United States imports from the Persian Gulf region. Reduce horsepower by a third and end U.S. Persian Gulf oil dependence. Yes, it's that simple. If only we'd actually do it!
Because horsepower is an arms race -- if one automaker offers more, all must -- federal legislation to limit horsepower would offer a good-news trifecta: Higher mpg, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and lower road fatalities as average motorists stop acting like they're at a NASCAR track.
Why doesn't Congress act to end the horsepower wars? Please don't counter that "no one can tell me what I can drive." The Constitution says you've got a right to own a gun and to read a newspaper. Firearms and materials related to 1st Amendment expression are the only categories of possessions given protected status by the Constitution; courts consistently rule that vehicles on public roads can be regulated for public purposes such as safety.
Horsepower regulation and serious enforcement against cellphone use while driving might save thousands of lives a year. Such reforms might also prevent many billions of dollars in economic losses and make a big dent in the other road-danger figure no one talks about -- 2.6 million Americans injured in traffic crashes last year.
Other reforms, such as pedestrian-activated warning lights at crosswalks, could also reduce traffic deaths in the United States. Numerous reforms could reduce traffic deaths in developing countries. As a nation, we find common ground in agreeing that even one death from terrorism cannot be tolerated. Why are tens of thousands of annual road deaths OK?
Gregg Easterbrook is a fellow of the Brookings Institution and author of "The Progress Paradox." Lauren Hovel of Barnard College provided research assistance for this article.
August 5, 2007
Suppose 245,000 americans had died in terrorist attacks since Sept. 11, 2001. The United States would be beside itself, utterly gripped by a sense of national emergency. Political leaders would speak of nothing else, the United States military would stand at maximum readiness, and the White House would vow not to rest until the danger to Americans had been utterly eradicated.
Yet 245,000 Americans have died because of one specific threat since 9/11, and no one seems to care. While the tragedy of 3,000 lives lost on 9/11 has justified two wars, in which thousands of U.S. soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, the tragedy of 245,000 lives lost in traffic accidents on the nation's roads during the same period has justified . . . pretty much no response at all. Terrorism is on the front page day in and day out, but the media rarely even mention road deaths. A few days ago, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced that 42,642 Americans died in traffic in 2006. Did you hear this reported anywhere?
This phenomenon is not just American, it is global. Traffic deaths are the fastest-rising cause of death in the world. Yet you've heard far more about H5N1 avian influenza, which has killed 192 people worldwide since being detected five years ago, than about the 6 million people who have died in traffic accidents in the same period. Last year alone, 1.2 million people were killed on the world's roads, versus about 100,000 dead as a result of combat. The last decade is believed to be the first time in history that roads posed a greater danger to human beings than fighting (which is partly a reflection of the decline of war).
Global prosperity is rising fast, which means that global car ownership is rising fast, and both of those things are good -- but they also mean that global traffic deaths are rising as well. Worldwide, traffic deaths look exactly like a pandemic -- increasing in most nations, with local rapid spikes.
Two forces seem at play in skewed perceptions of these risks. The first is the fundamental difference between harm because of accidents and harm because of deliberate action; the second, society's strange assumption that traffic fatalities cannot be avoided.
The loss of life caused by terrorism on 9/11 -- or similar losses in other acts of terror or war -- has a wholly different moral standing than loss of life in accidents. Terrorists are criminals whose intent is homicide. Those who act illegally or immorally must be opposed even if that means engaging in complex, expensive, perilous undertakings, as the United States has since the darkness of 9/11. A life lost in a traffic accident is very sad, but it does not involve an offense against morality or human dignity. Most traffic accidents are just that -- accidents. In that sense, it may be reasonable that 3,000 deaths because of terrorism have a disproportionate effect on national policymaking.
Next, cars and trucks possess utility. They are vital to our economy and to our personal freedom. Having millions of cars and trucks roaring every which way is necessary for the American economy to be so productive. Environmental Protection Agency figures show that, in the last three decades, vehicle-miles traveled have risen 170% in the United States. Some of this may be unnecessary, but most vehicle-miles happen because they serve someone's interest. If the use of cars were restricted, accidents would certainly decline, but so would economic productivity and personal freedom.
Here's where the big faults in our thinking come into play. Do the media downplay road dangers in part because the auto industry is the No. 1 advertiser on TV and among the top advertisers for newspapers? Detroit would much rather Brian Williams or Katie Couric titter about Paris Hilton, or the L.A. Times feature articles on Waziristan, than hear about 42,642 dead on the roads last year.
Typical Americans are to blame as well. Because we don't want to contemplate dying in a car crash, we seem to assume that highway fatalities cannot be reduced, that they fall into the "stuff happens" category. This isn't so. Risks of driving or of crossing the street -- each year more pedestrians die in the United States than the death toll of 9/11 -- could be reduced significantly without any sacrifice of freedom by car owners.
Relative to passenger-miles traveled, traffic fatalities have declined in the United States owing to anti-lock brakes, air bags, impact engineering (a hidden safety feature of most new vehicles) and the big rise in shoulder-harness use (your seat belt is much more important to safety than air bags). Tougher laws and social awareness have reduced drunk driving. Yet fatalities per mile traveled have not fallen as much as might be expected given improved technology and less alcohol-impaired driving. There appear to be two key reasons: cellphones and horsepower.
Driving while yakking may seem harmless to you, but try telling that to the loved ones of the hundreds or even thousands who die each year in totally avoidable phone-related accidents. Holding a cellphone while driving will become illegal in California in 2008. But the odds of getting stopped are slight. Automated cameras now issue speeding tickets; why can't they issue tickets to owners of cars photographed with a driver using a phone?
Another idea is to pass laws under which, if a driver is on the phone at the moment of a crash, he or she is presumed to be at fault. It is well past time for legislatures to stop waffling on this issue and take action. People make phone calls while driving because they know they can get away with it. This is more important than human life?
The ever-rising horsepower of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks is another reason road fatalities stay high. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle had 119 horsepower and went from zero to 60 in 13 seconds; this year's averages are 220 horsepower and zero to 60 in 9.5 seconds. New cars, SUVs and pickup trucks of this model year are the "fastest and most powerful vehicles since the EPA began compiling data," the federal agency recently said. Even many new family sedans are ridiculously overpowered. Car & Driver magazine recently tested the new, 268-horsepower Toyota Camry: It did zero to 60 in 5.8 seconds, which was Corvette acceleration a generation ago.
Cars with high horsepower and rapid acceleration are easy to lose control of, especially for young drivers. Tap the accelerator in a tight curve for just an instant in that Camry -- to say nothing of socially irresponsible monstrosities such as the 520-horsepower Porsche Cayenne SUV -- and you can lose control. High-horsepower cars enable cutting off and other forms of aggressive driving; cutting off and sudden lane changes are leading causes of highway collisions. A generation ago, a small percentage of American drivers had high-horsepower vehicles. Now the majority do! Is it a coincidence that road rage and high horsepower have occurred simultaneously? High horsepower makes road rage possible, which in turn adds to the death count.
The proliferation of high horsepower cars is doubly wrong because it links to ever-rising petroleum use and greenhouse gases. Automakers have significantly increased powertrain efficiency in the last 20 years -- but the gains have gone into horsepower, not fuel efficiency. Other things being equal, if new-vehicle horsepower were reduced by one-third, miles per gallon would rise by one-third. One decade of sales of new vehicles with one-third higher horsepower accounts for the amount of oil the United States imports from the Persian Gulf region. Reduce horsepower by a third and end U.S. Persian Gulf oil dependence. Yes, it's that simple. If only we'd actually do it!
Because horsepower is an arms race -- if one automaker offers more, all must -- federal legislation to limit horsepower would offer a good-news trifecta: Higher mpg, reduced greenhouse-gas emissions and lower road fatalities as average motorists stop acting like they're at a NASCAR track.
Why doesn't Congress act to end the horsepower wars? Please don't counter that "no one can tell me what I can drive." The Constitution says you've got a right to own a gun and to read a newspaper. Firearms and materials related to 1st Amendment expression are the only categories of possessions given protected status by the Constitution; courts consistently rule that vehicles on public roads can be regulated for public purposes such as safety.
Horsepower regulation and serious enforcement against cellphone use while driving might save thousands of lives a year. Such reforms might also prevent many billions of dollars in economic losses and make a big dent in the other road-danger figure no one talks about -- 2.6 million Americans injured in traffic crashes last year.
Other reforms, such as pedestrian-activated warning lights at crosswalks, could also reduce traffic deaths in the United States. Numerous reforms could reduce traffic deaths in developing countries. As a nation, we find common ground in agreeing that even one death from terrorism cannot be tolerated. Why are tens of thousands of annual road deaths OK?
Gregg Easterbrook is a fellow of the Brookings Institution and author of "The Progress Paradox." Lauren Hovel of Barnard College provided research assistance for this article.
Let parents hold the remote
Congressional restrictions on violent television programming are unnecessary and would be unconstitutional.
By Laurence H. Tribe, LAURENCE H. TRIBE is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He is testifying today on this subject before Congress on behalf of broadcasters, cable operators and Hollywood studios.
June 26, 2007
THIS WEEK, Congress will once again consider what to do about the perceived threat to children from television violence.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers seem tempted by the idea of deeper government involvement in what television can show. The Federal Communications Commission, for instance, suggests that Congress should "time channel" certain shows to late-night time slots, implement government-run ratings or compel the segregation of more-violent programs to premium channels.
But speech restrictions such as these would be grave mistakes — mistakes that courts are unlikely to tolerate. The better approach is for Congress to empower parents — not government — to control what TV programs are appropriate for children to watch.
Depictions of violence have long figured importantly in all media. That a program displays violence cannot automatically trump its positive social value. The Old Testament is often violent, as are "Hamlet," news coverage of war and many of our best television dramas. Depictions of violence and its consequences can contribute powerfully to a show's portrayal of our often violent world, and violence — however disquieting — can add a level of meaning that is achievable in no other way.
Even the staunchest critics of TV violence must concede that only certain depictions cause real concern. But letting government decide which depictions threaten children's welfare (and therefore should be labeled or otherwise restricted or segregated) is both unconstitutional and unwise. For starters, any definition of impermissibly violent television programming will be so vague that people must "guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" — a violation of due process, as the Supreme Court held more than 80 years ago. To test just two proposed definitions, is an abusive interrogation of a suspect on "24" patently offensive? Is a depiction of the Normandy landing in a television showing of "Saving Private Ryan" excessive? Who knows?
All vague prohibitions are unconstitutional, but vague regulations of speech are particularly troubling. They "chill" valuable expression as everyone tries to avoid any speech that risks penalty — even if that speech is not actually illegal. And vague laws give regulators and prosecutors leeway to restrict speech in ways that reflect their own predilections.
EQUALLY DANGEROUS, those who want to regulate televised violence are generally responding less to the violent content itself than to what particular depictions say about using violence. But the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits government regulation based on the viewpoint speech expresses: Congress is forbidden to target speech voicing a "disapproved" message about violence (like a show admiringly portraying a mobster's violent rise through the ranks) while exempting "approved" speech on the same subject (like a show condemning a drug dealer's mayhem).
It's tempting to relax these standards when government restricts speech for children's sake, but that turns the 1st Amendment upside down. If anything, children's impressionable nature cuts against government dictating what they see or learn. Why else fight about teaching evolution?
Time channeling prevents parents and children alike from watching televised violence except during specified times, thus unconstitutionally requiring adults to view only programming "suitable" for youngsters. Likewise, compelling cable TV operators to offer more violent networks on an "a la carte" basis would also violate the 1st Amendment. Finally, even assuming the worst about how television violence affects young children, the interests Congress is trying to serve are too at odds with one another to meet the high court's standards. Our interest in protecting children from frightening material, for example, would suggest that depictions of violence should be cartoonish and sanitized — but that would undercut the asserted interest in making children understand the consequences of violence and avoiding material that some fear children might imitate. And even the strongest proponents of government control would likely tolerate violence on news and sports programs, even though that seems at least as likely to cause the very effects the proponents seek to prevent.
As a father and grandfather, I share the worries of other parents about what their children watch on TV. But it is in my role as a parent and grandparent — not just a scholar — that I write here.
We should resist moves by government to control the upbringing of our children. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that more narrowly tailored measures, intended solely to facilitate parental control, are less restrictive of speech and should be invoked even when centralized government regulation might be more effective.
Fortunately, parents today have more options than ever to control what their children see on television, from the V-chip to time-shifting technologies to voluntary ratings systems. We should not bypass them on the easy but treacherous path to censorship.
By Laurence H. Tribe, LAURENCE H. TRIBE is a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. He is testifying today on this subject before Congress on behalf of broadcasters, cable operators and Hollywood studios.
June 26, 2007
THIS WEEK, Congress will once again consider what to do about the perceived threat to children from television violence.
Unfortunately, some lawmakers seem tempted by the idea of deeper government involvement in what television can show. The Federal Communications Commission, for instance, suggests that Congress should "time channel" certain shows to late-night time slots, implement government-run ratings or compel the segregation of more-violent programs to premium channels.
But speech restrictions such as these would be grave mistakes — mistakes that courts are unlikely to tolerate. The better approach is for Congress to empower parents — not government — to control what TV programs are appropriate for children to watch.
Depictions of violence have long figured importantly in all media. That a program displays violence cannot automatically trump its positive social value. The Old Testament is often violent, as are "Hamlet," news coverage of war and many of our best television dramas. Depictions of violence and its consequences can contribute powerfully to a show's portrayal of our often violent world, and violence — however disquieting — can add a level of meaning that is achievable in no other way.
Even the staunchest critics of TV violence must concede that only certain depictions cause real concern. But letting government decide which depictions threaten children's welfare (and therefore should be labeled or otherwise restricted or segregated) is both unconstitutional and unwise. For starters, any definition of impermissibly violent television programming will be so vague that people must "guess at its meaning and differ as to its application" — a violation of due process, as the Supreme Court held more than 80 years ago. To test just two proposed definitions, is an abusive interrogation of a suspect on "24" patently offensive? Is a depiction of the Normandy landing in a television showing of "Saving Private Ryan" excessive? Who knows?
All vague prohibitions are unconstitutional, but vague regulations of speech are particularly troubling. They "chill" valuable expression as everyone tries to avoid any speech that risks penalty — even if that speech is not actually illegal. And vague laws give regulators and prosecutors leeway to restrict speech in ways that reflect their own predilections.
EQUALLY DANGEROUS, those who want to regulate televised violence are generally responding less to the violent content itself than to what particular depictions say about using violence. But the 1st Amendment clearly prohibits government regulation based on the viewpoint speech expresses: Congress is forbidden to target speech voicing a "disapproved" message about violence (like a show admiringly portraying a mobster's violent rise through the ranks) while exempting "approved" speech on the same subject (like a show condemning a drug dealer's mayhem).
It's tempting to relax these standards when government restricts speech for children's sake, but that turns the 1st Amendment upside down. If anything, children's impressionable nature cuts against government dictating what they see or learn. Why else fight about teaching evolution?
Time channeling prevents parents and children alike from watching televised violence except during specified times, thus unconstitutionally requiring adults to view only programming "suitable" for youngsters. Likewise, compelling cable TV operators to offer more violent networks on an "a la carte" basis would also violate the 1st Amendment. Finally, even assuming the worst about how television violence affects young children, the interests Congress is trying to serve are too at odds with one another to meet the high court's standards. Our interest in protecting children from frightening material, for example, would suggest that depictions of violence should be cartoonish and sanitized — but that would undercut the asserted interest in making children understand the consequences of violence and avoiding material that some fear children might imitate. And even the strongest proponents of government control would likely tolerate violence on news and sports programs, even though that seems at least as likely to cause the very effects the proponents seek to prevent.
As a father and grandfather, I share the worries of other parents about what their children watch on TV. But it is in my role as a parent and grandparent — not just a scholar — that I write here.
We should resist moves by government to control the upbringing of our children. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that more narrowly tailored measures, intended solely to facilitate parental control, are less restrictive of speech and should be invoked even when centralized government regulation might be more effective.
Fortunately, parents today have more options than ever to control what their children see on television, from the V-chip to time-shifting technologies to voluntary ratings systems. We should not bypass them on the easy but treacherous path to censorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
