The United States is a world laggard, the worst of the bunch (Australia may be near us) in planning for the future.

Even Uganda wants to build two more hydroelectric dams to get completely off oil for electricity.  We trail Uganda in foresight and planning !

*The 1¢/kWh wind subsidy is doing some good (carryover from years past), but the Bush Administration's drop of federal matching for new Urban Rail from 80% to 50% does more damage than the wind subsidy did good.  The Interstate Highway system was largely built with 90% federal matching subsidy.

In a little noticed move, the Bush Amdinistration rolled back the energy efficiency plans from the Clinton Administration for home central air conditioners from SEER 13.0 to SEER 12.0.  Massive amounts of natural gas will be burnt in future years because of this one small change.

Said the car dealer to the old lady.

This is a meaningless phrase. Freedom isn't free, but neither must it be so expensive that other, vital national interests are not met or looked after.

Let us consider data on US military spending:

The US military spending was almost two-fifths of the total.

The US military spending was almost 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender.

The US military budget was almost 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six "rogue" states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion.

It was more than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.

The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea)

The six potential "enemies," Russia, and China together spent $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.

Military spending in 2005 ($ Billions, and percent of total)

The chart below might also make a few things clear:

Country Dollars (billions) % of total Rank

Source: U.S. Military Spending vs. the World, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, February 6, 2006

United States   420.7    43%     1
China           62.5     6%      2
Russia *        61.9     6%      3
United Kingdom  51.1     5%      4
Japan           44.7     4%      5
France          41.6     4%      6
Germany         30.2     3%      7
India           22       2%      8
Saudi Arabia    21.3     2%      9
South Korea     20.7     2%      10
Italy           17.2     2%      11
Australia       13.2     1%      12
Brazil          13.1     1%      13
Canada          10.9     1%      14
Turkey          9.8      1%      15
Israel*         9.7      1%      16
Netherlands     9.7      1%      17
Spain           8.8      1%      18
Taiwan          8.3      1%      19
Indonesia*      7.6      1%      20
Myanmar         6.9      1%      21
Ukraine*        6        1%      22
Singapore       5.6      1%      23
Sweden          5.6      1%      24
North Korea*    5.5      1%      25
Poland          5.2      0%      26
Iran            4.9      1%      27
Norway          4.7      0%      28
Greece*         4.5      0%      29
Kuwait          4.3      0%      30
Colombia*       3.9      0%      31
Switzerland     3.8      0%      32
Pakistan        3.7      0%      33
Vietnam         3.5      0%      34
Belgium         3.4      0%      35

Notes:
Figures are for latest year available, usually 2005. Expenditures are used in a few cases where official budgets are significantly lower than actual spending.
* 2004 Figure.

Source uses FY 2007 for US figure (and includes Iraq and Afghan spending). I have used 2005 to try and keep in line with other countries listed (but I have NOT included the Iraq and Afghan operations cost which would be another $75 billion).

A massive, standing military establishment in peace time is a relatively new phenomenon in our history. At first we justified the national security state that was built after WWII through our experiences in the two world wars and the shadowy threat Stalin's USSR represented. We've been without those justifications for over ten years now and (surprise! surprise!) we've not only not gotten rid of it but expanded it by using Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism as the new looming evil du jour. Am I mocking the threat Bin Laden represents? Absolutely. When you read the 9/11 Commission report it is clear Bin Laded succeeded more due to massive incompetence and ineptitude at the highest levels in the national security apparatus of the United States than to brilliance by religious fanatics.

So, what do we have? Billions and billions spent on a national security apparatus flummoxed by 19 men weilding knives. We've a war in Iraq sold to us by folks who reap all the benefits of military spending and military operations but bear none of the costs. If you read Sy Hersh, the gnomes tending the war machine in DC are still seriously considering dropping bombs on Iran.

Freedom isn't free, but we don't have to crucified on a cross of iron either. No one doubted European militarism and imperialism was driven by vested interests who had much to gain by such policies. Suggesting the same thing about the US, however, gets you tarred as being anti-American. A look at the data, however, suggest otherwise.

China is going down a path which will cause it to suck up most of whatever is left in oil resources.  This is a result of what I consider an ill advised policy of making the automobile one of the centerpieces of its development process. This seems especially bizaare in a time of peak oil and global warming. China was in a good position to choose a softer path, a more rationale path considering its limited oil resources and its huge population.  

Europe seems determined to do something significant about energy consumption and global warming.  Their efforts, however, will be dwarfed by China's increase in greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention the U.S. lack of progress.  China need to be brought into the greenhouse reduction regime or the rest of the world's efforts will be pointless.

But what should be done if China refuses to hide behind their special status as a developing country?  In part, we give them a pass because of the belief that they are entitled to be given a chance to reach a modern, industrialized world's standard of living. While there may be a certain logic to that, the Chinese path still seems insane and shows a truly blind disregard for what the automobile has already done to the Unites States and the planet.

The overarching reality is that we don't have enough planets for China to rise to the economic level of the United States or Europe.  At some point, the game stops.  At that point, what will the resource base of the planet be and how deep will many of the world's coastal cities be under water.

It is arguable that the so called western world does not have the right to dictate to the Chinese.  We've got ours. How dare we say they can't have theirs.  That's the key. We both can't continue to grow at the current pace.  If China continues to expand, the rest of the world will need to contract.  

Part of the answer, I think, is to recognize that China's consumption of resources  is very much a function of our consumption. The statistics on resource consumption are distorted and improperly allocated.  Looking at greenhouse emissions by country is distorted if one doesn't look at the indirect emissions.  Future goals for reduction needs to look at those indirect effects.  China needs to find a more energy efficient way to produce those exported consumer goods and/or the receiving countries need to cut their imports.  

While we don't need to point fingers directly at China, I don't see how we can seriously address oil consumption, energy consumption, or greenhouse gas emissions without addressing goods consumption.  But now we're really talking about the American way of life --- a way of life that has already been deemed nonnegotiable by the GW Bush.