the morningside post

NATO to Georgia: Need A Time Out

By Christian Kim

MIA 2009

An August 13 article from the Council on Foreign Relations entitled, "In Russia-Georgia Conflict, Balkan Shadows," asserts that "[t]he challenge for Washington and European Capitals...is what tack to take to restrain Moscow." This statement assumes, as does the Holbrooke article cited, that Europe and the United States can formulate a uniform Russian strategy in the Caucasus and Caspian region. In light of Europe's dependence on Russian energy, which Russia has deftly used to drive a small wedge between Europe and the United States, this assumption cannot stand. America has little leverage against Russia in the region, and Europe almost none. There is no trans-Atlantic tack to restrain Moscow.

NATO's impotence in coming to Georgia's defense, a country once tabbed for membership, arises from a divergence of interests between Washington and Europe. Europe's Faustian bargain with Russia means it must eventually recognize its need to pursue a diplomatic strategy independent from American objectives. The notion of peak oil and concerns arising from the reality of finite energy resources did not factor in the ideologically-driven Cold War, and in a geopolitical climate where regions must compete to secure energy demands, NATO seems an anachronistic remnant of a bipolar world. Europe may be forced to exchange certain elements of its friendship with the United States for Russian energy, which accounts for about a quarter of Europe's oil imports and half of its gas.

As for the United States, the time has come to accept Russia's re-emergence as a great power-- an OPEC competitor with the globe's second-largest nuclear arsenal. Georgia is important insofar as protecting Western interests in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. America should cut its losses on Georgia's ill-considered gamble and concede that Russia can do what it wants with South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This type of concession does not mean Russia will be emboldened to retake Eastern Europe. Its conventional military is still a mess, and the West should have no fear of Russian offensives in the near future. The best the United States can do is to make sure Russia understands where the red lines are: Ukrainian and Georgian sovereignty, and the BTC pipeline.

Where to Intern? U.S. vs Georgia

By Courtney Doggart
MIA 2009

Editors' Note:  The post is one from the author's blog, Stalin, Not Peaches, which has additional posts about life in Georgia.

One comment that I received multiple times from American friends and family in response to my coming to Tbilisi to work on renewable energy and energy efficiency policy was "we need that here." Which got me thinking—what am I really doing here in Georgia, and wouldn't my time be better spent working in the U.S., a country whose forays into renewables are most often left at the state level? How often have I
cursed the streetlamps in Morningside Park, that seem to be perpetually on? How many times have I considered the myriad ways—small and large—to make my own building and my school's buildings more energy efficient (again, the lights, perpetually on...)? And when I show up in Georgia, a country that derives the majority of its own electricity generation from the more environmentally acceptable hydropower and that shows remarkable restraint on an individual level when it comes to using lights, heat, a/c, hot water, etc. (cars are not included in that mix...), that question becomes even more pressing. (Check out these graphs for Georgia and the U.S. that show how each country generates its electricity. Blue is hydro, purple is coal. Hydro is roughly 50% efficient, coal about 33%.).

Meet Me and Malthus at Dinosaur BBQ

By Christian Kim
MIA 2009

The recent spike in global food prices touched off a storm of violent protests in developing nations and unsettled those keeping close tabs on the global economy. Unbelievably, many economists failed to anticipate that an increased demand for biofuels would lead to more expensive grain, which in turn has had a deleterious effect on the purchasing power of the world’s poor and exacerbated their struggle for survival.

Perhaps this food supply shock, in addition to the increasingly serious debate among analysts about the veracity of "peak oil" and concerns over the future supply of potable water prompted a May edition of the Economist to publish an article entitled, “Malthus, The False Prophet.” Thomas Malthus’ 1798 thesis, “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” postulated that future food production would fail to keep pace with population growth because the former had finite parameters whereas the latter, in theory, did not. According to the Economist, while Malthus presents “arguably an accurate description of pre-industrial societies, which teetered on the balance between empty and full stomachs,” his prediction of food shortages in face of exponential population increases (which has gone from nearly one billion people in 1798 to 6.7 billion today) has proved to be but an empty jeremiad.

Albany’s Folly: Public Policy Meets Politics

By Courtney Doggart
MIA 2009

With hours to go before Monday’s midnight deadline to vote on New York City’s congestion pricing plan, New York’s legislature failed to vote, effectively killing Mayor Bloomberg’s major initiative (part of PlaNYC) and the $354 million in federal funding that would have accompanied a ‘yes’ vote.

Subway (MTA) riders are now almost certain to face a fare hike in the immediate future due to a $17 billion transit deficit in the $29 billion capital plan and no revenue from the congestion-pricing scheme—subway riders are in for a ride that will be brutish, but certainly not short.  Delays in service upgrades due to lack of funding were anticipated even before the vote deadlock.  Now, the lack of vote on congestion pricing has essentially eliminated MTA plans for Bus Rapid Transit and increased subway service on several lines.  With the city’s population set to grow by 13.9% by 2030, Midtown will not be the only part of the city with congestion problems. 

East Central European Insecurities

By Jackie Carpenter
MIA 2008

The East Central Europe’s (ECE) Energy Conference continues today, February 22, 2008, in IAB 1501 with discussants from other ECE countries, including Poland and Ukraine.

In 2004 ten countries in East Central Europe happily entered the European Union, believing that their membership in this elite club of countries secured their continued economic and political development.  On many fronts this has been the case, but on one very pivotal issue – energy security – these new members have been on their own.  The discussion at this evening’s “Energy Security Strategy for East Central Europe” conference hosted by SIPA’s East Central European Center underscored how precarious the positions of these countries have become, and how the sensitive issue of energy security is dividing the EU.