Happy Thursday.
Reactions to Finnish parliamentary elections continue to trickle in as if the rise of nationalism in Europe is a great surprise. A blogger at the BBC described the strong showing of the True Finns (19%) as "a tremor hit[ting] the EU" (BBC article link). But growing nationalism in the EU is hardly a new development. (I wrote in June 2009 about the rising nationalist sentiment evident in European Parliamentary elections.) The drastic decline in popularity of the German FDP and concurrent rise of the German Green party (as manifested in the Green Party's historic win in Baden-Wurtemberg) are a case in point. As is the emergence of the Tea Party in the US or Marine le Pen and the Front National in France.
I would argue that we aren't seeing a vast movement to the right, but rather a further bi-furcation of political attitudes. In France, rising support for the Front National comes at the expense of the Sarkozy's UMP. Similarly, rising support for the Socialist party comes at the expense of the Green party and various French leftist parties. In the US, according to gallup Party ID is historically range bound in the US, with 30-40% of the US population identifying themselves as Republicans or Democrats. What fluctuates significantly more is the percentage of Dems/Indies/Repubs who think their parties are too liberal/conservative. Either way, the strong showing of the True Finns is unlikely to disrupt the Portuguese bailout as the pro EU National Coalition Party has already declared support for the Portuguese bailout as unconditional. Sure, the National Coalition Party will have to make concessions on other issues, but bailout will survive. That being said, debt investors seem to have realized just recently that they will likely take a haircut on their debt. The uncertainty of a debt restructuring is far scarier to me than rising nationalism, no wonder gold hit an all-time high today.
On an unrelated note, the WashPost has an article out today questioning China's "green leap forward." I was unaware that most of China's investments in green technology ultimately target Western markets. For example, Chinese investments produced half of the world's production of solar panels in 2010, but 99% of these panels were installed in foreign countries, presumably to those that subsidize these installments, such as Europe and the US.
"A green future will result not from subsidizing immature technology today but from developing competitive green technology that is effective and cheap. Wind and solar power are not yet competitive. Research would be a much better investment for Western countries than subsidizing imports of today’s green technology from China."
Well put. It reminds me of another report I read today (admittedly- only skimmed) that discusses the failure of the Climate Action Partnership to successfully push climate action despite out-fundraising conservative advocacy organizations 11 to 1 (and outspending on climate change related projects 44 to 1). I haven't had the time to go through it in full yet (its probably 100 pages long), but looks very interesting (ClimateShift "Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate").
"A green future will result not from subsidizing immature technology today but from developing competitive green technology that is effective and cheap. Wind and solar power are not yet competitive. Research would be a much better investment for Western countries than subsidizing imports of today’s green technology from China."
Well put. It reminds me of another report I read today (admittedly- only skimmed) that discusses the failure of the Climate Action Partnership to successfully push climate action despite out-fundraising conservative advocacy organizations 11 to 1 (and outspending on climate change related projects 44 to 1). I haven't had the time to go through it in full yet (its probably 100 pages long), but looks very interesting (ClimateShift "Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate").
It's hard to comment on news this week without mentioning Trump. It's easy to dismiss Trump's candidacy as a joke, but mainstream Republicans have reason to be worried. While his "birther" focus may not be a legitimate campaign platform for a national election, among Republicans his views align with the majority. A recent New York Times poll concluded only 32% of Republicans believe Obama was born in the US. Up till now, Trump is the only Republican candidate with a wide public recognition who relentlessly attacks not only Obama's policies, but even his legitimacy as President, a lingering issue for many conservatives. No other candidate has gotten as much traction among primary voters, with Gallup's new poll showing Trump tied with Huckabee for the 2012 Republican nomination.
Let's also not forget that seemingly ridiculous beliefs such as the birther issue are common among opposition parties. Ben Smith recently commented that the birther issue is to Republicans as the 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy theory was for Democrats. A full 22.6% of Democrats said it was "very likely" and another 28.2% called it "somewhat likely" that Bush either assisted in the 9/11 or took no action to stop the attacks.
I'll leave you with one last link. Hat tip to Mr. Felix Salmon for a link to a fascinating paper on global beer consumption trends (Felix Salmon's summary).
