My friend Elisabeth King isn’t the only person in Berlin who heats her flat exclusively with burning coal.  A real coal burning stove.  A real coal stove!

Here’s the front of the coal-fired stove that Elisabeth uses to heat her Berlin apartment.  The vent at the top,

I assume, feeds the flame and the metal boxes below are where one puts the coal.  I need to do some more research on this.

While Berliners now commonly use gas and electric heating, quite a few of the flats in the East of Berlin — the former DDR — still thrive like the old days.

Coal is delivered into the basement or schlepped from a vendor and then, every few days, Elisabeth needs to bundle up and head down to the basement where she stacks up as many pressed bricks of coal as she can carry — more if I am helping out.

She then keeps both her living room’s ornate and beautiful heating stove and the cooking stove in her kitchen lit and stoked.

It is really quite amazing, rather charming, and I am told, very annoying when she needs to get up super-early in the AM in order to light her stove so that the apartment will be warm and happy by the time she gets up for the second time.

Here’s a little, adorable, coal-powered, cooking stove.  I wonder what the rocks are for?  Are they a way of testing the heat of the stove or some way of radiating the heat into the room?  If anyone knows, please let me know.

She’s an amazing sport and the apartment is gorgeous and very affordable, so all is well.

And, she does have electrical outlets, so she does have a heating pad in her bed to help with the warmth and an electric kettle in her kitchen to make sure she has ready water for her tea.

These are pressed-coal bricks used to heat apartments and homes in Berlin and in greater germany — many still have wood and coal-fed heaters and ovens and many people prefer it that way.

I think it is very charming and doing it this ways makes one very aware of how much and how many resources we use instead of just running the gas or the electricity.

Lisa Hayes popped me an article by Denis Hayes, a man who suspiciously seems related to Lisa, “Fantastic new article by Denis Hayes about energy policy — please feel free to share far and wide!” Well, I am the biggest fan of Lisa and so here we go — my attempt to share this article a wee little further and wider: Climate Solutions: Charting a Bold Course A cap-and-trade system is not the answer, according to a leading alternative-energy advocate. To really tackle climate change, the U.S. must revolutionize its entire energy strategy.

Opinion: Climate Solutions: Charting a Bold Course

A cap-and-trade system is not the answer, according to a leading alternative-energy advocate. To really tackle climate change, the U.S. must revolutionize its entire energy strategy.

by Denis Hayes

More than 30 years ago, President Jimmy Carter called for a daring transition to a new energy future, an effort he likened to “the moral equivalent of war.” But the hard truth is that the United States is in far worse shape in the energy realm today than it was when Carter left office.

Since 1981, annual greenhouse gas emissions have grown from 4.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide to 5.9 billion metric tons. America imported 1.6 billion barrels of oil in 1981; by 2007 imports had ballooned to 3.7 billion barrels. Today, oil prices have surged past $130 per barrel, and the best evidence suggests that total global oil production is at or nearing its peak. Under President Carter, America dominated the world in renewable energy research, development, and commercialization, but in the ensuing decades our federal government has thrown away that lead.

With the economy now staggering from its addiction to oil, and with evidence of global warming having persuaded all but the knuckle-draggers, is America at last getting serious about freeing itself from carbon fuels?

Actually, no. Most environmentally sensitive politicians and even many national green groups are remarkably blithe that the Lieberman-Warner bill — a 500-page cap-and-trade law filled with more holes than a Madonna dance outfit — will take us there.

The tragedy is that we still have a chance to solve the global warming crisis, but we are blowing it by chasing false hopes in the form of an inadequate cap-and-trade bill.

Acting fast enough and on a large enough scale to avoid unthinkable climate consequences will require a more ambitious effort than the New Deal, the Interstate Highway System, and the Manhattan Project, all rolled into one. Serious efforts to stabilize the world’s climate will have dramatic consequences for industry, transportation, architecture, agriculture, leisure, and consumerism, and so, many of these changes will be fought tooth and nail — as was evident last week when Republican Senators attacked and derailed the Lieberman-Warner bill, forcing Democratic leaders to place the initiative on hold until a new president takes office.

The truth is that all our largest current energy sources will need to be replaced by new sources — over the ferocious opposition of the powerful companies that market them.

The story of how we got into this crunch is a tale of political opportunism and shortsightedness. For had America continued on the course we’d embarked upon in the mid-1970s, the task ahead would now be much less expensive, much less painful, and much more certain of success.

In 1979, after the Arab oil embargo, Carter announced that by the year 2000 America was to get at least one-fifth of all its energy from renewable sources — mainly solar energy, wind, and biofuels. The Solar Energy Research Institute, which I then served as director, was at the heart of this effort. Leading a team of scientists and analysts drawn from national labs and major universities, SERI prepared the detailed technical and policy blueprint to meet or surpass the 20 percent goal.

In 1981, halfway through his first year in office, President Ronald Reagan abandoned the 20 percent goal, reduced SERI’s $125 million budget by $100 million, and installed a dentist named Jim Edwards as Secretary of Energy. To demonstrate his contempt for the notion of alternative energy, Reagan ordered the solar water heaters ripped off the White House roof. We’ve never recovered.

The successive administrations of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, bobbing along on a sea of cheap oil, did little to shift America’s economy to renewable energy sources. And for the past seven years, the United States has been led by a president who projects such a breathtaking marriage of arrogance and incompetence that his refusal to even acknowledge the reality of climate change has not generally been considered one of his more glaring flaws.

As climate science has grown increasingly clear, many corporate CEOs have become convinced that global warming has a human signature. The brightest CEOs of Fortune 100 companies realized that once the Democrats took back control of Congress, it would be only a matter of time before climate legislation was enacted. The next president, whoever it is, will demand action. These CEOs all wanted to be at the table — in Washington, if you aren’t at the table, you’re likely to wind up on the menu.

Environmental groups soon found themselves being courted by business leaders who recognized that the climate threat would require a serious national response. They formed the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and other alliances that offered benefits for environmentalists but also entailed subtle costs. The most obvious benefit was that environmental leaders are taken more seriously on Capitol Hill when they arrive linking arms with the CEOs of General Electric, Caterpillar, DuPont, and General Motors.

The cost was the natural downside of consensus building: Policies cannot significantly harm the core interests of any of the participants. When the participants include the world’s largest automobile company, the largest manufacturer of jet engines, the largest maker of mining equipment for coal and bituminous sands, etc., this is not an insignificant cost.

What emerged from this unexpected alliance was a consensus that the centerpiece of climate policy should be a cap on CO₂, generally applied as close to the point of emission as realistically possible. Additionally, there was widespread agreement that (a) between 25 percent and 80 percent of all emissions permits should be given away to major emitters for a transitional period; (b) the law should provide ample “offsets” available for purchase by companies failing to meet reduction targets; and (c) “safety valves” should permit relaxed enforcement in case greenhouse gas reductions cause temporary economic hardship.

Unfortunately, these are genuinely terrible ideas. They are not bad because they lack ambition; rather, they are bad because they move boldly in the wrong direction. They don’t merely ignore the way that the global economy responds to real-world policies; they ignore everything we have learned about human nature since Rousseau’s belief in humanity’s innate goodness crashed on the shoals of 18th-century reality.

So what should a serious energy and climate policy look like?

Carbon Must be Capped Where It Enters the Economy, Not Where It Leaves It

The backbone of any comprehensive policy to limit greenhouse gas emissions must cap carbon at the places — coal mines, oil fields, pipelines, ports — where it enters the economy. Instead, at the behest of corporate behemoths and their green enablers, our political leaders are focusing most of their attention on smokestacks, and when that is obviously impossible (e.g. with gasoline or propane) on refiners or distributors. They want to cap CO₂ where it enters the atmosphere — an approach that is guaranteed to fail because there are far too many point sources.

Europe has already attempted a cap-and-trade program, and it belly-flopped. Senators Warner and Lieberman, who should be applauded for at least acknowledging that global warming is a problem, failed to absorb some important lessons from Europe, including:

• The most important part of cap-and-trade is the “cap.” Any successful law must place an impermeable lid on the amount of carbon that enters the atmosphere. To whatever extent additional trees or windmills are used to “offset” additional carbon-based fuels, the exercise is self-defeating.
• In contrast to regulating a sea of smokestacks, the best course is to require carbon permits at the 2,000 sources where carbon enters the economy. It would be simple, straightforward, and impossible to “game.” It is vastly more effective than trying to police carbon dioxide wherever carbon is burned. In setting the number of carbon permits issued — and thus determining how much coal, oil, and gas can enter the economy — the government would be setting an absolute, easily-enforced cap on emissions.
• All carbon permits should be auctioned — not given away. In Europe, permits were given away to large carbon users to ease their transition to the new regime. Major polluters made cheap improvements, lowered their emissions, and sold their unneeded permits. This gave windfalls to the worst polluters, penalized companies that had already invested in efficient new factories and renewable energy, and helped guarantee that Europe would miss its Kyoto targets.Auctioning 100 percent of all carbon permits is fair and transparent; it eliminates backroom special-interest pleadings. By reducing the number of permits auctioned each year, the government can guarantee that its emissions targets are met.

Use Auction Revenues Intelligently

The most vital use for most of the revenues would be to serve such climate-related public purposes as building the infrastructure needed for a national “smart grid” for electricity and for high-speed electrified railroads, assuring large federal markets for the sunrise industries of the post-carbon economy, and finding ways to accelerate the solution of the climate problem through huge boosts in federal support for basic research. However, a portion of the revenues should compensate for the regressive nature of what is effectively a carbon tax, perhaps by using them to meet the shortfalls facing Medicare and Social Security and helping to underwrite training for green-collar jobs.

Promote Renewable Energy

Government has a long tradition of helping sunrise industries supplant their well-entrenched predecessors. Canals were encouraged as more efficient than horses. Railroads were viewed as a way to open the west. The interstate highway system replaced many of the functions performed by railroads.

Some renewable energy sources would benefit greatly from a focused, long-term federal commitment to R&D. Others are already poised to ride learning curves to lower prices through economies of mass production — but require guaranteed markets to elicit the necessary investment. (Computer chips went from being high-priced luxuries to cheap-as-dirt commodities only because the Air Force and NASA bought them in bulk until their prices fell to a level where the private market took over.)

The federal government should be buying photovoltaic devices in bulk and installing them on all federal buildings, military bases, and the backs of billboards, and pouring the power into the grid. The goal should be to grow the market in a rapid yet predictable way linked to constantly lower prices. The start-and-stop unpredictability of renewable energy tax credits over the last 30 years has severely undermined the wind and solar industries, and placed American companies at a huge disadvantage with foreign competitors. As recently as 1998, America was the world’s largest manufacturer of solar photovoltaics — a technology that was invented here. But Japan, with a long-term strategy, sped past the U.S. the following year. A few years later, led by Germany, much of Europe implemented tariffs that vaulted the solar field into hyperdrive. If current trends continue, annual global photovoltaic production by 2011 will be a stunning 30 gigawatts, of which the U.S. will contribute perhaps 4 percent.

Construct a Resilient Nationwide Smart Grid to Take Power from Anywhere to Anywhere

The arguments for a national smart grid are legion; the arguments against it don’t hold water. Many carbon-neutral renewable energy sources are intermittent or diurnal, and the best locations both for sources (sunlight, wind, geothermal) and for storage are widely dispersed. We need to be able to knit the nation together. Only the government can assemble the corridor rights to make such a development possible.

Get Serious about Automobile Mileage

In World War II — without Representative John Dingell Jr. to protect it from reality — Detroit was ordered to stop making cars and start making tanks. Today, Detroit needs to be ordered to stop making civilian tanks and start making cars. Manufacturers should be free to use any technology that can get 50 mpg by 2020 and 100 mpg by 2030. The world cannot afford yet another abysmal failure by the once-proud American automobile industry.

Build High-Speed Electrified Railways for Our Busiest Corridors

The answer to every intercity travel need is not an airplane or a car. America is the only industrial power on earth without high-speed electrified rail — a super-efficient mode of intercity travel that can be carbon-free. I don’t know a single American who has traveled on the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka who hasn’t wondered, “Why can’t we do that from Boston to Washington? From San Francisco to LA?” It would require the same sort of government effort that built the interstate highway system — or, for that matter, the original railroads.

Set Strong Building Energy Performance Standards

We need to make all new buildings carbon-neutral by 2030, requiring vast increases in efficiency and walls and roofs that harvest energy directly from sunlight. The astonishing rate at which voluntary LEED standards have swept across the country suggests a deep hunger on the part of smart architects and builders for structures that will make sense throughout their 50-year lifetimes. We need to build on that momentum to create a new generation of energy efficient “living buildings.”

Train the Labor Force

Reversing climate change has an enormous potential to put America back to work. The greatest employment opportunities are for those who will transport and install solar modules, build and maintain wind farms, construct and operate the high-speed rail system and the “smart grid.” Programs, mostly at community colleges, to teach these new skills need to increase 100-fold, and a special emphasis should be placed on retraining the “losers” in the energy transitions — such as workers in coal mines and coal-fired power plants, etc. — and inner-city poor who have seen their job prospects disappear in the globalized economy.

The Time is Now

Following decades of political denial of climate science, America now lags far behind Europe and Japan in creating most of the basic building blocks for a carbon-neutral era. In several core renewable energy technologies, we have already been passed by China.

It’s not too late to get back in the game. But the global industry is rapidly expanding and maturing, and it has supportive government policies in Germany, Japan, the Nordic states, the Netherlands, South Korea, and China.

America has unparalleled scientific and engineering excellence, formidable financial muscle, bountiful natural resources, a democratic political system, and an entrepreneurial culture well-suited to helping to lead the world into a prosperous, carbon-neutral era. But we have been dragging our heels, as if this were a problem for our children to fix.

Global warming is our problem, and it’s time to get serious about solving it.

Now that I have moved to Berlin, I get to hear VOA and NPR Worldwide and the European version of BBC Worldwide and I am pretty excited. I can finally hear US propaganda “outside the border” which is fascinating. As part of NPR Worldwide’s broadcast this AM (104.1 FM), I got to hear a show this morning about the history of Public Diplomacy, which I found amazingly interesting. From 1914, I think they said, the US has had a real desire to educate and engage the world, which ended abruptly once we won the cold war. And then it all went to pot, especially since the responsibility of Public Diplomacy has been rolled into the US Department of State. Well, I am all for Public Diplomacy as a strategy that is much more effective than either PR or a propaganda war. One of the most useful past strategies, which is being gutted because of post 9-11 paranoia, was the global encouragement of students to study in the USA. One lad from Egypt spoke of his experience in Washington State at the University of Washington, saying, “I got to experience that most Americans live the American Dream on two parents working two jobs, which is something I would never have known from my experience of the USA from TV from Cairo.” Amazingly interesting. Here’s some more info on Public Dimplomacy via Wikipedia via Memes.org

In international relations, the term public diplomacy is a term coined in the 1960s to describe aspects of international diplomacy other than the interactions between national governments. It has been closely associated with the United States Information Agency, which used the term to define its mission. It was originally a euphemism for purportedly truthful propaganda.

Standard diplomacy might be described as the ways in which government leaders communicate with each other at the highest levels, the elite diplomacy we are all familiar with. Public diplomacy, by contrast – according to the definition at the USC Center on Public Diplomacy – focuses on the ways in which a country (or multi-lateral organization such as the United Nations) communicates with citizens in other societies. A country may be acting deliberately or inadvertently, and through both official and private individuals and institutions. Effective public diplomacy starts from the premise that dialogue, rather than a sales pitch, is often central to achieving the goals of foreign policy: public diplomacy must be seen as a two-way street.

Film, television, music, sports, video games and other social/cultural activities are seen by public diplomacy advocates as enormously important avenues for otherwise diverse citizens to understand each other and integral to the international cultural understanding, which they state is a key goal of modern public diplomacy strategy. It involves not only shaping the message(s) that a country wishes to present abroad, but also analyzing and understanding the ways that the message is interpreted by diverse societies and developing the tools of listening and conversation as well as the tools of persuasion.

One of the most successful initiatives which embodies the principles of effective public diplomacy is the creation by international treaty in the 1950s of the European Coal and Steel Community which later became the European Union. Its original purpose after World War II was to tie the economies of Europe together so much that war would be impossible. Supporters of European integration see it as having achieved both this goal and the extra benefit of catalysing greater international understanding as European countries did more business together and the ties among member states’ citizens increased. Opponents of European integration are leery of a loss of national sovereignty and greater centralization of power.

Public diplomacy as beyond propaganda

After the dissolution of the USIA in 1999, the term has continued to be used within the US government, especially the US Department of State. It has been used most often as the foreign policy equivalent of the term public relations, but embodies a much broader frame than this.

Aside from the use of media like the Voice of America, it also includes other kinds of interaction with the public in other countries. Arranging student exchange programs, hosting seminars, and meeting with foreign business and academic leaders are all considered public diplomacy. Indirect public diplomacy includes the everyday activities of citizens internationally, such as everyday cultural activities and products such as films, tourism, theatre, and internet discussion.

The term public diplomacy clearly originated as a euphemism for propaganda. However, this definition is a somewhat dated definition, as more sensitive practitioners embody an intercultural, ‘learning’ approach to public diplomacy, with an emphasis on dialogue rather than propaganda.

A history of the term “public diplomacy”

Nicholas J. Cull of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, wrote in his essay “‘Public Diplomacy’ Before Gullion: The Evolution of a Phrase:

The earliest use of the phrase “public diplomacy” to surface is actually not American at all but in a leader piece from The Times in January 1856. It is used merely as a synonym for civility in a piece criticizing the posturing of President Franklin Pierce.

According to publicdiplomacy.org, a website sponsored by the USIA Alumni Association,

The term public diplomacy was first used in 1965 by Edmund Gullion, a career diplomat, in connection with the foundation of the Edward R. Murrow Center at Tufts University‘s The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The Murrow Center brochure described public diplomacy as:

the influence of public attitudes on the formation and execution of foreign policies. It encompasses dimensions of international relations beyond traditional diplomacy . . . [including] the cultivation by governments of public opinion in other countries; the interaction of private groups and interests in one country with those of another . . . (and) the transnational flow of information and ideas.

While Gullion and the Murrow Center were the first to use the term public diplomacy, their definition remains contested and controversial. Today, there is no one definition of public diplomacy, there are many definitions (links to other definitions).

The dictionary definition of the word propaganda is “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.” Notice that the definition says nothing about whether the material is or is not true; the essence of propaganda is that it is distributed with the intention of supporting a cause. The word literally means “that which ought to be propagated” and originated in the Catholic Church to describe the church agency responsible for evangelising. See the article on propaganda for more detail.

In the United States, however, the word “propaganda” carried and carries the connotation of falsehood. The USIA has always maintained that its agencies, such as the Voice of America, are truthful. In a famous remark, Edward R. Murrow, then director of the USIA, said:

Truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.

Nevertheless the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 still prevents the distribution within the United States of official American information which was intended for foreign audiences, for example exempting Voice of America from releasing transcripts in response to FOIA requests.

Broadly speaking, then, until recent times, the term public diplomacy has traditionally been used by those supporting it to mean truthful propaganda. But critics, such as the editors of the National Security Archive at George Washington University, have viewed it in more nefarious terms, as a form of “covert propaganda.” They also report that “the bipartisan report of the Congressional Iran-Contra committees (November 1987, p. 34) found that ‘[i]n fact, “public diplomacy” turned out to mean public relations-lobbying, all at taxpayers’ expense.’”

See also

• Diplomacy Monitor, a tool for tracking Internet-based public diplomacy

References

• Fallows, James (2005) “Success without Victory,” The Atlantic Monthly, 295:1 p. 80 (Evera quotation)

Other relevant articles

• “A Clash of Professional Cultures:The David Kelly Affair” by Biljana Scott (Published in Hannah Slavik (ed.) Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, DiploFoundation, 2004.)Also see conference slideshow presentation

• “Multiculturalism for the masses: social advertising and public diplomacy post 9/11″ by Biljana Scott (Published in Hannah Slavik (ed.) Intercultural Communication and Diplomacy, DiploFoundation, 2004.)

• “Public Diplomacy” by Pamela H. Smith, Minister-Counselor for Public Affairs, U.S. Embassy, London (Published in “Modern Diplomacy”)

• “Multistakeholder Public Diplomacy of Small and Medium-Sized States: Norway and Canada Compared” by Jozef Bátora (Paper presented to the International Conference on Multistakeholder Diplomacy,Malta, February 11-13, 2005)

External links

• How the World Sees America – Amar Bakshi on Washington Post/Newsweek on Public Diplomacy
• Example of term being used by President George W. Bush in relation to the Middle East – January 19, 2005 The Age
• Public Diplomacy Wiki maintained by the USC Center on Public Diplomacy
• Public Diplomacy (USIAAA)
• Journal of Place Branding and Public Diplomacy
• The Edward R. Murrow Center of Public Diplomacy at The Fletcher School
• Public Diplomacy Research Network

I love my big car but I also love American independence more and think that we rely way too much foreign oil and don’t spend nearly enough on energy innovation. Since coal and oil is still plentiful and cheap enough, there isn’t any reason, really, to dump R&D funds into alternative and renewable fuels, energy, and electricity. We need to in-source and work on ways to stop depending so heavily on foreign oil and the whims of kings and their kingdoms.

Congress is working on passing an energy bill that contains two major provisions, one that would up a fuel economy standard to 35 mpg — Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards — and another that would evolve our energy dependence more heavily on renewable electricity to 15% — Renewable Electricity Standards (RES). Together, these would end our Nation’s security-threatening dependence on Middle East oil, stop our money from flowing to terrorists, and keep our dollars at home growing the American economy.

Unfortunately, lobbyists and PACs are working hard to tear the bill apart, rendering it impotent and incremental instead of powerful and transformative.

I am working with a coalition to make sure the energy bill doesn’t get derailed. I need your help in making sure that the final bill makes it through before we get ourselves into even more of a mess. Check out Energy Bill 2007 and sign their petition.

Congress is working on passing an energy bill that contains two major provisions, one that would up a fuel economy standard to 35 mpg and another that would evolve our energy dependence more heavily on renewable electricity to 15%. Together, these would end our Nation’s security-threatening dependence on Middle East oil, stop our money from flowing to terrorists, and keep our dollars at home growing the American economy.

Unfortunately, lobbyists and PACs are working hard to tear the bill apart, rendering it impotent and incremental instead of powerful and transformative.