If you crave news today that is not about Iowa, be sure to read Jared Diamond’s article from yesterday’s NYT.

Today, there are more than 6.5 billion people, and that number may grow to around 9 billion within this half-century. Several decades ago, many people considered rising population to be the main challenge facing humanity. Now we realize that it matters only insofar as people consume and produce.

[…]

If the whole developing world were suddenly to catch up [with the consumption rates of the United States], world rates would increase elevenfold. It would be as if the world population ballooned to 72 billion people (retaining present consumption rates).

Some optimists claim that we could support a world with nine billion people. But I haven’t met anyone crazy enough to claim that we could support 72 billion. Yet we often promise developing countries that if they will only adopt good policies — for example, institute honest government and a free-market economy — they, too, will be able to enjoy a first-world lifestyle. This promise is impossible, a cruel hoax: we are having difficulty supporting a first-world lifestyle even now for only one billion people.

The whole article is not so disheartening. After all, I believe that gloom-and-doom is a poor motivator. But Diamond offers some compelling evidence that our rates of consumption are not tied to our standard of living, and argues that by meeting the third world halfway the Earth can sustainably support more people at a higher standard of living. He ends with an optimistic note that the political will for sustainable consumption has been increasing of late, especially in Australia and the United States, which have so far stalled the development of an international agreement on climate change. I won’t draw the obvious connections to the current election cycle; you’re smart enough to do that on your own.

This article by Bill Gates was published over a month ago, which might make me seem lazy, but I prefer to think of it as a testimonial to my commitment to filing away any little bit of information that might make an interesting post. Even if it takes me a month to actually bring these ideas to fruition. On to the article:

This week in Seattle, an extraordinary group of people -- scientists, policymakers, and advocates - came together for three days to discuss what can be done to stop malaria. Melinda and I issued a challenge to those attending the meeting. We asked them to begin charting a course to eradicate malaria - not just to control or reduce it, but to work toward a time when no one on earth is infected with malaria, and no mosquitoes carry the disease.

It’s interesting to see Bill Gates so involved with a philanthropic effort. I’m not saying that it hasn’t happened before, just that I’ve never heard about him doing anything similar to this. I’m sure that there’s a great deal to be said about dealing with malaria, but what really caught my attention was this comment, buried about halfway down the thread:

Erdicate [sic] Malaria? What about bio-diversity? Let's hope that if a new virus comes from outer space, our only hope for a cure does not reside in Malaria...

This will be my third post in a row relating to the G8 summit going on in Gleneagles, Scotland this week, but hey – third time’s the charm, right? Unfortunately I doubt many readers will find the news charming:

Negotiators from the G8 countries were poring over a draft communique and "action plan" that summit leaders were expected to endorse as early as Thursday, mid-way through their three-day meeting.

[…]

On the draft communique, the United States was still blocking agreement that global warming was such a big problem that there was an "urgent need to act," said Richard Dixon of WWF Scotland.

The document, he said, also had a "vacuous" commitment on the Kyoto Protocol, the UN pact on cutting greenhouse gases that was ditched by Bush in March 2001 in one of his very first acts since taking over the Oval Office.

Promises to provide funds for renewable energy and energy efficiency have been chopped out of the draft text, leaving the accent on belief that a technological breakthrough, in cleaner coal, nuclear power and hydrogen, will stave off the crisis, Dixon said.

Perhaps someone should inform Bush that hoping for a miracle is not a legitimate policy position.

Contest: best caption for this photo of Bush from the article wins... um... positive mojo. Submit your entries in the comments.

Over at the Intersection I just got word of another new blog that looks really spectacular: ScienceG8 (Sciencegate). The only reason it’s not on the blogroll yet is that it may be a temporary addition to the ‘nets – they’ll be blogging through this week’s G8 summit, and may or may not continue beyond. I hope they do since the quality of material seems to be quite high, but even if they don’t keep it up, consider spending a few quality work hours snooping around Sciencegate this week.

Personal note: only after reviewing some of the material on the site, I’ve determined that one of the authors might be one of my old high school classmates. That would certainly be an interesting coincidence.

Things aren’t looking good for a deal on climate change at the upcoming G8 summit. Bush says he won’t sign any deal that “looks like Kyoto.” The British government is...

...hoping [Bush] will sign up to a statement like 'climate change is a reality and we must look to find ways out of the problem by employing new technologies'

If I may be frank, the above is a pretty goddamn low bar, but I guess if you keep your expectations low then you’ll never be disappointed. One thing that I find interesting is that Nick Kristof is pissed. You might remember Kristof from one of his previous columns criticizing environmental ‘alarmists,’ which was the brunt of ire from environmentalists across the blogosphere. His current column showcases Portland, Oregon as an example of the successful implementation of Kyoto-style emissions limits:

Newly released data show that Portland, America's environmental laboratory, has achieved stunning reductions in carbon emissions. It has reduced emissions below the levels of 1990, the benchmark for the Kyoto accord, while booming economically.

What's more, officials in Portland insist that the campaign to cut carbon emissions has entailed no significant economic price, and on the contrary has brought the city huge benefits: less tax money spent on energy, more convenient transportation, a greener city, and expertise in energy efficiency that is helping local businesses win contracts worldwide.

I’d like to second Kristof’s suggestion that Bush be given a briefing of Portland’s success prior to the G8 summit, though I doubt even that would chance this administration’s mind.

The Gristmill has a nice piece about the potential for [more] sustainable development in China. The introductory snark is delicious, but the links are where the real meat is.

The answer is not to try to stop China from developing -- as if such a thing were remotely in the realm of possibility -- or to demonize it. The answer is to do everything we can to try to make China a showcase for every sustainable development trick in the book. The Chinese want prosperity, just as we do, so let's help them leapfrog, get there without sucking up the rest of the world's oil and accelerating climate change. Given its closed political system, there's a limit to what Western greens can do, but at the very least we should be paying attention and doing what we can. There's evidence that China's government gets this, anyway.

When the United States toppled the Ba'athist government in Iraq almost two years ago, the American media repeatedly showed footage of Iraqis pulling down the now famous statue of Saddam. Though few people outside of Iraq may have known about it at the time, that statue wasn't the only thing that was torn down:

Saddam drained more than 90 percent of the 5,800 square miles of marshes during his regime, in part to punish the Shi'ite Marsh Arabs who opposed him, in part to provide access to the border with Iran during his country's long war with its neighbor and in part to save water for cities upstream.

[...] As soon as Saddam was ousted by U.S. troops, farmers blew up dikes and earthen dams that had held the water back.

No one thought that it would happen without the United States' involvement, but tomorrow the Kyoto Protocol will go into effect. It sounds like a blessing, and perhaps it is, but no one can deny that Kyoto's effectiveness will be seriously impaired by the United States' refusal to participate (since the U.S. is responsible for about 24% of the global greenhouse gas emissions). As it stands, Kyoto only calls for GHG emissions cutbacks that amount to a 5% reduction among participating industrialized countries by 2012. Overall, this is less than a 2% reduction in total global emissions. Compare this to the 40-60% reduction that many climate scientists have suggested is necessary to keep the global temperature increase below 2°C.

Other criticisms of Kyoto include the fact that it doesn't presently require cutbacks by developing nations; that it relies too much on draconian emissions cuts instead of market-based incentives; that it relies too much on market-based incentives instead of draconian emissions cuts; that its targets are too low or too high; and that its emissions goals simply will not be reached. Today I will level only a single criticism at the Kyoto Protocol: that it failed to elicit the support of the United States.

Paul Bremer, in his role as chief of the occupation authority in Iraq, ordered a change to Iraqi patent law before he left the country last June. The order was only one among 100 orders left behind by Bremer - all of which carry the force of law until such time as an Iraqi government alters or repeals them - and it effectively makes it illegal for Iraqi farmers to save and reuse any seed from "protected" varieties of crops. These include "new, distinct, uniform and stable" varieties bred almost exclusively by agribusiness corporations such as Monsanto.

The term of the monopoly is 20 years for crop varieties and 25 for trees and vines. During this time the protected variety de facto becomes the property of the breeder, and nobody can plant or otherwise use this variety without compensating the breeder. This new law means that Iraqi farmers can neither freely legally plant nor save for re-planting seeds of any plant variety registered under the plant variety provisions of the new patent law. This deprives farmers what they and many others worldwide claim as their inherent right to save and replant seeds.