The Environment

[Nurvingiel]

Russia has signed the Kyoto accord, thereby making it International Law. The concept of international law seems a bit sketchy at the moment, but at least those involved with this accord are making some sort of attempt at sustainable environmental policies, to varying degrees. (Frankly I'm not terribly impressed with Canada at the moment, but we do a decent job, and maybe this new initiative will spur us on to actually trying to acheive the goals outlined in the accord. I have hope.)

However, I can't imagine countries who didn't sign the accord saying "Oh, you guys all agreed we should do this, okay then." I mean, the non-signing countries don't agree with the Kyoto accord, or they obviously would have signed it. Here are articles relevant to Canada's involvement with the accord: link.

Canada has signed, although as I mentioned above, we haven't done much about it yet. I'd like to think that we signed the accord with the intent of doing something, but never really got around to it. I hope that now that it's international law (whatever that realistically means) we will be inspired to do something, and set an example with the rest of the world.

One incentive I've heard for good environmental policies and practices is economic gains. What if you could "trade" an "environmental credit" with other nations?

Firstly, what is an environmental credit? It would take a lot of effort to first determine a scientifically sensible and practical definition for this, and second, to agree on said definition. I suspect that the countries deciding this thing would tip the balance in their favour (either on purpose or not). If Russia or Canada were deciding, we might say an environmental credit is equal to one hectare of untouched boreal forest. Naturally, everyone else would say no way Jose!

This also poses another problem. Countries lucky enough to have a large expanse of forest within their borders will gain yet another advantage over countries with less forest. There are also many other issues with practicality and implementation.

However, we need some practical method of rewarding countries for sustainable environmental practices. Just because something works well and is fair within the constraints of a capitalist economy does not mean it's good for the world in the long run. Ocean fisheries are perhaps one of the best environmental examples.

In North America, Canada and the United States have a great potential to set an example for the world as well as significantly impact current environmental problems. Instead, we continue to exploit the resources of developping nations, use too much chemical fertilizers, and devote far too many resources to automobiles.

How does everyone feel about the current environmental policies of their respective countries?

The fact that currently, human life on this planet is not sustainable does not seem to bother people as much as it should. I think the onus is on "developped" nations to start improving the global environment, as we have partly acheived this status with the resources of "developping" nations.

Thoughts?

[jerseydevil]

Kyotot treaty has no basis in international law whatsoever. It is a treaty only among the countries who signed and even they don't think they can fulfill their obligations in it - it's one of the reasons Clinton never sent it onto Congress for approval and let Bush take the fall for killing it. Kyoto treaty is pure nonsense and waste of time.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for your input JD.

However, I disagree. Canada's goal is to bring "greenhouse gas" emissions to 6% below our 1990 levels. This would take money, government support, and effort, but it is not impossible. The Kyoto accord isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.

If we (everyone) actually got behind some of the environmental policies we talk about, we really could make a difference! Making a half-assed attempt and then saying it doesn't work just doesn't cut it. Like a paper with a looming deadline, this is only going to get worse the longer we ignore it.

If Kyoto is a waste of time, what do you propose instead? I strongly feel that we have to start doing something. It doesn't have to be Kyoto, but it's about time that nations start to make an attempt to curb pollution and misuse of resources.

[Insidious Rex]

Agreed. That was the problem with our reaction to the treaty. We didnt like the apparent impact it would have on us and we took our ball and went home and didnt bother to say "no but...". Pretty poor way to handle it if you ask me. If you are the most powerful and biggest resource eating country in the world you certainly have a place to say hey i dont like that but why dont we try this and adjust that.

Now that the treaty is in effect (as flawed as it may be) we now are in danger of losing the pole position for influencing and dealing with how this and other environmental agreements develop and operate around the world. I dont really see a problem with the concept of a market run environmental policy where the right to polute (essentially) can be purchased if a country thinks that too much immediate restriction would be bad for the health of its own economy. Frankly I think in another 20 or 30 years we will be trading "polution futures" (for lack of a better term) as fast and as commonly as we trade pork futures now or any big time commodity. And thats capitalism 101 right there. Hard for a capitalist country to be wholly against that.

[Nurvingiel]

Interesting idea IRex. Difficult as it may be to impliment, I like the concept of paying to pollute. It is already possible to do this through taxes. We could stop subsidizing gasoline and (though this is more complex) chemical fertilizers.

We could also have an extra "packaging" tax on products that either use ridiculous extra amounts of packaging like Jello cups, for example, or have packaging that can't be recycled (or is difficult to recycle).

This begins to deal with one problem (landfills) but what about the use of fossil fuels and other resources like wood and other plant material, animals (domestic and wild, like fish) etc. ?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Now that the treaty is in effect (as flawed as it may be) we now are in danger of losing the pole position for influencing and dealing with how this and other environmental agreements develop and operate around the world. I dont really see a problem with the concept of a market run environmental policy where the right to polute (essentially) can be purchased if a country thinks that too much immediate restriction would be bad for the health of its own economy. Frankly I think in another 20 or 30 years we will be trading "polution futures" (for lack of a better term) as fast and as commonly as we trade pork futures now or any big time commodity. And thats capitalism 101 right there. Hard for a capitalist country to be wholly against that.

That isn't anything new IR if you look at what various states are doing - but I guess you really haven't been following it. I don't really see how we would be left out in the planning of any future environmental things. If the world wishes to include us - then they shouldn't be such hard asses and try sticking it to us.

As for the Kyotot treaty - I think it is crap - it doesn't include the major polluters (such as China and India) and it would have put most of the burden on the US. Everyone argues about how much energy the US uses - but they refuse to look at how much we produce in products and so forth. We have made strides to reduce pollution through the years and the states have taken additional action. Varuious states are even in discussions on an international lever. I've posted about that several times. it seems like you have not read it - otherwise you wouldn't be saying that the US would be cut out of selling "pollution credits".

When people start cheating on Kyoto - then you will see how useless it was. The signers don't even think it can be followed or do they even think it can be met. It's useless piece of paper becuase it was watered down to appease China, the Middle East and India.

After reading Nurv's response - i see she didn't read anything i posted regarding "energy credits" either. They already exist.

[jerseydevil]

Here is the article I posted from the other thread...

U.S. states consider European carbon controls
Source: Copyright 2004, Associated Press
Date: December17,2004

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) -- Two sets of Americans have come here to talk global warming: the United States, opposed to controls on carbon emissions, and a bloc of united states, from Maine to Delaware, that plan to impose them.

"It's not an in-your-face thing," Kenneth Colburn, helping coordinate the nine-state effort, said of the seeming defiance of the Bush administration. "They're doing what they think needs to be done."

That may even include linking up with the Europeans in a backdoor trading scheme on emissions -- although a key Republican says that would meet a "lot of skepticism" in Congress.

The American by-play is taking place at the annual U.N. conference on climate change, where delegates from scores of nations are filling in last-minute details on the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 pact that takes effect February 16 requiring 30 industrial nations to reduce, by 2012, emissions of "greenhouse gases" that scientists blame for global warming.

The biggest pollutant is carbon dioxide, byproduct of fossil fuel burning by automobile engines, power plants and other industrial operations.

The United States is not among the 30. The Bush administration has rejected Kyoto, protesting that it would damage the U.S. economy and that it should also cover poorer nations, such as China and India.

But in the pyramid of powers called the U.S. federation, there were other ideas.

"The United States is 'states' with an 's,"' said Fred Butler, a New Jersey public utilities commissioner here for the U.N. conference. The 50 states are 50 "laboratories of ideas," he said.

More than two dozen U.S. states have taken action individually to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by ordering cuts in power-plant emissions, for example, and limiting state government purchases of fuel-inefficient sport utility vehicles.

Most significantly, California regulators last September ordered the auto industry to trim exhaust levels on cars and light trucks in the state by 25 percent before 2016. Other states may follow if California's move survives a court challenge.

In the U.S. Northeast, New York Gov. George Pataki, a Republican, in April 2003 invited other states to develop a regional plan for "cap and trade" on power-plant emissions of carbon dioxide -- a system whereby plants that don't use up their reduced quotas of emissions can sell "offsets," or credits, to other companies that overshoot their allowances.

Under an existing consortium, the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management, eight other states joined in: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey and Delaware. Four have Republican governors, four Democratic. Combined, they account for 14 percent of U.S. carbon emissions.

A proposed design for the system is expected next April, to be considered and approved by the nine states. Colburn, executive director of the Boston-based consortium, said the states may be trading carbon emission credits in two or three years. "It's a question of 'when,' not 'if,"' he said.

Although the governors want to help ease climate change, there's a host of other environmental, health and economic motivations, Colburn said.

For one thing, New York is seeing London take the lead in "carbon trading," which may balloon into a multibillion-dollar market. "We're missing out on this economic opportunity," he said.

The 25-nation European Union launches its own carbon-trading system on January 1, and it has left the door open for outside participants, a possibility the U.S. states are examining.

"I don't see why our own individual power plants couldn't register and purchase allowances in the European system," Colburn said.

The head of the Bush administration delegation to the climate talks was asked about such a merger of U.S. and European markets. "We haven't had an opportunity yet to analyze and look at such proposals -- what it would mean for U.S. law and international law," replied Paula Dobriansky, an undersecretary of state.

Republican congressman Joe Barton was less noncommittal.

Any international compact involving state governments would have to be approved by Congress, said the Texas lawmaker, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

"We would tend to look at it with a lot of skepticism," he said.

But Colburn questioned the need for federal authorization, saying any trans-Atlantic trades would be pure commercial transactions, not government-to-government. In some states the plan won't even need legislative approval, but could be enacted via executive regulations, he said.

The list of trading states may grow.

Washington, Oregon and California, jointly developing plans to control carbon dioxide, are studying the possibility of carbon trading. And next-door Canada, which like the European Union has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, may be yet another natural partner.

In the US - you don't need the federal government to do thing or sign a worthless piece of paper to do something.

Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management

There it is AGAIN about carbon/energy trading.

[edit]Another thing is that people - personal people - can take action themselves - like buying energy efficient lightbulbs and buying energy from utility companies Green Mountain like I do.

[jerseydevil]

New Jersey aslo belongs to the Mid-Atlantic Energy Coalition which includes Virgina, West Virgiania, Maryland, DC, Delaware, Maryland and Pennsylvania.

Percentage of New Jersey's Total Generation Portfolio that is Renewables: 3.64%

Electric Restructuring Status Report for New Jersey:

* 2002 New Jersey Energy Accomplishments included:
o $11.3 million in production credits to be paid to companies that for the generation of renewable energy projects.
o $300,000 awarded to study the feasibility of developing offshore wind power.
o $13 million in financial incentives have been committed to user sited renewable projects under the Clean Energy Program.
o $330,000 awarded to three non-profit organizations to work with three major groups of buildings owners-universities, schools and churches to promote energy efficiency and conservation with their constituencies.
o 113 million kWh contract between the State of New Jersey and Green Mountain Energy to supply 196 State facilities. This agreement represents 12 percent of the electricity purchased by the State government.
* In New Jersey, over 1,927 residential customers and 646 non-residential customers have selected an alternative supplier, representing 358 MW of supply or .07% of the total load.
* New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities (BPU), on December 18, 2002, recently revised the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Programs to address issues raised by recent studies.
* In March 2001, the NJBPU approved unprecedented funding levels for energy-efficiency: $86 million for 2001, $89 million for 2002, and $93 million for 2003.
* A single, consistent set of energy efficiency programs is administered by each utility throughout the state.


Societal Benefits Charge

* Incentive Type: Public Benefits Fund
* Eligible Technologies: Solar Water Heat , Active Solar Space Heat , Solar Thermal Electric , Photovoltaics , Wind , Biomass , Hydro , Renewable Transportation Fuels , Geothermal Electric , Fuel Cells , Waste
* Applicable Sectors: Commercial, Industrial, Residential, Schools, Utilities
* Types: energy efficiency, renewables, low-income
* Total Fund: $358 million for 1st three years
* Date Enacted: 1999
* Effective Date: 2001
* Expiration Date: 2008
* Website: http://www.bpu.state.nj.us
* Authority 1: NJSA 48: 3-49 et.seq. "Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act"


Summary:
New Jersey's 1999 electricity restructuring legislation, the Electric Discount and Energy Competition Act (EDECA), provides for investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy over an eight-year period through the "Societal Benefits Charge" (SBC) collected from all electric public utility customers.

On March 1, 2001, The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (Board) approved a proposal to fund new energy efficiency and renewable energy programs with $358 million over the next three years. Funding for the programs will be $115 million for 2001, $119 million for 2002, and approximately $124 million for 2003. Of this funding, 75% will go to the efficiency programs such as:

- Incentives for residents to purchase new energy efficient central air conditioners and electric heat pumps;
- Services and incentives for commercial, educational, governmental/institutional, industrial, and agricultural utility customers to utilize high efficiency equipment in new construction, renovations, additions, remodeling, equipment replacement and manufacturing process improvements.

The remaining 25% of the SBC funding supports Class I renewables. Class I renewables include solar, wind, fuel cells, geothermal technologies, wave or tidal action, methane gas from landfills, and sustainable biomass facilities. The Board will determine the fourth year's funding level and the funding for the four years thereafter at the end of the utilities' rate cap period in August 2003.

The State's utilities are jointly administering the customer-sited energy efficiency and renewable energy programs for a one-year period, after which, a consultant will assist the Board in identifying an independent statewide administrator (ISA). The ISA will administer these programs for the remainder of the eight-year period. The renewable energy programs that the Board approved provide rebates to customers who install clean technologies such as wind generators, fuel cells, and photovoltaic systems in their homes and businesses (see DSIRE summary of the New Jersey Clean Energy Program rebate).

Through October 31, 2002, projects supported (or incentives reserved) by the NJ Clean Energy Program are as follows:

PV (<10 kW): 55 projects ( 226 kW total)
PV (>10 kW) 16 projects (2,813 kW total)
Wind (<10 kW): 3 projects (13 kW total)
Wind (>10 kW): 1 project (2,625 kW)
Natural Gas Fuel Cell: 12 projects (2,850 kW total)
Sustainable Biomass: 3 projects (344 kW total)

In the first year (2001), the renewable energy portion of the $115 million was split 60/40 between customer-sited and grid-supply renewable energy projects to allow more grid-supply projects to become market-ready. In 2002 and forward, these funds will be split on a 50/50 basis between customer sited and grid supply projects.

Case Studies

CHP

In 1995, the Utilities Department of Rutgers University initiated electrical power generation at the Busch Cogeneration Facility. Located on the Busch campus of Rutgers University in New Brunswick N.J., this facility is the primary provider of thermal and electrical energy to both the Busch and Livingston campuses. High temperature hot water is produced for use in heating, localized steam generation, and absorption cooling, and over 13 million watts of electricity are generated for use on the Rutgers campus. For more information on this CHP project, visit http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jonflrty/cogeneration3.htm

The facility was the recipient of an ENERGY STAR® CHP award in March 2000. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) award the ENERGY STAR® Combined Heat and Power (CHP) award to leaders who increase the nation's electric generation efficiency through development of highly efficient CHP projects. For more information on Rutger's award, visit http://www.epa.gov/chp/pdf/ss_rutgers.pdf.

Fuel Cells

* Picatinny Arsenal-Dover, NJ
* Jersey Central Power & Light has UTC Fuel Cells GPU 200 kW PAFC in Morristown, NJ at the AT&T Research Laboratory. The contact is Steven B. Sanders (201) 455-8328.

On malls and schools in NJ - they tile the flat roofs with solar panels as one example of NJ using renewable energy. The question remains - but peopel don't really do the research on this - how much energy and resources does it take to produce the solar panels and how much trash do they produce when they are no longer working.

[Nurvingiel]

One quick question - where did you post energy credits? I didn't see that before my last post.

Will read after class! *flees*

[The Gaffer]

Quick reply: India emits a fraction of the CO2 compared with developed countries such as the US or Western Europe. So it's a feeble excuse to bail out of this global problem because India and China are not on board.

But there's a more general point about economics here. Economists use a technique called discounting when they weight up the benefits of an investment. Basically, a gain you get in the future is worth less than a gain now. Same with costs. The convention is that you discount future costs or benefits by 6% per year. So $100 gained in 20 years is worth about $30 now.

Therefore it's impossible to make cutting CO2 emissions (i.e. paying a large economic cost now for an uncertain benefit way in the future) look economically viable.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Varuious states are even in discussions on an international lever. I've posted about that several times. it seems like you have not read it - otherwise you wouldn't be saying that the US would be cut out of selling "pollution credits".

Well I didnt have to read your monster cut and paste jobs to know that some states were so discouraged by the administrations hard line approach to the environment that they felt they had no choice but to do what they could on their own. But we were talking at first from the perspective of a national approach on the Kyoto Treaty and on evironmentalism in general which is why I said hard for the country to be "wholly" against this idea (which you proved). And frankly Im a little confused about being staunchly against the nation having a unified approach (even if its a 50 prong approach because there are certainly differences in various states) and celebrating 4 or 5 states that feel they need to take it on their own accord. We really need ALL states to be on board with this and in a coordinated way. Not a few "rebels" going against the adminstrations staunch "let the power companies police themselves" approach.

[Insidious Rex]

And I should have added... My REAL worry is that we will be marginalized and left behind with a limited voice from here on out. We really should be the loudest voice on this subject. Is it really concievable that a few states working quietly with much larger global groups can have the same kind of influence (as far as setting limits and such) that The United States of America would through the unified mouth of the president or at least the federal government?

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

One quick question - where did you post energy credits? I didn't see that before my last post.

Will read after class! *flees*

I've posted about this in various threads. The last time I brought this up and I posted that wa sin the EU thread a couple of weeks ago or so.

IR - what you say makes no sense. If they need the US to make Kyoto work - then not just joining something we disagree with gives us even more power. They will have to include us and take into consideration OUR concerns if they wish us to be a part of it - and if they want any success. If they don't they are bound to fail.


Gaffer - India and China do produce more pollution for the amount of products they produce. You produce more products then you need more energy - simple as that. I also think that China produces the most pollution. They don't have to follow the terms - or have a restraint on businesses - which will only cause them to become the economic powerhouses - without having to pay the same price as the otehr countries. So I'm wondering - if you were a company - where would you move your manufacturing operations? Would you keep it in the US or Europe where you'd have to spend a fortune on energy controls - while competitors set up in china and india where they don't? Companies would either have to move - or they'd end up going under because they wouldn't be able to conpete.

[The Gaffer]

India and China produce LESS pollution BOTH in absolute amounts AND per head of population. The planet doesn't care how many widgets you're making per tonne of CO2 emitted.

Businesses are relocating to India and China anyway because the labour cost is far less than in the developed world. (But, they're free to do that, right? I find it funny how Western capitalists are all for "free trade" except when it doesn't benefit them.)

The implication here is that we should do nothing, because we will frighten companies off to places where pollution is not controlled. This is precisely the sort of blinkered, short-term thinking that will guarantee our demise.

Of course, once India and China start developing further, then they will produce more pollution. How are we to persuade these countries to co-operate on climate change in the future if the US is not on board now?

If you look at it from their point of view, we (West) have already benefitted from polluting the planet. And now we turn round and tell them they can't develop because we're turned the planet into a toilet.

We really need to show leadership on this one if we're to have any hope at all.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

India and China produce LESS pollution BOTH in absolute amounts AND per head of population. The planet doesn't care how many widgets you're making per tonne of CO2 emitted.

But to produce everything we use today uses energy - so yes it does matter how much a country produces in relationship to how much pollution they generate. As i said also - everyone wants to ignore how much energy and waste it causes to produce the solar cells, and all the so called renewable energy sources. People don't want to look at that. Yeah - people argue that hydrogen power is out there and basically all we have to do is use that - becuase it's only by-product is H2O. One problem though - it causes far more pollution to capture the Hydrogen - then it prevents once it's used. So in actuality - it's causing more pollution - it's just moved the location of where the pollution is generated.

Businesses are relocating to India and China anyway because the labour cost is far less than in the developed world. (But, they're free to do that, right? I find it funny how Western capitalists are all for "free trade" except when it doesn't benefit them.)

So you wish to just give companies one other reason to move over to there - is that it? Come on - both france and germany have 10% unemployment. You think it'll be good for Europe to lose anymore jobs?

The implication here is that we should do nothing, because we will frighten companies off to places where pollution is not controlled. This is precisely the sort of blinkered, short-term thinking that will guarantee our demise.

No it's not - it's a fact of the world economy. If Kyoto included those countries - then fine - but it doesn't.

Of course, once India and China start developing further, then they will produce more pollution. How are we to persuade these countries to co-operate on climate change in the future if the US is not on board now?

Why should the US get on board? Especially when it is completely unworkable. Clinton was even against Kyoto because of the "let's stick it to the US" aspects of it. If you wish to include us in it - then take our cooncerns into consideration. At the Kyoto meeting while Clinton was president - europe didn't care about our feelings - it was basically what they wanted to nothing. Well now you are left with us not being a part of it.

If you look at it from their point of view, we (West) have already benefitted from polluting the planet. And now we turn round and tell them they can't develop because we're turned the planet into a toilet.

NO -I'm sayiong why shold we destroy opur economies in the process and that's what the Kyoto treaty would do. There are many other ways of controlling pollution - the US does many things on it's own - as well as the states - what is keey and most important is for individual citizens to take responsibility. But you wish to just have government holding your hand doing it.

We really need to show leadership on this one if we're to have any hope at all.

Great - then show some leadership and make it work. As i said though - even the signers of the agreement say it's unworkable - with or without the US.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i would say it comes down to oil and big business, but i don't want an aguement

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i would say it comes down to oil and big business, but i don't want an aguement

How could that be when most of the US electricity is produced by coal which we have enough of to power us for over 200 years? The big issue in the US is the coal powerplants - not oil.

If you are referring to hydrogen - maybe you should do some research on that. It's a fact. It causes more pollution to produce the hydrogen than it saves.

Down the street from me though - is the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (which is actually in Plainsboro not in Princeton) - which is a leading expert and research institution in the development of fusion power.


Aerial Photo of PPPL

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i dont agree with nuclear power either, but that is my personal opinion

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i dont agree with nuclear power either, but that is my personal opinion

Well then that's good that it's not nuclear power. What PPPL is doing has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear power.

Advantages of Fusion

As a source of energy, fusion would have many advantages:

Abundant Fuel Supply
The major fuel, deuterium, may be readily extracted from ordinary water, which is available to all nations. The surface waters of the earth contain more than 10 million million tons of deuterium, an essentially inexhaustible supply. The tritium required would be produced from lithium, which is available from land deposits or from sea water which contains thousands of years' supply. The world-wide availability of these materials would thus eliminate international tensions caused by imbalance in fuel supply.

No Risk of a Nuclear Accident
The amounts of deuterium and tritium in the fusion reaction zone will be so small that a large uncontrolled release of energy would be impossible. In the event of a malfunction, the plasma would strike the walls of its containment vessel and cool.

No Air Pollution
Since no fossil fuels are used, there will be no release of chemical combustion products because they will not be produced.

No High-level Nuclear Waste
Similarly, there will be no fission products formed to present a handling and disposal problem. Radioactivity will be produced by neutrons interacting with the reactor structure, but careful materials selection is expected to minimize the handling and ultimate disposal of activated materials.

No Generation of Weapons Material
Another significant advantage is that the materials and by-products of fusion are not suitable for use in the production of nuclear weapons.

Summary
The abundance of raw materials, their wide distribution, and the environmental acceptability of fusion are augmented by the expectation that fusion energy will be an economical source of electricity generation.

[Insidious Rex]

But right now fusion is impractical when you factor in the set up costs. Are you suggesting that we reject cooperating with other countries on global environmental issues and instead wait until we get fusion to the point where its worth doing? Dont you think fusion (over the next 50 years) could be PART of HOW we work with other countries in developing alternative energies?

Also I dont think we should be using an either/or way of thinking. There are plenty of other energy sources in the world that are likely to help replace fossil fuels before fusion comes on line simply because they (direct solar, ocean temperature, etc) can be utilized practically for a much lower capital cost.