• http://www.blogger.com/profile/05803421323230425055 Jason
    Is there any possibility of building a trash to energy plant in these cities? This could motivate the citiy to get more effective trash collection and also provide the populaiton with electricity. Does anyone knoe what power plants they are working on and why they are not running full capacity yet?
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10648727700659999180 Schuyler Null
    The New York Times has a good map of which power plants are working and at what capacity.

    I would imagine the main problem behind the lack of trash collection right now is the security situation and just general lack of civil infrastructure. It requires organization and capital from the government, which is hopelessly deadlocked.

    European countries have used trash-to-electricity plants quite successfully (Denmark, for example, sends only 4 percent of its trash to landfills!). However part of their appeal is that they not only produce electricity but also heat for the winters, which would obviously be less useful in Iraq.
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko
    It would be interesting to know from someone with extensive ground level experience, but I would guess the typical use of trash to obscure IEDs would be a practical deterrent to regular trash collection. This challenge would be a practical impediment within the larger institutional explanations provided by Schuyler.

    And lack of land for landfills in Denmark is a powerful motivator for alternatives to inefficient solid waste disposal.
  • Jason Trump
    How important is it for the Iraqi government to focuse more heavily on the energy shortage in Baghdad and other areas? I would argue that it may be just as important to improve the basic energy infrastructure as it is to patrol the streets for IEDs, etc. The author states above that a protest over energy shortages turned deadly when the government opened fire on the crowd. Perhaps keeping the population satisfied with their living conditions would give the government more support and credit, thus allowing the government to do more. I assume that even terrorists in Baghdad enjoy having power in their homes and would stay away from the workers building the additional infrastructure needed. Thoughts on this anyone?
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko
    Provision of basic services and therefore well-being of local populations and perceived legitimacy of the post-conflict regime clearly became a higher priority after Petraes' rewrite of the counter-insurgency strategy and subsequent changed strategies to provide security to enable development. Maintaining security for some is the patrolling that you highlight. For others it is leaving a much lighter boot print. But development folks seem to agree no matter where they are on civ-mil relationships – a secure environment is necessary to advance development. Question is how best to get there.
  • Jason Trump
    Is there a logical starting point for building their infrastructure? Should the government focus more on one aspect like electricity or water and complete that project before going into another, or should they develop different projects all at once? Would this effect the quality of the project or not, and which way do you think the population of Iraq would prefer?
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/18337694112852162181 Geoff Dabelko
    Needs are multiple so the easy answer is that multiple projects must be met. There may be some sequencing given the security situation and the ease or difficulty in protecting the infrastructure. The challenge of course is that it is a target and targeted because it undercuts the perceived legitimacy and benefits of peace.
  • Pingback: Claims that fighter jets flew over Iraq into Syria (C.I.) | thecommonillsbackup

Mobile Theme