Declaring Internet access a human right would dilute the rights that matter more, says Internet pioneer Vint Cerf. Photo: Veni Markovski (Wikimedia)

Get real: The Internet isn't a human right.

That's the message from a man often credited with inventing the Internet, Vint Cerf. Writing in The New York Times yesterday, Cerf, who now works for Google, argued that human rights are "things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives":

At one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.

Today's Internet—publicly developed but privately owned and financed—is a key tool in toppling kleptocracies and enriching millions of poor farmers. So Cerf's position is provocative. But it's a reminder that those of us who believe in markets' power to help solve poverty shouldn't cling too tightly to any single "market-based solution."

That wouldn't be market-based at all.

Cafes in Tunisia have become a common hangout for unemployed college graduates, but now that educated youth may be able to get back to work. Photo: Flickr (clurross)

Sitting in cafes all over Tunisia are unemployed youth with college degrees and nothing better to do.

Tunisia's recent revolution left it with skyrocketing unemployment and an economic collapse. Libya, Tunisia’s neighbor, finds itself in a similarly precarious situation. Their crucial difference is that while Tunisia is relatively developed, Libya has no working infrastructure. And ironically, it is this lack of infrastructure that provides the solution to both countries' problems.

Following the wake of Tunisia’s President Ben Ali stepping down and the death of Libya’s Qaddafi, the nations’ new governments are hoping to set up more open ways of conducting business. Previously full of government corruption and theft, transparent business practices will allow both countries to allow the creation of companies that address the people’s interests rather than the government’s. Tunisia and Libya’s citizens are taking advantage of this change, and are already creating businesses aimed at building the desperately needed infrastructure in Libya that Qaddafi never developed. This will, in turn, relieve the strain on Tunisia’s hospitals and other infrastructure, which are currently working at double capacity. According to Tunisian economist Moncef Cheikhrouhou, the rebuilding of Libya could provide jobs for 250,000 Tunisians, all while developing lasting economic ties between the nations and creating the building blocks for Libya’s economy to sustain itself.

The new opportunities for growth and economic connection also have a broader appeal. In the post-Arab Spring Middle East, the example these two struggling countries provide sets the pace for a region full of economic growth potential.

Prior to the Arab Spring, the Middle East economy neglected to build privatized business connections within the region. Ben Ali aligned Tunisia with Europe and Qaddafi kept Libya isolated. When regional investment did occur, it was often corrupt. Libya and Tunisia are both poised to set the example for regional cooperation in an area where business connections are rare, and their timing couldn’t be better. Recent Citibank rankings have placed two other Middle Eastern countries—Egypt and Iraq—as nations with the greatest potential for growth in the next 40 years. Investment in these growing economies would benefit all involved. This closer connection with up-and-coming neighbor economies is particularly important as Tunisia’s long-standing ties to faltering economies like those of Italy and Greece seem to be deteriorating.

With a lot of work cut out for them in the months and years ahead, it looks like as many as a quarter of a million Tunisians could finally leave the cafes and get back to work. Jobs, opportunities, and examples for their Middle Eastern neighbors may follow.

Tunisia becomes the first country of the Arab Spring to hold a general election. Photo: Gwenaël Piaser (Flickr)

While the world's eyes are fixed on violence in Egypt and Libya, the Arab Spring’s most important step yet will depend not on blood shed, but on votes cast.

Tunisia becomes the first country of the Arab Spring to hold general elections on Oct. 23. Voters will elect 217 members to a general assembly charged with drafting the country’s constitution over the next year. The voting will take place in a system of proportional representation, with parties providing a list of their candidates.

At least half of all listed candidates will be women, per the election’s rules. Though for Tunisia, this is not so surprising. 'Tunisia is considered one of the most liberal Arab countries, with high levels of female participation in public and political life,' according to BBC News.

There are three major political parties vying for votes. The most widely supported is Ennahda, an Islamist party that was banned under Tunisia’s former president, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali. The two other contending parties are both secular. Each party has said it'd be open to a power-sharing coalition, depending on the results of the election.

Tunisia’s economy is expected to see the highest growth rates out of any country affected by the Arab Spring, and that is due at least in part to peaceful politics. 'We expect activity to continue improving in the coming months particularly if the elections and the political transition thereafter take place in a smooth manner,' said Alia Moubayed, an economist at Barclays Capital who was quoted in Bloomberg Businessweek.

These elections represent the closest any of the Arab Spring countries have come to a full transition of power. As other countries continue to rise up against corrupt regimes, pay close attention on Sunday as 3.9 million Tunisians head to the polls. The fate of the Arab Spring may depend not on how revolutions are started and waged, but on whether they can culminate in new and stable regimes.

Ben Osborn is a 2011 graduate of Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon. Read his other contributions to Global Envision.

Anger over food prices helped lead to Muammar el-Gadhafi's assassination Thursday. Photo: Thierry Ehrmann (flickr)

Muammar el-Gadhafi gave Libya's people plenty of reasons to hate him. But it may have taken climate change to do him in.

That's the interesting perspective of CSR Talkwire's Francesca Rheannon, who explained last March how, across the Arab world, climate change begat draught begat famine begat unrest:

The recent sharp rise in food prices was the spark to the flame fanned by decades of tyranny, beginning in Tunisia, spreading to Egypt and now roiling Bahrain, Algeria, Oman, Yemen and Libya. Libya imports fully 80 percent of its food; the other countries are also heavy food importers. … While other factors play a role, climate change has been the major driver behind higher food prices.

In May, a study in the journal Science estimated that climate change was responsible for a 3 percent drop in global wheat and corn output, enough to drive commodity prices up 20 percent from where they would otherwise have been, Reuters reported.

The cost of food was just one of many factors in Gadhafi's bloody assassination Thursday. But if the world's fossil fuel dependence continues to drive up global temperatures and food prices, the world's poorest won't be content to be the only victims of climate change. Starving people take governments and leaders down with them—sometimes through violence.

Gadhafi's many sins made his government especially vulnerable. But history may remember him as the canary in the climate-change coal mine.

The falling costs of electronic fingerprinting make it a promising tool for cash payments of wealth from extracted resources. Photo: Dave Bleasdale (flickr)

Spy movies turn voices into passports, retinas into passwords. And modern fingerprint readers might be on the verge of helping developing nations turn oil revenues into cash transfers.

That's what Alan Gelb and Caroline Decker argue in a compelling round of research published this summer by the Center for Global Development. When people enroll in a cash payment program, their fingerprints or irises are scanned electronically; these are then used for identification before each future cash withdrawal.

It's called biometrics, and Gelb and Decker say it's a great way to fight fraud:

Evidence suggests that even well designed transfer programs experience 10-20 percent leakage, if not higher…We estimate that in a typical cash transfer program, savings from biometrics can cover initial costs in only 15 months and save an additional $60 million after five years. This is in addition to providing an auditable trail of the entire program and facilitating more efficient payment mechanisms.

Gelb and Decker also persuasively argue that biometrics can be great for voting and banking records, too. But they're especially interesting as a way for resource-rich countries to divvy up the revenues from their natural wealth. The researchers estimate, for example, that Libya's pre-war oil exports added up to an annual windfall of $6,250 for each of 6.4 million citizens.

Find a way to put most of that cash in the hands of residents, perhaps by way of a national trust fund, and you'd have some very nice working capital for up to 6.4 million business ventures or school tuitions.

There are two reasons resource-extraction cash transfers are a particularly promising application for biometrics:

Ongoing payments: The 15-month payoff period for biometric systems makes them ideal for large-scale programs that maintain long-term relationships with cash recipients. Resource extraction is a years-long process.

Decentralized wealth: Resource-rich nations have been dogged by what Gelb and Decker call "governance problems associated with the concentration of large rents in the hands of the state." By creating an efficient channel to spread that wealth to individuals, biometrics could make make it harder for future autocrats to consolidate power.

Even James Bond might be impressed by that.

This has been reposted from the Mercy Corps blog.

On March 1, I entered Libya from Egypt with the Mercy Corps emergency response team. The situation at the border was chaotic. Thousands of foreign migrant workers were trying to cross into Egypt to escape the violence in Libya. Many of them were stranded in the no-man’s land area between the two countries, waiting for transportation and permission to enter Egypt.

The customs house, the duty free shop — literally every building at the border — had become temporary shelter for the thousands of people who were stuck there. More were camped out on the sidewalks and parking lots. Most of them had only the belongings they could carry by hand and very little money or resources to cope. Fortunately, the majority of the people were Egyptians and so they did not have to travel too far to reach home and the Egyptian government was assisting their people in getting back there.

Since the unrest and violence began in Libya there is the refugee crisis as the migrant foreign workers try to flee the violence. More 170,000 people have fled from Libya — thousands are still stuck in the border of Tunisia without adequate financial resources, shelter or food.

The situation on the Tunisia border, where Mercy Corps has another emergency team deployed for this ongoing regional crisis, is much worse than on the Egyptian side. The people fleeing into Tunisia are also largely Egyptian, but they have to get transportation on planes or boats to get home. The numbers are massive and they are forced to wait several days for transport. There are also reports that, as they come through Libya, they being harassed by pro-Gaddafi forces and some have been forced to pay bribes and give away the few possessions they brought as bribes to pass.

The United States and other governments have sent planes and boats to help the people evacuate, and the border situation has improved in the last day — but thousands are still waiting.

There is also concern if there is an increase in airstrikes and violence in the west of Libya that more people will try to cross the borders to escape. If this happens, the crisis could spiral out of control.

The situation here in Libya is changing by the minute as the opposition advances from the East and then is beaten back by Gaddafi forces, and then advances again. Airstrikes are ongoing and we are preparing for the worst, but hoping for a quick end to this terrible violence.

Some of the thousands stuck at the Salloum border between Libya and Egypt. The situation on the Tunisian border is much worse. Photo: Cassandra Nelson/Mercy Corps

These squares represent how much land would be needed to power the world, Europe or Germany with solar-thermal power. Photo: Treehugger

A single solar farm in the Sahara desert could provide clean electricity for all of Europe.

Scientists are investigating solar farms in the Sahara, as part of a $62 billion plan to provide all green power for a new, carbon-neutral European super-grid.

Because the sunlight in northern Africa is more intense, solar panels in the Sahara can capture up to three times more energy then panels located in northern Europe.

Arnulf Jaeger-Walden of the European commission’s Institute for Energy said today at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona that a mere 0.3 percent of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle Eastern deserts would supply all the energy Europe needed.

The proposed solar farms will utilize advanced solar technology created by the California-based firm Ausra. These solar power plants use movable reflectors to concentrate sun light on pipes. The water in these pipes is solar-heated to produce high-pressure steam, which then goes through a turbine to generate electricity.

These innovative solar plants store enough hot water to make electricity even at night, and to increase production during peak demand periods. The plants are much more effective than traditional solar panel designs, allowing the plants to generate electricity at a mere 10 cents per kilowatt hour, much less than what the average consumer is paying now.

Ausra’s technology has been made cost-efficient by advances in transportation. Jaeger-Walden explained today that transporting the solar electricity would be relatively easy using new high-voltage direct current transmission (DC) lines instead of the alternating lines currently used. Energy loss using DC lines is very low, making the usual issue of transportation over long distances less of a problem.

Sixty-two million dollars for a project of this kind seems expensive — until you compare it with the more than $45 trillion in green-energy systems the world needs over the next 30 years to avoid global catastrophe, according to the International Energy Agency.

Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK's chief scientist, welcomed the project, saying:

"A large scale renewable energy grid is just the kind of innovation we need if we're going to beat climate change. Europe needs to become a zero-carbon society as soon as possible, and that will only happen with bold new ideas like this one. Tinkering with 20th-century technologies like coal and nuclear simply isn't going to get us there."