The demand for carbon fiber is really taking off (pun not intended), which is a serious problem for industries heavily dependent (pun not intended) on ultra-light yet strong materials. For example, just as sports-cars, boats, motorcycles, and even the military are using carbon fiber in a wide range of applications, new large passenger jets are made from far greater amounts of carbon fiber than previous models. Some people say a shortage of the stuff might happen unless the airplane manufacturers can find a way to increase the supply.

One innovative way to off-set demand is to re-think the process of dismantling old planes and recycling the carbon. The BBC has a story on how this is starting to take shape already. But perhaps more interesting than the success of recyling carbon fiber is the heavy emphasis by the Aircraft Fleet Recycling Association (Afra) on avoiding “interference” by regulatory bodies:

Aircraft aren’t covered by the End of Life Vehicles Regulations that pass the cost of dismantling cars onto manufacturers; but that could change and Afra, says Mr Davidson, is keen to pre-empt new laws:

“There are no set rules for doing this. So if we sit down and talk about what are the best ways – the most environmental and economical ways of doing this – and then present that as a set of rules for the legislators to work with, so much the better.”

Another founding member of Afra agrees. Jim Toomey runs the Evergreen Air Centre in Arizona, the US counterpart of Chateauroux.

“Why is Afra going to be great? Number one, it’s going to get the best practices established. Number two, it’s going to keep us at the cutting edge of recycling technology. And number three, it’s going to do it without government regulation and interference.

Thus, instead of working for a regulatory body and writing best practices these men are working with a regulatory body and writing best practices.

This is a minor difference except for the fact that they clearly do not respect the opinions of those who might try to regulate their work and therefore do not want to be beholden to outsider values. This is a common problem of politics and philosophy in security: each group is willing to let you work with them if they can claim full edit rights to any restrictions, and they do not have to officially recognize any universal framework (as it might overrule their particular needs/edits).

This is, in effect, like a tribal philosophy competing with national interests, or national interests competing with global. For example, tribal chiefs often want to retain supreme command of their economy rather than succumb to a centralized market. Another perspective might be to consider Bush’s recent comments that he wants the right to interpret the Geneva convention as he sees fit for his own domestic political purposes. His demands are in stark contrast to a statement by the President in 2003 that he would find the best way to reduce torture in the world. Little did we realize that what he meant was he would simply change the rules so that US-sponsored torture would no longer be counted so that only our enemies would need to deal with the “interference” from international human rights law:

Today, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control.

Would not most human rights regulatory authorities classify waterboarding as deliberately inflicting severe mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control?

If so, perhaps the Bush administration will create its own organization, to paraphrase Afra, that will get the best practices established, keep the US at the cutting edge of prisoner interrogation practices, and do it without international treaties and interference.

From a security perspective, it is always most desireable to have input from experts who wish to help craft best practices. However, a lack of balance or separation of powers, with ultimate decisions vested in a single person or agency, has obvious drawbacks.