Elephants or Ivory — Amazing response!

The worldwide UN ban on ivory trading could soon be lifted — a decision that could wipe out Africa’s vulnerable elephants. But a number of a African nations are pushing to uphold the ban. Let’s send them a stampede of support to save the elephants. Sign the skyrocketing petition below, and forward this email widely:

Wow — the petition to protect endangered elephants from ivory poachers is exploding — in just over 72 hours, more than 300,000 of us have signed the call to the UN to uphold the ban on ivory trading and save whole populations of these magnificent animals. The crucial UN vote is expected this week.

Tanzania and Zambia are lobbying the UN for special exemptions from the ban, but this would send a clear signal to the ivory crime syndicates that international protection is weakening and it’s open-season on elephants. Another group of African states have countered by calling to extend the trade ban for 20 years.

Our best chance to save the continent’s remaining elephants is to support African conservationists. We only have days left and the UN Endangered Species body only meets every 3 years. Click below to sign our urgent petition to protect elephants, and forward this email widely — the petition will be delivered to the UN meeting in Doha:
 http://www.avaaz.org/en/protect_the_elep…

Over 20 years ago, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) passed a worldwide ban on ivory trading. Poaching fell, and ivory prices slumped. But poor enforcement coupled with ‘experimental one-off sales’, like the one Tanzania and Zambia are seeking, drove poaching up and turned illegal trade into a lucrative business — poachers can launder their illegal ivory with the legal stockpiles.

Now, despite the worldwide ban, each year over 30,000 elephants are gunned down and their tusks hacked off by poachers with axes and chainsaws. If Tanzania and Zambia are successful in exploiting the loophole, this awful trade could get much worse.

We have a one-off chance this week to extend the worldwide ban and repress poaching and trade prices before we lose even more elephant populations — sign the petition now and then forward it widely:
 http://www.avaaz.org/en/protect_the_elep…

Across the world’s cultures and throughout our history elephants have been revered in religions and have captured our imagination — Babar, Dumbo, Ganesh, Airavata, Erawan. But today these beautiful and highly intelligent creatures are being annihilated.

As long as there is demand for ivory, elephants are at risk from poaching and smuggling — but this week we have a chance to protect them and crush the ivory criminals’ profits — sign the petition now:
 http://www.avaaz.org/en/protect_the_elep…

——————–

Our idea – if Tanzania and Zambia get their way it would be right to start a campaign to boycott tourism to these countries.      Did anyone think that Canada and Japan might also be helped to changing behavior by similar means when traditional killing of seals and whales is what they do? The US has said that it will prosecute and penalize a sushi restaurant that served whale-meat, so invoking penalties might work. If nothing else it will make us feel good for having reacted to someone’s lack of honesty.

Honda Drives Toward Home Solar Hydrogen Refueling
Date: 15-Mar-10

Author: Mary Milliken, Reuters from California.

{Jon Spallino (L) with his wife Sandy (R) and their daughters Anna (2L) and Adrianna accept their new 2005 Honda FCX fuel cell powered vehicle in Los Angeles on June 29, 2005.
Photo: by Mario Anzuoni}

Coming not so soon and probably not to a house near you is the home solar hydrogen refueling station — Honda Motor Co’s latest idea in its drive to make hydrogen the fuel of choice for zero emission cars.

The Japanese auto giant believes hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles offer the best long-term alternative to fossil fuels and the company showed on Friday a refueling breakthrough that it says points to a home version down the road.

Most major automakers have spent billions of dollars in researching hydrogen-powered fuel cells, tempted by the idea of a car that uses no gasoline and emits only water vapor. But Honda is widely seen as the hydrogen leader, while others like General Motors put more effort into battery-powered electric vehicles like the upcoming Volt.

One of the big barriers to hydrogen car deployment is the lack of refueling infrastructure, leading Honda to bet that the future lies in combining a public station network with a more modest home option.

Honda’s home option will comprise a solar-powered hydrogen refueling station using solar panels.

“Customers can choose how they interact with both of them based on their annual miles and their habits,” said Stephen Ellis, fuel cell manager at the Honda’s North American headquarters in Torrance, California.

‘BIGGEST PROGRESS’

“The key thing to remember is that with five-minute refueling you are good for another 240 miles,” Ellis added.

That range comes from the “fast-fill” public station, of which there are just a handful in Southern California, where Honda leases 15 FCX Clarity hydrogen-powered vehicles and is set to distribute more in coming months.

Eight hours of home solar refueling would guarantee a smaller range of 30 miles or about 10,000 miles (16,000 km per year — enough for an average commuting car.

At the Los Angeles R&D center, engineers refueled the sleek FCX Clarity sedan with a new single-unit station connected to a solar array that replaces a two-unit system, cutting costs and improving efficiency by 25 percent.

“This is wonderful progress, the biggest progress,” said Ikuya Yamashita, the chief engineer of the station.

The station uses a 6-kilowatt solar array, composed of 48 panels and thin film solar cells developed by a Honda subsidiary. It breaks down the water into hydrogen in what Honda calls a “virtually carbon-free energy cycle.”

The FCX Clarity’s hydrogen “stack” — or the electricity generator — is around the size of an attache case, tucked between the two front seats, and is a fifth of the stack size developed a decade ago.

The car is likely to be sold commercially around 2018 in the luxury large sedan category, while the solar hydrogen refueling system could move beyond the research stage and into the market-ready phase around 2015.

“A lot of this work is not necessarily for today’s economic situation,” said Ellis. “This is for tomorrow, when most people feel energy prices will be higher.”

Egypt To Secure $430 Mln Loan For Wind Farm: Agency
Date: 15-Mar-10

by Alexander Dziadosz, Reuters from Egypt.

Egypt is set to secure a $430 million loan from Japan to fund a 220-megawatt wind farm as it tries to boost its renewable energy output, the state news agency MENA said on Friday.

Egypt, an oil and gas producer, has been developing wind power along its eastern Red Sea coast. It aims to generate 12 percent of its power from wind and 20 percent from renewables overall by 2020.

The loan, inked this week, will be used to build a wind farm in Gebel el Zeit on the Gulf of Suez, the report said.

Officials say Egypt’s combined oil and gas reserves will last it roughly three decades, pushing it to develop alternative energy sources, including nuclear and solar.

Last week Egypt said it would receive a $100 million loan from the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development to fund a 1,300 megawatt power plant in the Red Sea coastal town of Ain Sokhna, east of Cairo.

A Film production company’s court case brought out as true what were always our worst fears about the MEDIA – the fact that when you buy an advertisement you also take for granted that you bought their soul.

We looked for years at those quarter pages advertisements that oil companies bought on major newspapers’ prime pages, then we learned that some topics – such as alternate fuels – were taboo to those papers even on their news pages. oh well! How do you prove a non-existence?

Now we have it. The film got advertised on Variety magazine and it seems from the court papers that the company expected a “buzz” – so it gets noted and becomes a candidate for the Oscars – all this so it eventually obtains also a distributor, and beefs up its high hopes to make money.

So, the managers of that movie’s publicity campaign took for granted that Variety will do all of that in exchange for what was probably a nice charge for those advertisement fees.   It probably would have evolved this way except that the Variety movie critic, who went to see the movie, had not such a hot opinion about the movie.

To cut the story short – the movie people were not enthused seeing the review and asked Variety to remove the review which they did – saying that there were inaccuracies there. It probably would have ended with this if not for the movie producer mentioning that he intends to take Variety to court which finally stiffened Variety’s back. They put back a second version of the negative review.

Now comes the court case, and it becomes obvious that Variety was hungry for advertisement revenue and might have given wrong impression to the movie producer who on his part seems to have been unusually naive to step into the deal.

Does that negate our opening statement?

NO! The practice is general, and the naive behavior of the particular Hollywood folks is unusual. We learned the story on this Sunday’s TV programs.

Beijing+15, Women and Poverty Posted, on 01 March 2010.
More Educated Are Not More Equal – When it comes to female education rates, progress has been made around the world.

By Mario Osava*
When it comes to female education rates, progress has been made around the world, and in many countries girls and young women have outnumbered and outperformed boys and men at all levels of schooling for decades. Nevertheless, these advances have yet to translate into greater equity in employment, politics and social relations.

In Brazil, for example, 53.3 percent of newly enrolled university students in 2007 were women, who have almost consistently accounted for 55 percent or more of first-year students over the last 15 years. Moreover, the proportion of women among university graduates every year is over 60 percent, which demonstrates that they are more successful students as well.

Females represent a majority at every level of education in Brazil, and the average rate of schooling among Brazilian women is more than one year higher than that of men. Yet women continue to earn 30 percent less than men for the same work, and they occupy a mere 56 of the 594 seats in the Brazilian Congress.

In the Philippines, where women have scored higher than men on literacy for many years, 17.83 percent of women graduate from college compared to 8.24 percent of men, according to data from the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women (NCRFW).

But women tend to pursue higher studies in areas like education and health, while men represent over 80 percent of engineering and law students.

Women also comprise the overall majority among university students in South Africa, although not within traditionally male disciplines like engineering. And while women now have much more significant representation in academia, this trend does not continue to the highest ranks.

In Chile as well, women outnumber men in all areas of education, according to the government’s 2009 Territorial Gender Inequity Index, which is based on literacy rates, years of schooling and net coverage of primary and secondary education. But women make up only 42 percent of the active workforce, and earn 30 percent less than their male colleagues.

“Education alone cannot work miracles,” says Fulvia Rosemberg, a researcher at the Brazilianbased Carlos Chagas Foundation. When it comes to overcoming the inequality of opportunities between the sexes, changing values and attitudes is much more complex, she noted, adding, “As long as child care is not available for all families, there will be no structural changes in women’s participation in the labour market.”

Brazil is a prime example. Only 18 percent of children aged three and under are enrolled in daycare centres, said Rosemberg, who is also a professor at the Catholic University of São Paulo. Moreover, at most Brazilian schools, children only attend classes for half a day, and since women are primarily responsible for child care within the family, this extra responsibility clearly deprives them of “comparable conditions” to men with regard to employment opportunities, she told TerraViva.

Around the world, according to UNESCO’s Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010, the proportion of girls among children not in schooling fell from 58 to 54 percent between 1999 and 2007. In other words, while progress has been made, girls still have less access to education than boys.

In sub-Saharan Africa, there were 89 girls for every 100 boys enrolled in primary school in 2006, according to the most recent Millennium Development Goals (MDG) report. The situation is even worse in secondary school, where girls account for only 80 percent of enrolment. In general, girls account for 55 percent of the out-of-school population.

But there are encouraging signs, nonetheless. “Communities have realised that educating girls tends to give higher dividends,” commented Muleya Mwananyanda, coordinator of the Global Campaign for Education’s Global Action Week. Seventeen of the 41 sub-Saharan African countries listed in UNESCO’s Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2010 have achieved gender parity in primary education.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, there were 107 girls for every 100 boys enrolled in secondary school in 2006, while in East and Southeast Asia the number of girls was 101 and 102 for every 100 boys, respectively, reflecting even higher female enrolment than the gender parity seen in the industrialised North.

But the second-largest country in Latin America, Mexico, has seen a backslide in the education policies implemented in pursuit of gender equity following Beijing.

Advances in school enrolment and attendante resulted in equivalence in male-female enrolment, and efforts were made to achieve greater gender balance in professional and post-graduate training and to eliminate gender stereotypes, says Clara Jusidman, president of the non-governmental Citizens and Social Development Initiative.

However, since 2000 and the arrival in power of the conservative National Action Party – first under Vicente Fox and subsequently Felipe Calderón, the president since 2006 – the education system has seen a resurgence of old values and stereotypes around the roles of men and women.

Today, there are numerous Mexican states governed by conservative politicians that do not permit textbooks with information on sex education and reproductive rights, said Jusidman.

————

*With additional reporting from Nastasya Tay (Johannesburg), Kara Santos (Manila), Emilio Godoy (Mexico City) and Daniela Estrada (Santiago).

At the UN meeting of women commemorating Beijing+15, we picked up a TerraViva IPS handout that made us aware that THE WOMEN OF IRAQ MISS SADDAM. The fscts are that under secular Dictator Saddam Hussein the women had it better then under the present touted democracy.

——–

Women Miss Saddam.
Abdu Rahman and Dahr Jamail, March 13, 2010
 http://original.antiwar.com/jamail/2010/…

BAGHDAD – Under Saddam Hussein, women in government got a year’s maternity leave; that is now cut to six months. Under the Personal Status Law in force since Jul. 14, 1958, when Iraqis overthrew the British-installed monarchy, Iraqi women had most of the rights that Western women do.

Now they have Article 2 of the Constitution: “Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation.” Sub-head A says “No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.” Under this Article the interpretation of women’s rights is left to religious leaders – and many of them are under Iranian influence.

“The U.S. occupation has decided to let go of women’s rights,” Yanar Mohammed, who campaigns for women’s rights in Iraq, says. “Political Islamic groups have taken southern Iraq, are fully in power there, and are using the financial support of Iran to recruit troops and allies. The financial and political support from Iran is why the Iraqis in the south accept this, not because the Iraqi people want Islamic law.”

With the new law has come the new lawlessness. Nora Hamaid, 30, a graduate from Baghdad University, has now given up the career she dreamt of. “I completed my studies before the invaders arrived because there was good security and I could freely go to university,” Hamaid tells IPS. Now she says she cannot even move around freely, and worries for her children every day. “I mean every day, from when they depart to when they return from school, for fear of abductions.”

There is 25-percent representation for women in parliament, but Sabria says “these women from party lists stand up to defend their party in the parliament, not for women’s rights.” For women in Iraq, the invasion is not over.

The situation for Iraq’s women reflects the overall situation: everyone is affected by lack of security and lack of infrastructure.

“The status of women here is linked to the general situation,” Maha Sabria, professor of political science at Al-Nahrain University in Baghdad tells IPS. “The violation of women’s rights was part of the violation of the rights of all Iraqis.” But, she said, “women bear a double burden under occupation because we have lost a lot of freedom because of it.

“More men are now under the weight of detention, so now women bear the entire burden of the family and are obliged to provide full support to the families and children. At the same time women do not have freedom of movement because of the deteriorated security conditions and because of abductions of women and children by criminal gangs.”

Women, she says, are also now under pressure to marry young in family hope that a husband will bring security.

Sabria tells IPS that the abduction of women “did not exist prior to the occupation. We find that women lost their right to learn and their right to a free and normal life, so Iraqi women are struggling with oppression and denial of all their rights, more than ever before.”

Yanar Mohammed believes the constitution neither protects women nor ensures their basic rights. She blames the United States for abdicating its responsibility to help develop a pluralistic democracy in Iraq.

“The real ruler in Iraq now is the rule of old traditions and tribal, backward laws,” Sabria says. “The biggest problem is that more women in Iraq are unaware of their rights because of the backwardness and ignorance prevailing in Iraqi society today.”

Many women have fled Iraq because their husband was arbitrarily arrested by occupation forces or government security personnel, says Sabria.

More than four million Iraqis were estimated to have been displaced through the occupation, including approximately 2.8 million internally. The rest live as refugees mainly in neighboring countries, according to a report by Elizabeth Ferris, co-director of the Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement.

The report, titled, “Going Home? Prospects and Pitfalls For Large-Scale Return Of Iraqis,” says most displaced Iraqi women are reluctant to return home because of continuing uncertainties.

The Washington-based Refugees International (RI) says in a report “Iraqi Refugees: Women’s Rights and Security Critical to Returns” that “Iraqi women will resist returning home, even if conditions improve in Iraq, if there is no focus on securing their rights as women and assuring their personal security and their families’ well-being.”

The RI report covered internally displaced women in Iraq’s semi-autonomous northern Kurdish region and female refugees in Syria. “Not one woman interviewed by RI indicated her intention to return,” the report says.

“This tent is more comfortable than a palace in Baghdad; my family is safe here,” a displaced woman in northern Iraq told RI.

The situation continues to be challenging for women within Iraq.

“I am an employee, and everyday go to my work place, and the biggest challenge for me and all the suffering Iraqis is the roads are closed and you feel you are a person without rights, without respect,” a 35-year-old government employee, who asked to be referred to as Iman, told IPS.

“To what extent has this improved my security?” she asked. “We have better salaries now, but how can women live with no security? How can we enjoy our rights if there is no safe place to go, for rest and recreation and living?”

——————————
(*Abdu, our correspondent in Baghdad, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who reports extensively on the region) (Inter Press Service)

Sunday March 7, 2010, Fareed Zakaria took the measure of the Big Crescent that Stretches from Gaza via Jerusalm, Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, to Islamabad. He had quite o few first line guests.

Turned out that it is unrealistic to expect democracy in Iraq – what we get at best will be a cross-sectarian coalition – maybe.

There is no certainty that the Iraqis will want to end up in a relationship with the US with less then 25,000 US and other NATO forces present.

The important question came up: “Do we have any economic influence in Iraq?” and the answers included pearls like “This is capitalism at work – there will be competition.” “With the money spent on the invasion the US could have bought all the Iraqi oil production for a decade.” We hope Mr. Cheney was watching the program wherever he is. We wonder if he will evr move finally to the headquarters of Haliburton in Dubai.

———

Regarding Iran – the main observation is that the Basij have had to turn inwards because of the stirring of a political opposition.

“Do you think that Dr. Ahmad Chalabi is an Iranian agent?”

“He was behind the de-Bathification – indeed the Iraqis believe so.”

——-

With Yossi Melman, now with Tel Aviv newspaper HAARETZ, and former Mossad operative and Fawaz A. Gerges, from the London School of economics and Political Science, author of Journey of the Jihadist” present, and Osama Hamdan on video in Damascus – we heard from Mosab Hassan Jousef Jr. how he was, and in many ways still is, a double or triple agent between the Hamas, Patach and the Israelis. His contention is that he saved his father’s life, Sheick Hassan, a founder of the Hamas, by telling his location to the Israelis, so he is now well and alive in Israeli prison with a six years term, while he would have been dead otherwise. That is another tid-bit of Middle East lore. Mosab did not seem to worry having exposed himself before the cameras – seemingly he is more interested in getting royalties from a book he published.

——

In this program we also learned – at least the first time I heard so – finally a religious Islamic leader, talking of the atrocities of 9/11, say the magic words I was waiting for these last 8 years: “COMMITTINGG A TERROR ATTACK LANDS THE PERPETRATORS IN HELL.” So, there is now a “JIHAD AGAINST JIHAD” among some Muslim leaders and they regard 9/11 as the “WAKE UP CALL.”

So far so good – but the announcement by the news-caster that the Pakistanis caught in the city of Karachi, among its 30 million people, American-turncoat Adam Gadahn, the Al Qaeda Spokesman – that was a bum announcement. The beaded man was not caught.

The news this morning, March 13, 2010, at least on CNN, seems to be
the coming out of a new political ferment – perhaps in response to the
achievements of the Tea Party that started a while ago.

The Tea Party, despite the fact that they declare that they try to be
all inclusive on the basis of the American people feeling cheated by
the interests that operate government in Washington, by bringing in
Sarah Palin as their $100,000 paid for speaker in their first National
convention, have clearly branded themselves as new spokespeople for
extreme right wing Republican conservatism in America.

The truth is that the numbers of people disappointed with Washington
is immense – by some counts probably pushing 80%, but not all say like
Ms. Palin that the problem is in big government – actually most people
realize that the country must be governed – the problem being is just
in the present Washington culture. What they want is more open
government – not less government. There is clearly a large number of
disappointed people that are progressive and Democrats.

This weekend, after preparation that led to 125,000 names subscribed
on Facebook.com and organized in 60 different locations in America,
the new COFFEE PARTY came out from its preparatory closets.

The founder is Annabel Park and groups in Baltimore, Atlanta, and
Washington DC were shown on CNN. In Baltimore their meeting place is
at the “One World Café.” We found this a very attractive location for
a nice spirited forward-looking group.

Ms. Park stated the situation clearly: While Tea wants to downsize
Federal Government – Coffee wants to improve it and work with it. The
joint part is that both groups are saying the Federal Government does
not serve the people.

At www.SustainabiliTank.info – we drink to the Coffee people who seem
to be more to the spirit of the original Boston Tea Party folks of the
American Revolution then the Tea Party of today. We thought originally
that a Tea revolution could push America in the correct direction (I
have obviously a difficulty using the word “right” here) – now we
think that Coffee may have the day and take over from where the Tea
failed.

We would love to see the Coffee Party push actually both parties to
put up candidates for as soon as the November 2010 elections that are
capable to accept proposed Coffee ideas.

—————-

An evening update:

AOL News NATION: Liberals Hope to Stimulate Obama With Coffee Party
Updated: 1 hour 50 minutes ago
Print Text Size E-mail More

Barry Weintraub, Contributor, AOL News.
NEW YORK (March 13) — In coffee shops — and at least one bar — people fed up with the Tea Party movement gathered Saturday to discuss issues and launch what they call the Coffee Party.

Inspired by a late February rant on the Facebook page of Annabel Park, the Coffee Party (not limited to coffee drinkers alone) declared March 13 National Coffee Party Day, and on the group’s Web site invited individuals to organize in coffee shops across the country in hopes of eventually growing into an influential political movement.

Park — a documentarian and former Obama volunteer — said in a video on her Web site that she wants to “stop the shouting” and replace “obstructionism” with action.

“Their name is brilliant,” said Ann Morris, “because it captures patriotism.”

Morris, a psychologist, was one of the 20 people who gathered at the Bleecker Street Bar in Manhattan Saturday.

Coffee, Morris noted, became America’s beverage of choice after the tax revolt that is now known as the Boston Tea Party.

Morris usually leaves the city every weekend for her upstate home. She chose to stay, rather than make her usual journey, because she is concerned the Tea Party movement is growing too influential. “[They] are not interested in discourse,” she said. “They think different than we do.”

The Bleecker Street Coffee Party meeting was originally scheduled to meet at the NoHo Star, an eatery that serves coffee. The gathering had to shift to a bar next door because the crowd was too large.

Organizer Amanda Martinez chose to hold the event near New York University in the hope of attracting young people. The Tea Party, she said is populated “by a lot of older people.”  On that measure, Martinez was disappointed. Only a few of the attendees appeared to be under 50.

As the meeting began, Martinez read Coffee Party “ground rules,” asking participants to “listen and respect everybody’s opinion.” Then, participants broke into groups of five or six to talk about the issues that concerned them most.

Anne Miller told her group that campaign finance reform is key. “To me,” said Miller, “that’s the most important issue. We’ve got to get money out of campaigns.”

Bob Pargament, a hypnotist from Harrison, N.Y., drove more than 40 miles through heavy rain and wind to attend. He said he “is concerned about the shift to the right” and the “know-nothing mentality bent on shutting down and interrupting the debate needed in a democracy.”

Citing what he sees as a growing anti-science movement across the country, Pargament said “it’s time to start thinking like 21st century citizens.”

Also among the participants was a gentleman who identified himself only as Tyler, an anthropologist who says he’s been studying the Tea Party movement for months.

In group conversation, Tyler asked fellow members how they felt about taxes — an issue at the heart of the Tea Party fervor. The others agreed taxes were important to them as well.

Lamar Bennett, a university researcher from Brooklyn, who describes himself as being from the left wing of the Democratic party, pointed out that “while everyone wants lower taxes, everyone wants services, too.” Everyone in that group nodded their heads in agreement.

Jean Stevens, a writer also from Brooklyn, said she felt after the campaign of 2008 that too many Obama supporters sat back and waited for him “to do all the work.” Stevens says she now realizes that she and others will need to do more if they want to see the change they voted for in the last presidential election.

Martinez said the gathering produced a wide spectrum of opinions. “Everything from no government to the government is the people,” she said.

Martinez agreed with the sentiment that Obama supporters had grown complacent, but she remains hopeful.

“Things will happen,” Martinez said. “Obama is staying behind the curtain and when the time is right he’s going to mobilize his army and get it done.”

“It was great,” Stevens said as she got up to leave, calling the day inspiring and hopeful.

“People are concerned,” she said. “They want to break the logjam.”

But when asked if she might take the lead and organize a future Coffee Party gathering in Brooklyn, she said, “I don’t know.”

ISRAEL COMES IN FIFTH PLACE OF NATIONS MOST FAVORED BY AMERICANS – GALLUP POLL.
12 March 2010, The San Francisco Sentinel
Israel ranked fifth among countries viewed most favorably by Americans, a new poll found.

Israel finished behind Canada, Britain, Germany and Japan in a February Gallup survey. Respondents were asked to provide their opinions on a list of 20 countries that also included the Palestinian Authority.

Some 67 percent answered that they have a favorable opinion of Israel, compared to 25 percent with an unfavorable opinion.

The telephone poll, an update of Gallup’s annual World Affairs survey, contacted 1,025 American adults last month. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Some 20 percent of respondents viewed the Palestinian Authority favorably, an improvement over last year’s total of 15 percent, placing it fourth from the bottom. Iran continued to rank last, with a 10 percent favorable rating.

Israel was the only country rated this year that is viewed more favorably by Republicans, with 80 percent of respondents identifying as Republicans viewing the country favorably, compared with 53 percent of Democrats.

Some 63 percent of those polled said their sympathies lie more with Israel than with the Palestinians — the highest level of support for Israel in 19 years.

About 15 percent said they side more with the Palestinians, while 23 percent said they favor both sides, neither side or have no opinion.

——————-

JERUSALEM AND WEST BANK TENSE AFTER DAY OF TURMOIL – At Least 12 Arrested And 15 Injured As Leftists and Palestinians Clash With Security Forces

12 March 2010

Israeli riot police clashed with Palestinians on Friday as they restricted access
to a site that is holy to both Muslims and Jews.

By Nir Hasson and Agencies
Haaretz

An uneasy calm returned to Jerusalem on Friday evening after a day of turmoil that saw Palestinians and leftwing protestors clash with security forces across the city.

In East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrakh neighborhood police arrested eight leftwing activists demonstrating against Jewish construction there.

The detentions sparked fury among protesters, some of whom told Haaretz that the arrests were unlawful. Police has discriminated against the 100-odd leftists who took part in the march, at the same time allowing a rightwing counter-demonstration to continue unimpeded, they claimed.

Palestinian sources, meanwhile, reported that at least 15 Palestinians were injured in demonstrations in the West Bank villages of Bil’in, Na’alim and Dir Nizam, according to an Army Radio report.

Earlier in the day, four Palestinians were detained on suspicion of throwing stones and two officers were slightly injured in clashes in Jerusalem’s old city, a police spokesman said. At least one protester was treated by medics.

Israel had on Friday barred Palestinians from crossing from the West Bank into Israel and Jerusalem, and barred men under 50 from al-Aqsa mosque, the flashpoint holy site in the walled Old City.

As hundreds of youths streamed away from noon prayers at a mosque in the district of Ras al-Amud, men hurled stones at a car carrying Orthodox Jewish children. One rock smashed a side window, but there were no obvious injuries, Reuters reported.

Israel’s closure of the West bank, which authorities say is aimed at preventing a repeat of violent clashes last week in which dozens were injured, is set to last until Sunday.

In the Gaza Strip Islamists rallied supporters to protest at Israel’s policies in Jerusalem: “We will redeem al-Aqsa mosque with our souls and our blood,” the crowd chanted.

As demonstrators burned U.S. and Israeli flags, Khalil al-Hayya, a leader of the Hamas movement which rules Gaza, urged Hamas’s rival, West Bank-based Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, to reverse his decision to engage in “proximity talks” with Israel through U.S. mediators after a hiatus of 15 months.

“These direct and indirect negotiations provide a cover to the Zionist aggression against our people and our lands,” Hayya told the crowd. “Our angry people now are calling on the Palestinian negotiator to back off from these negotiations which encourage more settlements and the Judaisation of Jerusalem.”

——————
NETANYAHU CONVENES PROBE OF ROW WITH U.S. OVER EAST JERUSALEM
13 March 2010

By Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya
Haaretz

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday said he would establish a committee to probe Israel’s announcement this week that it would construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, which has since led to a diplomatic crisis with the United States.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to create a team to probe the events that unfolded during U.S. Vice President Biden’s visit to Israel,” read a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.

“The team will formulate regulations to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in the future,” the statement continued.

The U.S. has waged harsh criticism of Israel’s announcement on Tuesday about new settlement construction – a move that deeply embarrassed the visiting Biden and imperiled U.S. plans to launch indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The team will be headed by Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office, Eyal Gabai, and will include members of the Interior Ministry, Housing Ministry and the Jerusalem Municipality.

Netanyahu earlier on Saturday said he was surprised by the U.S. administration’s public condemnation of his government over the building plan in East Jerusalem.

Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office said the crisis appeared to be orchestrated by the U.S. administration, as Netanyahu apologized to U.S. Vice President Biden and believed that the crisis was behind the two allies.

Netanyahu on Saturday evening convened a meeting of the forum of seven cabinet ministers to discuss the diplomatic tension with the Obama administration, and is expected to issue a formal statement about the matter at the start of Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting.

The prime minister has repeatedly said he was unaware of the East Jerusalem construction plan.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday called Israel’s announcement “insulting” to the United States.

“I mean, it was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for everyone – the United States, our vice president who had gone to reassert our strong support for Israeli security – and I regret deeply that that occurred and made that known,” Clinton said during the CNN interview.

Clinton did not blame Netanyahu personally for the announcement, but she said, “He is the prime minister. Like the president or secretary of state…ultimately, you are responsible.”

Netanyahu spoke with Clinton over the weekend in what was later described to reporters as a 45-minute conversation in which the premier mostly remained quiet and listened to Clinton’s scathing criticism.

Also on Friday, Israeli envoy to the U.S. Michael Oren was summoned for a meeting with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg.

A senior U.S. official predicted “a dicey period here in the next couple days to a couple of weeks” as Palestinians demanded the reversal of the plan.

Netanyahu on Friday also called European officials including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian President Silvio Berlusconi to discuss the crisis with the U.S.

“This was an embarrassing incident,” Netanyahu told the European leaders. “I admit that and I am sorry, and I even apologized to Vice President Biden, but I was not in any way aware of the building plan ahead of the announcement.”

Netanyahu also discussed Israeli construction in East Jerusalem with the two leaders, saying, “This government’s policy regarding building in East Jerusalem is no different than that of any other government.”

He added, “In all negotiations conducted up until now, Israel has clarified for the Palestinians and the U.S. that these neighborhoods are part of the Jerusalem bloc that will remain in Israeli hands in any final-status agreement.”

Netanyahu also told Merkel and Berlusconi that regulations would be implemented to avoid such embarrassments in the future.

Earlier in the week, Netanyahu said he believed that despite the conflict with the U.S. over the plan for new housing in East Jerusalem, indirect talks with the Palestinians would continue as planned early next week.

U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell is expected in Israel on Tuesday and is set to meet with Netanyahu.

—————

SECRETARY CLINTON KEYNOTES 2010 AIPAC POLICY CONFERENCE.

11 March 2010

AIPAC Policy Conference 2010 is taking place March 21-23 in
Washington, D.C. More than 7,000 pro-Israel activists, including over
1,200 students from over 300 campuses and more than 175 elected
student government presidents, will be in Washington to express their
support for a strong relationship between the United States and our
steadfast democratic ally, Israel.

CONFIRMED PLENARY SPEAKERS

– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

– Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

– Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, Quartet Representative and former Prime
Minister of the United Kingdom

– Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

– Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

– Amb. Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the United States

————

In 2009 Vice President Joe Biden was the closing speaker of the AIPAC meeting. He was also listed originally as speaker for the 2010 meeting, but this week’s events in Israel may now have changed his mind.

—————–

Policy Conference 2009 Highlights
Get an idea of the amazing program that awaits you at the 2010 Policy Conference!

In the closing address of AIPAC Policy Conference 2009, Vice President Joe Biden affirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to a strong and enduring U.S.-Israel relationship. “The bond between Israel and the United States,” Biden said, “was forged by a shared interest in peace and security, by shared values that respect all faiths and peoples, by deep ties among our citizens and by a common commitment to democracy.”

Delegates also heard from Senator John Kerry, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli President Shimon Peres, and House and Senate leaders from both parties.

EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW THAT WE ARE JUST LOSING TEMPORARILY ONE HOUR WHEN SPRINGING THE CLOCK FORWARD, WE NEVERTHELESS APPRECIATE THE E-MAIL WE GOT FROM THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION – WE TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT WHAT THEY SAID.

from: “Becky Garland, National Wildlife Federation” <beoutthere@nwf.org>
date:    Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:00 AM
subject:    Take advantage of your extra hour of sunlight.
 https://mail.google.com/mail/?shva=1#inb…

Dear Pincas,

Did you know that America’s kids spend only four to seven minutes outside per day?  In fact, by the time most children go to kindergarten, they have spent more than 5,000 hours in front of a television – enough time to earn a college degree!

This weekend, you can help reverse these worrisome trends simply by using your extra hour of sunlight to go outside! Click here for a list of ways you and your kids can unplug this weekend.

Then, be sure to take the Be Out There Pledge indicating that you will make outdoor play a healthy habit for your kids. It will take less than a minute—and you’ll receive fun tips and interactive tools to inspire you and your family to Be Out There all year long!

Sincerely,

Rebecca Garland
Executive Director, Be Out There
National Wildlife Federation
 

 http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/11/15…

Posted on Thursday, March 11, 2010 in THE OPPENHEIMER REPORT.

The Miami Herald’s Andres Oppenheimer shares his opinion on Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva’s consideration to run for secretary general of the UN.

BY ANDRES OPPENHEIMER
 AOPPENHEIMER at MIAMIHERALD.COM
A short news item in Brazil’s news magazine Veja this week suggested that President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is considering running for United Nations secretary general after he leaves office at the end of this year. If true, that would explain a lot of things.

Until now, the conventional wisdom was that Brazil’s recent foreign policy of open support to the world’s most ruthless dictatorships – IRAN – is tied to the country’s emergence as a new power in the world economy, and its desire to flex its muscle as a new — and fiercely independent — player in international affairs.

That’s probably true. But the Veja report — stating that Lula “has been sounded out by more than one person to be a candidate for U.N. Secretary General in 2011” — is adding a new element to the puzzle of what’s behind Brazil’s foreign policy. The Brazilian government says it will not comment on the magazine’s report.

Diego Arria, a former chairman of the U.N. Security Council, told me that “Lula would be a very strong candidate because of Brazil’s weight as an increasingly independent power, and because of his international prestige.” He added that Lula may be catering to an anti-U.S. climate at the United Nations “to position himself as a strong candidate for Secretary General.”

In recent days, Lula has made some shocking statements that are hard to understand coming from a former union leader who opposed military dictatorships. In an interview with The Associated Press, he compared Cuba’s peaceful oppositionists who are waging hunger strikes with “bandits.”

Lula, who recently visited Cuba and posed smiling with that country’s military dictator Gen. Raúl Castro shortly after political prisoner Orlando Zapata died from a hunger strike, said that hunger strikes should not be used “as a pretext” to defend human rights. Lula added, “Imagine if all bandits who are imprisoned in Sao Paulo went on a hunger strike and demanded freedom.”

Days earlier, Lula had reiterated his decision to visit Iran in May, despite international efforts to impose sanctions on that country amid growing evidence that its regime is building nuclear weapons in defiance of international rules.

Does Lula have a chance of becoming U.N. Secretary General? Most diplomats say current Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, a South Korean diplomat whose term expires Dec. 31, 2011, is expected to run for reelection. Most of the recent U.N. chiefs serve two consecutive terms.

“Lula’s name would be an honor to Latin America, but it’s a tradition for Secretary Generals to run for reelection, and I don’t see a reason why Secretary General Ban Ki-moon would not go for a second term,” Chile’s U.N. Ambassador Heraldo Muñoz told me.

Others noted that, if for some reason Ban decided not to run, Asian countries may want to have one of their own diplomats at the job for another five years, in keeping with the tradition that each region gets a two-term mandate. And many point out that Lula doesn’t speak English or French, a major obstacle for a candidate to the top U.N. job.

My Opinion: Most likely, Ban will get a second term, even if many countries would want a higher-profile U.N. chief. Lula is more likely to be offered the job of head of the Rome-based U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, whose current director Jacques Diouf of Senegal has been on the job since 1994 and is on his way out.

Lula would be a perfect candidate for that position because of his successful “Bolsa Familia” anti-hunger program in Brazil and the international recognition it has given him. In addition, the FAO has never had a Latin American chief.

Granted, Lula may find that job too small, but — considering his awful human rights stands — it would be the perfect place for him.

———————-

Matthew Russell Lee of The Inner City Press at the UN points out another interesting angle that might explain the Munoz position:

“Meanwhile, press in Latin America and even Chilean Ambassador to the UN Munoz have been speaking of Brazil’s Lula as a possible UN Secretary General in 2012. While many in the UN might wish that this would happen, it is considered impolitic for Munoz, currently seeking an Assistant Secretary General post from Ban Ki-moon, to talk up a competing Lula candidacy.

Others say “ah ha” about the Lula story, thinking this might explain Lula’s schmoozing with Iran and other non favored regimes. What’s next, Lula praising Sri Lanka’s Rajapaksa and his blood bath on the beach? Pro Rajapaksa Sri Lankans are expected to demonstrate Friday at noon in front of the UN, echoing the Non Aligned Movements letter claiming that the UN has no human rights mandate.”

———————

Interesting stuff – the Miami Cubans might not like the idea so they try to preemt the trial baloon that was lauched by the Brazilian Veja – and then, if there is a change at the UN in 2012, it can be assumed that the Asians will claim a repeat of what happened when the US has helped ease out Egyptian Boutros Boutros-Ghali, who was elected as an African, and brought in then Kofi Annan for a full two terms for Africa. If the UN decides that the MENA group – North Africa and Arab Asia – is indeed a separate region – so above example is not precedent – then there would be no opposition to a prominent Latin American to get the nod. The former East European UN region has pretty much dissolved, so the new MENA or OIC structure will be able to put forward its candidate in due time.

——————

Also, what will be the Obama Administration’s position?

For one thing, the March 21, 2010 trip of the US President to Indonesia and Australia might produce a US backing for an Indonesian to head the UNFCCC – the present opening for Dirctor General under the Climate Change Convention. As of now, the countries that have voiced they will put forward their candidates are South Africa, India, and Indonesia. Brazil has not done so – and above information may indeed allow for this more complicated play with Lula getting in the New York picture later.

The Difference Between News and Ideas

Sometimes, I get frustrated when I put together these weekly news round-ups for you.

You see, many of the topics that are “news” now, we covered months — and sometimes years — ago… when they were merely ideas.

Take the Chinese cleantech boom, for example, which we’ve been touting since 2007. Back then, we told readers that China would be a clean energy force to reckon with, that their solar companies could produce at lower costs, that their non-democratic government could fast-track project with minimal bureaucratic red tape.

As such, many of our readers have profited handsomely from our Chinese cleantech picks like JA Solar (NASDAQ: JASO), Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL), Hong Kong Highpower (NASDAQ: HPJ), and plenty of others.

But only lately, as the hindsight data is revealed, has the mainstream media jumped on board, with everyone from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times touting China’s cleantech abilities and the United States’ laggard position.

It’s not “news” until it happened.

But the profits are made while it’s happening (… Whatever it is.).

That’s the difference between news and ideas.

You read the news. You profit from ideas… and you usually read them here first.

This Week’s News (And Our Ideas)

So it’s news this week that Japan, South Korea, and China are spending $9 billion on “infrastructure and information technology to make electricity networks more efficient.”

It’s news, according to Reuters, because Zpryme, a market research firm, compile the data and released a report.

But it’s been an idea for the past year, as we constantly reported on the necessity of a smart grid to aid the deployment of renewable resources. Green Chip readers have profited from this idea… others are only now reading the news.

It was also news this week when a Chinese wind turbine maker, A-Power Generation (NASDAQ: APWR), announced it’s building a production plant in Nevada. The plant will have an annual capacity of 1,100 megawatts and create 1,000 long-term jobs.

I guess it was only an idea on February 10, when I ran an article entitled, Chinese Cleantech Companies: Made in the USA (by China), in which I specifically mentioned A-Power and their plans for a U.S. plant.

In the month it took for that story to go from a Green Chip idea to mainstream news, the stock has gone up more than 17%.

In other news this week, German solar installer Phoenix Solar (XETRA: PS4) announced it’s “expecting business in the ongoing first quarter to be significantly better than in the year-earlier period.”

But we’ve been reporting on the German feed-in tariff cuts since last year, and how that would lead to more installations fueled by Chinese-built panels before the subsidies disappeared, i.e, higher business in the first and second quarters.

And finally, it was news this week that China and India signed up to the Copenhagen Accord for fighting climate change, after being lambasted by politicians and the media alike for stymieing the talks last December.

But we’ve been reporting on China’s and India’s ambitious climate energy and energy goals for some time now and how, in many ways, their goals are more ambitious than ours are. In an article entitled The Clean Energy Batter: U.S. vs. China, I reported that China and U.S. actually have similar emissions targets, but China’s are official policy while the U.S.’s are simply White House announcements.

So you couldn’t have known the real story before it hit the wire.

And that’s really the point of Green Chip: To know the market so well that we’re ahead of it. And by reading these pages, you are, too.

Our premium services take that one step further, and help you invest in green trends before others know about them.

We help you invest in the ideas that will be profitable when they become news.

You can read this week’s ideas below.

Call it like you see it,

Nick Hodge
 http://www.greenchipstocks.com

How to Rebuild America: The New Road to Energy Sustainability
In his report “How to Rebuild America,” Editor Chris Nelder writes a letter to Congress on behalf of the American people, asking for a real energy plan…

from:    Marco Grasso <marco.grasso@unimib.it>
date:    Sat, Mar 13, 2010
subject:    New Book on the ethical aspects of adaptation funding

I am writing to announce  a new book series on the ethical aspects of adaptation funding, published by Springer:
Justice in Funding Adaptation under the International Climate Change Regime

 http://www.springer.com/environment/glob…)

Covering the ethical dimensions of international-level adaptation funding, a subject of growing interest in the climate change debate, this book provides a theoretical analysis of the ethical foundations of the UNFCCC regime on adaptation funding, one that culminates in the definition of a framework of justice. The text features an interpretative analysis of the ethical contents of the UNFCCC funding architecture by applying the framework of justice proposed to different areas of empirical investigation.

The book offers scholars working on climate change, international relations, and environmental politics an analysis characterized by both theoretical soundness and empirical richness. The comprehensiveness of the book’s approach should make it possible to plan and implement international adaptation funding more effectively, and eventually to define more just funding policies and practices.

UNEP NEWS: John Scanlon appointed as New Secretary-General of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES)

Geneva (Switzerland)/Nairobi (Kenya), 13 March 2010 –

John Scanlon, a top advisor at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has been named as the new Secretary-General of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). Mr. Scanlon was selected after a global search and selection process yielding close to 200 applicants and will assume his new position in May 2010.

Mr. Scanlon, an Australian national, joined UNEP in 2007 as the Principal Advisor on Policy and Programme to Executive Director Achim Steiner, in which capacity he also led the UNEP internal reform team.

A lawyer by training, he has had a long and distinguished career in environmental law, policy and management at national and international levels.

Among other roles, he was Australia’s first independent Commissioner on the Murray Darling Basin Commission, he held the position of Strategic Advisor to the World Commission on Dams in Cape Town (South Africa), and headed the Environmental Law Programme (Bonn, Germany) at the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

He also served as Chief Executive of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs in South Australia and held several senior roles in New South Wales including as Deputy Director-General of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources.

CITES is an international agreement between Governments that was adopted in 1973 in order to ensure that international trade of wild animals and plans does not threaten their survival.

With some 175 Parties, the Convention is one of the world’s most important agreements on species conservation and the sustainable use of wildlife.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP, said: “John Scanlon is a highly qualified and accomplished professional in the fields of environmental law, international policy and governance. His extensive management experience in public institutions and the strategic role he played in UNEP’s recent reform programme make him an outstanding candidate for leading the CITES Secretariat at this critical juncture when the efficacy of environmental governance instruments is under scrutiny.”

CITES is currently holding its fifteenth meeting of the Conference of Parties in Doha, Qatar, from 13 to 25 March. Over 42 proposals are on the table, reflecting growing international concern about the accelerating destruction of the world’s marine and forest ecosystems through overfishing and excessive logging, and the potential impacts of climate change on the biological resources of the planet.

A growing number of commercially exploited fish have come under CITES controls in recent years. For instance, basking and whale sharks were included in Appendix II in 2002, the great white shark and the humphead wrasse in 2004, and the European eel and sawfishes in 2007.

2010 marks the International Year of Biodiversity and the role of CITES in regulating the global trade in plant and animal species is widely regarded as central to promoting the dual objectives of conservation and sustainable use.

Mr. Scanlon succeeds Mr. Willem Wijnstekers who served the CITES Convention as Secretary-General since 1999 and will retire on 1st May 2010.

For more information, please contact
Nick Nuttall, UNEP Spokesperson/Head of Media, on Mobile: +254 733 632755 or +41 795965737, or Email:  nick.nuttall at unep.org

————–

CITES world conference opens with call for new wildlife trade rules Decisions on the budget will show how seriously 175 member States take new measures to conserve and manage natural riches of the planet.

Doha, 13 March 2010 – Some 1,500 delegates representing more than 170 governments, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations and businesses are attending the triennial world conference of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Bluefin tuna, elephant populations and a wide range of sharks, corals, polar bears, reptiles, insects and plants are top of the agenda for the two-week meeting.

CITES Secretary-General Willem Wijnstekers thanked Qatar for hosting the meeting and noted that existing and new challenges require increased political support for the 35-year old treaty to match present day demands. Mr Wijnstekers congratulated the member States for the many conservation successes during these years but warned that more needs to be done.  “We do not want to risk letting down the developing world in its struggle to ensure that trade in wild fauna and flora is conducted legally and sustainably”, he said.

Many of the 42 proposals on the table reflect growing international concern about the accelerating destruction of the world’s marine and forest ecosystems through overfishing and excessive logging, and the potential impacts of climate change on the biological resources of the planet. The UN General Assembly has declared 2010 the international year of biodiversity and the CITES Conference will be one of the key occasions governments have this year to take action to protect biodiversity. Member States will decide by consensus or a two-thirds majority vote for measures to conserve and manage species on the agenda.

“2010 is a key year for biological diversity. By ensuring that the international trade in wildlife is properly regulated, CITES can assist in conserving the planet’s wild fauna and flora from overexploitation and thus contribute to the improved management of these key natural assets for sustainable development”, said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the CITES Secretariat.

Other issues on the agenda include the adoption of urgent measures to tackle illegal trade of tiger products, rhinos and other species that are on the brink of extinction. It will also address the potential impacts of CITES measures on the livelihoods of the rural poor, those on the frontlines of using and managing wildlife.

For more information on CITES, see www.cites.org.
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094/8210
 info at nyo.unep.org
 

Turkey is an important State. It was born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire after having chosen the loosing side in WW I. It went after that through a distilling process with the secular-military revolution of Ataturk, and was on its way to modernization. In the process Turks killed Armenians – that is well documented, and eventually Armenians said it was genocide. Those were clearly the childhood days of a more modern Turkey.

Growing up would have meant recognizing that in its evolution, Turkey has some darker shadows in its history basin – recognize it and stretch out a hand in peace. Instead Turkey preferred to continue without any relations to Armenia, while at the same time distancing itself from its Middle Eastern and Caucasian neighbors while courting a Europe that refuses to forgive a forgetful Turkey its past behaviour in relation to its Armenians, and then later its Kurds.

Turkey, in its ridiculous courting of Europe, has missed even the boat that was anchored in its doorsteps with the creation of five newly independent Central Asian States most of which being of Turkic ethnicity anyway. Turkey is torn now between Islam and secularism with an Islamic background – whatever they chose, it is going to be neither Christian Greek, nor Christian Armenian while the West – that is Europe and the US – are basically Christian and can be  counted upon as backing Armenia’s simple request to call the killings of a century ago an example of genocide like they are ready to call what went on in Kosovo, much more recently, a genocide against Muslims.

Turkey is important to the West as a bridge to the Islamic world of Asia including the Middle East and Central Asia, but the West can not tell its parliaments that for foreign policy reasons they are not allowed to call an old case of genocide by its name, or to tell their more liberal people that a cartoon or some other free expression that might offend someone’s feelings is not plain satire that they can express if it were their own leaders – secular or religious – be it even the Pope.

Turkey has now recalled its Ambassadors to the US and Sweden as sign of displeasure with Congress and Parliamentarian declarations in States that allow free expression via voting – specially as the direct consequence of it if it was genocide or plain heinous killing is not going to bring anyone to life back anyway.

We belabor this topic because our website has placed great hope in a reorienting Turkey on various issues – be these related to the place of Turkey on Kyoto Protocol and climate change, on oil and gas pipelines, or be it on the OIC, peace efforts in the Middle East, relations with Iran, Iraq etc. We are thus unhappy when Turkey steps back from responsibility that comes with maturity.  Why not just tell Armenia – let’s sign a peace accord based on mutual understanding that what has happened then, call it what you want, and we are sorry for it, will never happen again. The whole world would then applaud. Look at Jews and Germans – it was worse – but they talk and do not walk out on each other.

Climate science: a peace-studies lesson.

Involves – Civil society Democracy and government International politics;  global security globalisation;  the politics of climate change.

by Paul Rogers, 11 March 2010. OpenDemocracy from the UK.
 http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers…

The doubters of global warming are emboldened by their new ability – as in the “climategate” affair – to put climate researchers on the defensive. But the experience of comparable assaults on the discipline of peace studies in the 1980s suggests that hostile scrutiny can have longer-term benefits for the target. The author mentions – “The articles in this series try to throw light on recent or current developments in international security. Just occasionally an element of personal experience creeps in. This is one of those.”

The last weeks of 2009 were difficult for the public face of scientific research into global warming. The failure of the climate-change conference in Copenhagen, the identification of minor flaws in the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC’s) published documentation, and the exposure of email exchanges centred on the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at England’s University of East Anglia – all raised doubts about those charged with presenting scientific evidence about climate change and renewing efforts to address the phenomenon. In the case of the email affair – given an extra conspiratorial frisson by being called “climategate” – the careful selection of damaging details by an evidently well-resourced group made it possible to erect a narrative of deception that found an uncritical welcome among climate “sceptics” and “deniers”.

Soon after the furore, Associated Press tasked a team to examine 1,073 emails from the CRU material in order to provide an independent view of what had happened. The result showed no evidence that climate change was faked (see “’ClimateGate’ Doesn’t Show Global Warming Was Faked, AP Reports”, Huffington Post, 12 December 2009); but amid a deluge of negative comment this attracted little attention, and the impression persists that the whole case for human-induced climate change has been severely hit.

For many of the researchers involved, the period of late 2009-early 2010 has been traumatic; they may have had to contend with controversy over the years, but this is something outside their experience.

The intensity of the coverage, and the zealotry of many sceptics in pressing their case, stem in part from changing global circumstances. There has long been deep opposition to any international move towards a low-carbon economy, from reasons both ideological (free-market true-believers) and commercial (the more retrograde transnational corporations, especially fossil-fuel companies). There was no great risk of such a move as long as George W Bush was in the White House; but the election of Barack Obama and the prospect of Copenhagen agreeing a successor to the Kyoto protocol made 2009 potentially a dangerous year. In this context, “climategate” has been a gift.

The peace benefit

The lesson of my own experience in the 1980s suggests that the longer-term impact might be rather different from what the architects of this affair intend. I got into working in the field of international security from teaching environmental science and resource-conflict at Huddersfield Polytechnic, west Yorkshire, in the early 1970s (and recently came across some of my thirty-five-year-old lecture notes dealing with rising atmospheric CO² levels!). I moved to Bradford’s department of peace studies at the end of the decade, just as the cold war was entering a particularly tense period; from around 1980 onwards, several of us there saw the need for independent research and writing on nuclear issues.

An early outcome (with co-authors Malcolm Dando and Peter van den Dungen) was a book about the risks and consequences of nuclear war: As Lambs to the Slaughter: The Facts About Nuclear War (1981). It struck a chord; 25,000 copies were sold in a few weeks, and that year around 500,000 people purchased an accompanying leaflet published by the environment group Ecoropa.

As Lambs… was part of a wider body of writings, much of it for an academic rather a general readership. This was the case with A Guide to Nuclear Weapons (1981) which ran to several editions and led eventually to a reference work: The Directory of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms and Disarmament 1990. The core purpose of this writing was to be as accurate as possible; this meant (for example) always analysing Soviet as well as western systems and postures, and having a particular focus on the actual consequences of a nuclear war.

What strikes me in retrospect – and when thinking about the problems that climate scientists now face – is how widely varied were the reactions to our work. Military officers, for example, were actually very interested in it and very ready to engage in intensive debates. I was first invited to lecture at the Royal Air Force staff college in 1982 and have continued frequently to lecture at defence colleges to the present day. Senior civil servants in Britain’s ministry of defence were also willing to discuss our work.

The reaction on the political right – then very much in the ascendancy during Margaret Thatcher’s long premiership (1979-1990) – was very different; it was bitter and sustained opposition to what we were doing. In the Thatcherite view of the world, peace studies was “appeasement studies”, indulgent to official enemies and undermining of the nation’s moral fibre. Many articles and pamphlets were written about the Bradford department’s dangerous and subversive nature; one noble member of the House of Lords (the upper chamber of Britain’s parliament) even described us as a “rest home for urban guerrillas”. Some critics preferred a more personal touch: I was called “Dr Death”, and we regularly got abusive mail (which, on one or two occasions, went as far as death-threats).

It was known that Margaret Thatcher wished “something to be done” about peace studies; but this was politically difficult, since universities still retaine considerable independence (a situation that subsequent governments have done much to redress). than now. But the University Grants Committee (UGC) came under pressure to investigate us and to its credit agreed to do so only if Bradford’s vice-chancellor allowed it; he too was prepared to say yes, but – also to his credit – only if the peace-studies staff gave their consent. We certainly would! What followed was the equivalent of today’s “subject review”. It was thorough and exacting, and the UGC made public its verdict – that the department was maintaining high standards.

That outcome lifted the pressure off peace studies for the rest of the 1980s. With the end of the cold war by the end of the decade, much of the other work our staff and research students already did – on peacekeeping, environmental conflict, and mediation, among other issues – came to the fore; this created the foundation for an expansion of our work in the 1990s.

The landscape after battle

How does this relate to “climategate”? A key factor is that we were exposed to intensive criticism and persistent scrutiny of our work virtually from day one, and this in direct consequence made us hugely aware of the need for very high levels of accuracy and impeccable referencing of sources. Access to a wide range of military and defence journals, and a huge amount of information in the public domain, meant that this was actually not so difficult; but under so much external pressure we learned to be very cautious in our analysis at a time when exaggeration on the issues we addressed was common enough.

Many of us now think that the experience made us better academics. If almost everything you write is going to be exposed to detailed examination by relentless and often politically-motivated critics, then you have to set unusually exacting standards for your work. The likely – and beneficial – implication is that climate researchers who have gone through their own test-by-fire will in future take even greater care over published assessments and analyses.

In many ways we were luckier than today’s climate researchers: for there was an intense focus on our peace-studies work from the very beginning – whereas critics of climate science are able to retrieve work published a decade and more ago, when the issue was far less controversial, in order to pinpoint a minor laxity and use it to great effect to damn the whole enterprise.

The overall effect of the setbacks to climate-science’s public face may amount to the loss of a year in the transition to a low-carbon future, but the good work being done in this area offers many grounds for optimism. The New Economic Foundation’s The Great Transition project, and Tim Jackson’s book Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet (Earthscan 2009) are but two examples. Alongside the evidence that continues to emerge about the accelerating impact of climate change, the flow of impressive research and compelling argument based on even more rigorous standards will ensure that the refusenik stance will in future become harder to make.

In the end, peace studies was made stronger by those who sought to expose it. In a similar way, the travails of climate researchers may well end up reinforcing the integrity of the science and the necessity of the low-carbon transition.

Dear All,

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in partnership with the African Union, is organizing the First Conference of Ministers Responsible for Meteorology in Africa, in order to maximise the potential of weather and climate information for societal benefits.

The Conference will be hosted by the Government of Kenya from 12 to 16 April 2010, in Nairobi.

Journalists are cordially invited to a press conference about this event.

Date and Time: Tuesday 16 March 2010 at 12h00 Venue: Palais des Nations, Room III, Geneva, Switzerland.

—-

Speakers:    Mr Michel Jarraud, Secretary-General, WMO

Mrs Khadija Rachida Masri, Permanent Observer, African Union

Mr Philip Richard Owade, Permanent Representative of Kenya

Ms Shree Badoo Chekitan Servansing, Permanent Representative of Mauritius and Coordinator of the African Group

will be represented at the press conference. Mr Jeremiah Lengoasa, Deputy-Secretary General, and Mr Alioune N’Diaye, Director of the Regional Office for Africa, WMO, will also be present.

Journalists not accredited to the United Nations Office at Geneva but who wish to participate in the press conference are kindly requested to contact Ms Catherine Fegli: tel: +41 22 917 23 13; fax: +41 22 917 00 73; e-mail: cfegli@unog.ch, and visit the following link:

www.unog.ch/80256EDD006B9C2E/(httpPages)/70991F6887C73B2280256EE700379C58?Open

For information about the African Ministerial Conference:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/africaconf/index_en.html

For more information please contact the Communications and Public Affairs Office, WMO

Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele, Chief, Tel: +41 (0)22 730 83 15, E-mail: cpa@wmo.int ,

Ms Marie Heuzé, Special Advisor, Tel: + 41 (0)22 730 84 78, E-mail: mheuze@wmo.int

Ms Gaëlle Sévenier, Press Officer, Tel: +41 (0) 22 730 8417, E-mail: gsevenier@wmo.int

Internet website: http://www.wmo.int

FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 2010
U.S. Concerned Over Curbs on NGOs, Press, Internet.
by Jim Lobe who has a blog on US Foreign Policy *

WASHINGTON, Mar 11 (IPS) – Releasing its annual report on the state of human rights around the world, the U.S. State Department Thursday said it was increasingly concerned about curbs imposed by foreign governments on civil society groups, the press, and Internet use.

“We find ourselves in a moment when an increasing number of governments are imposing new and crippling restrictions on the non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working to protect rights and enhance accountability,” said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who released the latest edition of the Department’s massive “Country Reports”.

“New technologies have proven useful both to oppressors and to those who struggle to expose the failures and cowardice of those oppressors,” she added, noting that Washington will seek to “hold everyone to the same standard, including ourselves” in its human rights policies. The 10-page introduction, the most closely read part of a report that covers 194 countries and runs thousands of pages in length, singled out a number of countries for special concern on a range of key human rights issues.

In contrast to introductions issued under the administration of President George W. Bush, the 2009 edition did not categorise specific countries as “the world’s most systematic human rights right violators,” countries which were almost invariably perceived as hostile to the U.S.

The 2007 report, for example, placed North Korea, Burma, Iran, Syria, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Eritrea, and Sudan in that category. Syria, Zimbabwe, and Eritrea, on the other hand, were not mentioned in this year’s introduction, although their specific Country Reports were no less critical than in previous years.

Indeed, this year’s introduction cited a number of key U.S. friends – notably Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Colombia, Egypt, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Uganda, and even Switzerland – as well as Iran, Belarus, Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea, for various kinds of abuses.

“It’s a highly inclusive list,” said Tom Malinowski, the director of the Washington office of Human Rights Watch. “You can’t say there’s any glaring omission. They’re highlighting most of the emblematic situations around the world.”

The Country Reports, which were first mandated by Congress in 1976, is based on reporting by other governments, international and local NGOs, journalists, academics, and U.S. diplomats, is widely considered the world’s single most comprehensive accounting of political and civil rights conditions in specific countries.

As in the past, the latest edition does not address rights conditions in the U.S. or in U.S.-controlled facilities overseas, including detention centres at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or in Afghanistan where U.S. personnel have been accused of abuses in the past.

The latest report on Afghanistan, however, noted that “NATO and U.S. forces continue to hand over detainees to (the Afghan intelligence agency) which perpetrates human rights violations, including torture …with impunity.”

Despite a strong emphasis Clinton herself placed in a major speech last December on the importance of “human development”, including food, shelter, health, and education, as part of “our human rights agenda”, the report also does not explicitly cover economic and social rights, an omission that has drawn complaints from many human rights groups in the past.

“As an organisation, we feel this report is not comprehensive because it doesn’t address economic and social rights issues that are happening around the world,” T. Kumar of Amnesty International’s Washington office told IPS.

At the same time, the report stressed the commitment of the administration of President Barack Obama to integrate the U.S. more fully into the multilateral system for assessing and promoting human rights, noting in particular its decision to join the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva and more actively support human rights initiatives in the U.N. General Assembly and in regional organisation.

Next fall, the report said, Washington intends to appear before the UNHRC for its first Universal Periodic Review “of our own domestic human rights situation,” it said.

The introduction covered three major trends in human rights abuses during 2009.

For “countries in conflict,” where combatant civilians faced serious abuses of human rights by insurgents, terrorist or paramilitary forces, and/or government forces, the report’s introduction cited ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan, Burma, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, the north Caucasus region in Russia, Sri Lanka and the Darfur region of Sudan.

It also cited the situation in the Palestinian territories, notably in Gaza where Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in which more than 1,000 Palestinian civilians were reportedly killed.

The introduction, however, stressed that the Operation was undertaken “in response to” rocket attacks from Gaza and made no mention of last September’s UNHRC-mandated Goldstone Report that found that both Israel and Hamas committed war crimes during the campaign or of the ongoing blockade by Israel against Gaza. Amnesty’s Kumar said he found the omission “disturbing”.

“It is more complicated… to deal with humanitarian questions in a place where …Hamas is largely in control,” said Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor Michael Posner Thursday. He argued that the Goldstone Report had paid “inadequate attention …to the nature of the conflict (as) …an urban conflict, an asymmetrical conflict…”

The second trend highlighted by the introduction included restrictions on freedom of association and expression – including the right to send and receive information via the internet and other media – that make it more difficult for NGOs to establish themselves and press their agendas.

In that respect, the introduction cited abuses in Belarus, China, Colombia, Cuba, Iran (especially after the Jun. 12 election), North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Uzbekistan.

On internet freedom, on which Clinton gave a major policy address in January, the introduction was particularly harsh on China and Iran.

It said Beijing had “increased its efforts to monitor Internet use, control content, restrict information, block access to foreign and domestic Web sites, encourage self-censorship, and punish those who violated regulations.”

After the disputed election in Iran, the government had reduced its bandwidth apparently to prevent activists from uploading videos of protests and subsequently blocked access to Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites during the Dec. 27 Ashura demonstrations.

Earlier this week, the administration announced exemptions to U.S. trade sanctions against Iran, Sudan, and Cuba to permit U.S. companies to export internet services and other communications software to the three countries.

A final trend stressed in the introduction cited discrimination and harassment of vulnerable groups; among them, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, the disabled, women and children, migrant workers, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals.

In that respect, China was cited for its crackdown against public interest lawyers, Tibetans, and Uighurs; Egypt for its restrictions on NGOs and attacks on Coptic Christians; Malaysia for its exploitation of foreign works; Saudi Arabia for discrimination against non-Sunni Muslims and women; and Uganda for its anti-LGBT legislation.

The introduction also expressed concern about the rise of “traditional and new forms of anti-Semitism,” particularly following the Gaza conflict; “discrimination against Muslims in Europe,” including November’s approval by Swiss voters of a constitutional amendment banning the construction of minarets; and violence against Roma in Italy and central Europe.

———————
*Jim Lobe’s blog on U.S. foreign policy can be read at http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/.

We found the report short of not mentioning the UN and other Intergovernmental organizations. such organizations could be helpful if they chose to be so – in the meantime most act according to the lowest common denominator of Member States.

We have posted several articles on yesterday’s UN attempt at staging a non- event.

It really starts with the announcement of a meeting at UN Headquarters in New York, 11:30 am to 1 pm, today, March 11, 2010, with the Permanent Mission of Mexico to the UN. THIS IS A CLOSED MEETING and the announcement in the Journal of the United Nations of yesterday, March 10, 2010, that says having that meeting there it does not imply any opinion or endorsement by the Secretariat of the UN.

The meeting is a Briefing on the sixteenth session of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC – or the COP 16 of December 2010, that the UN thinks should help it extricate itself from the situation left behind by the Copenhagen COP 15. Mexico is the host and it does not want to be the home of a disaster. So that is why the UN hauled in to New York also Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, and Professor Robert Dijkgraaf who as head of the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was asked to arrange for a review of the IPCC scientific procedures – a step very much in need now after the fact that the UN decided to cave in to the criticism from the deniers of the idea that there is soundness in the scientific evidence that CO2 emissions are not good for the health of the planet. At least they want to be able to say that damages have not been caused by humans – so why bother with this climate change effort at all?

OK – now step 2 the Journal announces for March 10, 2010, an official UN Press Conference with Mr. Rajendra Pachauri and Profesor Robbert Dijkgraaf. This announcement sounded to me quite insane. What would be the credibility of the reviewer if he lines up at what could have become in a free society at a hearing on the side of the head of the organization he is suppose to review? This really deserved two question marks. The Netherlands is an advanced State to the attention of the UN.

I was tipped off and decided to call in to  Ms. Isabelle Broyer, Chief of the Media Accreditation and Liaison Unit, as I wanted to get a pass to this Press Conference in order to be able to ask some good questions. As the readers of our website know, I do not hold a Press Pass to the UN since the changes in UN Administration that brought in Mr. Ban Ki-moon who replaced Mr. Sashi Tharoor with Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka as Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information -  a move that allowed Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, the Director of News and Media Division, to revoke our pass because we did not follow his ways of thinking when it comes to reliance on oil and the essence of sustainable development and problems of global warming/climate change. That was when the job Ms. Broyer holds now was in the hands of Mr. Gary Fowlie who was moved since to another job, and Mr. Fawzi is about to retire at the end of this month also. I thought that Ms. Broyer would show now the courage to correct an evil, but she was not up to this. This caused me to make sure I get the information I was after and I knew that I was on an interesting something when I got the e-mail from Geneva, which I posted, that clearly proved to me that folks from at least two outside agencies do not want to be seen as fall guys for the New York Headquarters.

OK – now step 3 – the Appointments of the Secretary-General for March 10, 2010 include a private meeting at 12:00 pm with Dr. Pachauri followed by a 12:30 pm joint “stake-out” for the benefit of the UN correspondents. A stake-out is a stand-up event where usually the correspondents are allowed to ask questions. In this case – please no questions – just be used as props – please. The event is described in full in the article by Matthew Russell Lee we posted.

As I was at the UN anyway – for a different event – I also learned that there was an adjustment to the Briefings to the Press schedule for the day. Seemingly Professor Dijkgraaf is no push-over to his large credit – he clearly pulled away from joint appearances with those he will be called to investigate, and did not appear at that stake-out, but as the UN is in terrible need to do something on this so called “climate-gate” was given separate Press meeting time at 1 pm.

OK – now step 4 – the output from the Press events of March 10, 2010 include the self-serving “Remarks to Media on IPCC” from the UN Secretary-General that had not the courtesy of allowing questions, and a not-easy-to-get two page document by the uninitiated – “PRESS CONFERENCE ON REVIEW OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE.” This was the document used by Jeffrey Ball in his evaluation for the Wall Street Journal that we also presented.

—————-

The material follows:   http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs//2…

Press Conference on Review of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – March 10, 2010

The aim of an independent review of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was to ensure the quality of its future reports, the co-chair of the scientific institute charged with that task said today.

“Our goal will be to assure nations around the world that they will receive sound scientific advice on which Governments and citizens alike can make informed decisions,” Robbert H. Dijkgraaf of the InterAcademy Council said at a Headquarters press conference.

Created by the world’s science academies in 2000, the Council aims to mobilize top scientists and engineers to provide evidence-based advice to international bodies.  IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri announced the review’s establishment amid growing attacks by sceptics following the disclosure that the Panel’s fourth assessment report, which confirmed human responsibility for global warming, contained errors in respect of the pace of the phenomenon.  Mr. Pachauri and United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had then asked the InterAcademy Council to lead the independent review.

“Our task is forward-looking,” Mr. Dijkgraaf stressed, explaining that the Council had been asked to form a group that could recommend improved practices and procedures so as to ensure the quality of reports in time to impact the Panel’s fifth assessment, already under way.  That meant that the review and recommendations were required by the end of August 2010, “a very tight schedule”, he said.  Specifically, the review would examine quality control and guidelines for the types of literature appropriate for use in assessments, with special attention to non-peer review literature.  It would also look at the Panel’s procedures for Government review of IPCC materials, its handling of the full range of scientific views and its procedures for correcting errors.

Reviewers had been asked to analyse the entire IPCC process, including management, administration, transparency and the way in which the Panel handled possible errors and communicated them to policymakers and the public, he said.  They would also look at how the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), World Meteorological Association (WMA), the overall United Nations system and other stakeholders related to the Panel, with a view to strengthening assessments and ensuring consistent application of IPCC procedures.  Finally, they would analyse the Panel’s communication strategies to ensure that the public was kept informed of its activities.

Emphasizing the independence of the review, which would be conducted in accordance with the InterAcademy Council’s own procedures, he said neither the IPCC, UNEP, WMA, nor any related bodies, would exercise control over or oversee the review process or the final report.  The international group of experts to be assembled by the Council would serve on an unpaid, voluntary basis in all cases where the group was asked to provide advice on a particular issue, he said, adding that the United Nations would provide funds for travel and other expenses.

All draft reports of the InterAcademy Council underwent an intensive peer-review process by international experts, he said, stressing that a final report was only released to the public when the Council’s Board was satisfied that the subsequent feedback had been thoughtfully considered and incorporated.  In addition, all efforts were made to ensure that reports were free of national or regional biases.

Responding to questions, Mr. Dijkgraaf declined to comment on Mr. Pachauri’s chairmanship of the IPCC or give his own views on climate change and the Panel’s current structure, only reiterating the forward-looking nature of the review to be conducted, and pointing out that continual review was part of all scientific procedures.

Asked how he hoped to find enough scientists for an independent review when the IPCC counted thousands of the world’s top climate scientists in its ranks, he said it would be a delicate task to find the necessary diversity of scientific disciplines and people with experience of large-scale organizations.  It was also important that all involved maintain objective distance from the Panel’s work.

In response to a question as to whether the opinions of climate change sceptics would be included, he said:  “By nature every scientist is a sceptic.”  As for alleged manipulation of data at East Anglia University and various consultancy agreements that had been the subject of controversy, he said certain case studies might be part of the investigations, but the reviewers would certainly look at management and organizational issues.

Questioned further, Mr. Dijkgraaf said the number of experts to be appointed had not yet been determined, though a substantial number was needed to provide diverse expertise.  Hopefully, there would have been progress in determining the Board’s composition by a 22 March meeting.

* *** *

Further, considering that Professor Dijkgraaf expects to have his panel ready by March 22nd, we would like to point out the added importance of the full day meeting at the Earth Institute of Columbia University on March 25th – we posted.

The meeting gets added interest as the UNSG is part of that meeting, and he will be there at the home of serious scientists that may not treat him as kindly as the UN Department of Public Information. We look thus forward to further disclosures specifically that there are scientists that think the IPCC under the Pachauri ledership erred rather on the low side and not on the high side. Others may even be less kind by saying something like that both men – the UNSG and the head of the IPCC – were choices of the G.W. Bush US Administration.