links about us archives search home
SustainabiliTankSustainabilitank menu graphic
SustainabiliTank

 
 
Follow us on Twitter

Brazil China IBSA
CanadaIsraelIndonesiaJapanKoreaMexicoRussiaTurkey
Other Europe  Africa  Asia & Australia  Latin America  Island States
 

Archives
Green Sources Jobs
Real World's News Promptbook
FuturismCharts DatabaseBook reviewsArt and Peformance ReviewsCartoonsFuture MeetingsEco Friendly Tourism
Recent articles:
Ethical Markets Media works to reform markets and grow the green economy worldwide, focusing on the best practices, the most ethical, best-governed, cleanest, greenest organizations so as to raise global standards. EthicalMarkets.com provides news and perspective on climate prosperity,  reforming global finance, LOHAS and more through reports, articles, newsletters and analysis by our editor-in-chief, Hazel Henderson.  Ethicalmarkets.tv streams original Ethical Markets productions and video gathered from around the world. fowpal-banner.gif

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 20th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


(CNN) — Is the world going nuts?
By Fareed Zakaria – Sat September 20, 2014

I get asked this question a lot these days, and for understandable reasons. Look at what’s been in the news in just the last few weeks. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’s execution videos, Scotland’s bid for secession, Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

There is an unraveling taking place in parts of the world. In the Middle East, the old order that stretched from Libya to Syria has collapsed. In Russia, the rise of oil prices has empowered and emboldened President Vladimir Putin — and he wants a makeover on the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin is testing the stability of the old international order built after World War II, and sees that it is weaker than most people might have guessed.

But why is all this happening? In the Middle East, people were tired of the old dictatorships. They weren’t prepared for what should follow them, but they wanted greater space and voice. The result has been chaos and violence, but perhaps that is the brutal, ugly phase that will force people there to find a way to make their peace with the modern world. After all, Europe went through its own religious wars, wars or nationalism, and world wars before it became the stable continent it is today.
Where do Scotland and UK go from here?

Intel community underestimates ISIS: Similarly, in Eurasia, the real driver of what has happened there is not the West or Russia, but the Ukrainian people. They decided that they didn’t want to be vassals of the Kremlin. They look with longing at Poland, which in 1989 had a similar-sized economy to theirs and is now twice the size, and is a member in good standing of the European Union.

Of course there are Ukrainians who feel differently — that’s what’s causing the turmoil — but most, overwhelmingly, want to chart a future with the West. Whether they can remains an open question, given Putin’s firm resolve to sabotage their plans. But again, this is a sign of people searching for greater connections with the civilized world.

And look at the rest of the world. India and Indonesia have elected leaders who are friendly towards markets, the West, and America — resolutely democratic and yet strong nationalists. Mexico and Colombia have reformers at the helm. In Africa, there are many governments from Ethiopia to Rwanda, where you see real progress in health and living conditions. There are many pieces of bad news coming out of that continent — from Ebola to Boko Haram — but there is also good news, growing economies, a surging middle class.

And look at the world’s two largest economies. The United States remains economically vibrant, with a dynamic society, new technologies that dominate the world, and new sources of energy that will power it for a few generations. China, for all the noise, remains committed to economic development first, is embarking on anti-corruption and reform drives and has even begun to tackle pollution and climate change as an issue.

I’m not saying that all is well in the world — I’m really suggesting that we are in the midst of great global change. Much of this change is driven by good news — people’s desires for greater freedom and autonomy, new information technologies, etc. But all change is disruptive, and without the institutions of freedom and the civic culture of liberty, this period of transition can be dangerous. The forces of integration will not automatically triumph over the forces of disintegration. But there are many good forces out here that are also sweeping through the world these days.

And, of course, Scotland did not end up seceding. Score one for integration.

=============================

URI AVNERY LOOKS AT SCOTLAND AND THE ARAB WORLD.

Uri Avnery

September 20, 2014

Scotland on the Euphrates

TWO COUNTRIES competed this week for first place in news programs all over the world: Scotland and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

There could not be a greater difference than between these two countries. Scotland is damp and cold, Iraq is hot and dry. Scotland is called after its whisky (or the other way round), while for ISIS fighters, drinking alcohol is the mark of unbelievers, who should lose their head (literally).

However, there is one common denominator of both crises: they mark the approaching demise of the nation-state.

MODERN NATIONALISM, like any great idea in history, was born out of a new set of circumstances: economic, military, spiritual and others, which made older forms obsolete.

By the end of the 17th century, existing states could no longer cope with new demands. Small states were doomed. The economy demanded a safe domestic market large enough for the development of modern industries. New mass armies needed a base strong enough to provide soldiers and pay for modern arms. New ideologies created new identities.

Britanny and Corsica could not exist as independent entities. They had to give up much of their separate identity and join the large and powerful French state to survive. The United Kingdom, the union of the British isles under a Scottish king, became a world power. Others followed, each at its own pace. Zionism was a late effort to imitate this.

The process reached its peak at the end of World War I, when empires like the Ottoman Caliphate and Austria-Hungary broke up. Kemal Atatürk, who exchanged the Islamic caliphate for a Turkish national state, was perhaps the last great ideologue of the national idea.

But by that time, this idea was already growing old. The realities which had created it were changing rapidly. If I am not mistaken, it was Gustave Le Bon, the French psychologist, who asserted a hundred years ago that every new idea is already obsolete by the time it is adopted by the masses.

The process works like this: somebody conceives the idea. It takes a generation for it to become accepted by the intellectuals. It takes another generation for the intellectuals to teach the masses. By the time it attains power, the circumstances that gave it birth have already changed, and a new idea is required.

Reality changes much more quickly than the human mind.

Take the idea of the European nation-state. When it reached its final victory, after the Great War, the world had already changed. European armies, which had mown each other down with machine guns, were facing tanks and warplanes. The economy became world-wide. Air travel abolished distances. Modern communication created a “world village”.

In 1926 an Austrian nobleman, Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, convened a pan-European congress. While Adolf Hitler, a hopelessly old-fashioned thinker, tried to impose the German nation-state on the continent, a small group of idealists propagated the idea of a European Union, which spread after another dreadful World War.

This idea, now still in its infancy, is generally accepted, but it is already obsolete. The multinational economy, the social media, the fight against deadly diseases, the civil wars and genocides, the environmental dangers threatening the entire planet – all these make world governance imperative and urgent – yet this is an idea whose realization is still very, very far away.

THE OBSOLENCE of the nation-state has given birth to a paradoxical by-product: the breakup of the state into smaller and smaller units.

While the world trend towards larger and larger political and economic units gathers strength, nation-states fall apart. All over the world, small peoples are demanding independence.

This is not quite as ridiculous as it looks. The nation-state came into being because realities needed societies of at least a certain size and strength. But by now, all the major functions of the states are moving towards much larger regional unions. So why does Corsica need France? Why do the Basques need Spain? Why does Quebec need Canada? Why not live in a smaller state with people like you, who speak your natural language?

Czechoslovakia has broken up, peacefully. So has Yugoslavia, not so peacefully. So have Cyprus, Serbia, Sudan – and the Soviet Union, of course.

(Let me remark in passing that this also concerns the idea of the so-called One-State solution for our little problem in Israel/Palestine. During the last three generations, the world has not seen a single instance of two different peoples coming together voluntarily in one state.)

The Scottish referendum is one of the opening scenes of this new epoch. The proponents of independence promised that Scotland could join the European Union and NATO, perhaps adopt the Euro. So why, they ask, should Scotland remain in the British straightjacket? After all, Britannia does not rule the waves anymore!

The failure of the vote for Scottish independence does not change the course of events. It just slows it down.

NATIONALISM WAS a European idea.

It never struck deep roots in the arid fields of the Arab world. Even in the heyday of Arab nationalism, it was never quite clear whether a Damascene, for example, considered himself first a Syrian or a Muslim, whether a Beiruti considered himself first a Maronite-Christian or a Lebanese, or whether a Cairene was first an Egyptian, an Arab or a Muslim.

During the Algerian struggle for independence, an angry French right-wing politician once complained to me: “Before we conquered North Africa, Algeria was never united! We created the Algerian nation!” He was quite right, though he drew the wrong conclusions. Many times I heard exactly the same from dedicated Zionists about the Palestinian nation.

The modern Arab nations were invented by European colonialists. Lately, it has become a fashion to mention Mark Sykes and Georges Picot, two mediocre bureaucrats, one British, one French, who drew up a secret agreement for the division of the Ottoman Empire. They and their successors created the states of Syria, Iraq, (Trans)Jordan, Palestine etc.

These “nation-states” were quite artificial. The European planners had generally very little understanding for local circumstances, traditions, identities and culture. Neither did they care very much. Iraq, with its different components, was created to accommodate British interests. The strange eastern borders of Jordan were shaped for a British oil pipeline from Mosul to Haifa. Lebanon, created as a home for the Christians, was shaped to include Muslim Sunnite and Shiite areas, just to make it larger. Al-Sham was stripped of Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon and became Syria. Later it also lost Alexandretta to Turkey.

ALL THESE imperialist manipulations ran counter to Muslim history and tradition.

Every Muslim child learns in school about the vast Muslim empires, stretching from the north of Spain to theborders of Burma, from the gates of Vienna to the South of Yemen, and then has to look at the map of mini-countries like Jordan and Lebanon. It’s humiliating.

First there were efforts to unify the Arabs under the umbrella of nationalism. The Ba’ath party strove (in theory, at least) to create one, single pan-Arab state, and the creed was taken up by the hero of the masses, the Egyptian Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, a secular military dictator. A pan-Arab state could also have created some equality between rich oil-states like Saudi Arabia and poor countries like Egypt.

Nasserism created a new ideology. Pan-Arab nationalism was “kaumi”. Local patriotism was “wotani”. The community of all Muslims was the “umma”.

(The same word, umma, means the opposite in Hebrew: a modern nation. Israelis are as mixed up as their neighbors. We have to choose our priority. Are we primarily Jews, Hebrews or Israelis? What exactly does “the Nation-State of the Jewish People”, as propagated by Binyamin Netanyahu, mean?)

THE HUGE attraction of the movement now called “Islamic State” is that it proposes a simple idea: do away with all these crazy borders drawn up by Western imperialists for their own purposes and re-create the classic pan-Muslim state: the Caliphate.

This seems like the opposite of the breakup of European states, but it means the same: the total rejection of the nation-state.

As such, it belongs both to the past and to the future.

It glorifies the past. Muhammad and his immediate successors (caliph means successor) are idealized as immaculate persons, the embodiment of all virtues, the possessors of divine wisdom.

This is very far from historical truth. All three immediate successors of the prophet were assassinated. Because of quarrels about the succession, Islam split into Sunnis and Shiites and remains so to this very day (now more than ever). But myth is stronger than truth.

However, while clinging to the past, the Islamic State movement (former ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham) is very modern. With one swipe it clears the table of the nation-state and its derivatives. It carries a clear, simple idea, easily understood by Muslims everywhere. It seems to be vastly convincing.

THE WESTERN response is almost comically inadequate.

People like Barack Obama and John Kerry, and their equivalents all over Europe, are quite unable to understand what it is all about. With the traditional European contempt for the “natives”, they see nothing but head-cutting terrorists. They really seem to believe that they can vanquish a revolutionary new idea by forming a coalition with Arab dictators and corrupt politicians, bombing the rebels and finishing the job by employing local mercenaries.

That is a ludicrous misreading of the new reality. By now, IS, with just a handful of fanatical and cruel militants, has conquered huge territories.

WHAT IS the answer?

Frankly, I don’t know. But the first step for Westerners, as well as for Israelis, is to discard their arrogance and try to understand the new phenomenon they are facing.

They are not facing “terrorists” – the magic word that seems to solve all problems without the need to strain the brain. They are facing a new phenomenon.

History is in the making.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 20th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


STORY HIGHLIGHTS:

Sally Kohn: The U.S. was quick to accept that ISIS could pose a potential threat.

She says this weekend’s climate march in New York highlights a known threat.

Studies show the U.S. is already feeling the harmful effects of higher temperatures, she says.

Kohn: Democrats and Republicans differ on their degree of concern.

(CNN) — There is an imminent threat facing the people, economy and territory of the United States of America.

A report by the Center for Naval Analyses Military Advisory Board calls it a threat to national security and a broader “catalyst for conflict,” domestically and worldwide.

The admiral in charge of U.S. forces in the Pacific says it poses the biggest long-term security threat to the region. A comprehensive study, with 16 terabytes of data, documents how this threat will affect every single county in the United States — costing coastal cities billions and decimating crops all across the Midwest.


Notably, the Department of Defense’s 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review, published in March 2014, doesn’t even mention ISIS. But it frequently mentions this other looming threat — climate change.

Sally Kohn

——————————–

As thousands of people are expected to join the People’s Climate March this Sunday, September 21, in New York City — calling on world leaders and businesses to take serous and urgent steps to reduce global warming — the threat that climate change poses to the United States is both direct and undeniable.

The rise in mega-storms like Superstorm Sandy is already hurting coastal towns and our economy, while the rise in temperatures is causing droughts in the Great Plains and Southwest. Scientists have shown these effects will only increase.
Rubin & Paulson on climate change report


Meanwhile, though American intelligence agencies continue to emphasize that they have not detected any imminent threat nor specific planning by ISIS to attack US soil, we are nonetheless marshaling our full political will and military muscle to “denigrate and destroy” this enemy.

Why aren’t we attacking climate change?

Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush, famously tried to distinguish between “known knowns” and “known unknowns.” Well, the threat of climate change is a “known known” but we have hesitated to attack climate change with all the robust power and focus of our nation while we have quite quickly and decisively mobilized against ISIS, the actual threat of which is clearly a “known unknown” at best.

Why? Why are mobilizing our national will, treasure and muscle to so emphatically fight ISIS while generally wringing our hands about climate change? It appears the answer is simple: Republicans. As far as Democrats are concerned, while 65% see ISIS as a major threat to the United States, 68% believe climate change is also a “major threat.”

This is in stark contrast to Republicans, 78% of whom see ISIS as a threat but only 25% of whom feel the same way about climate change. The 43-point difference between Democratic and Republican views on climate change is the widest division between attitudes over any of the threats asked about in that poll, as the National Journal pointed out.

Republican political operatives and special interests have succeeded in making climate change taboo for their own base, instead breeding a skepticism that disregards basic facts and science.

In 2006, 59% of Republicans said they “see solid evidence of global warming.” That was at a time when Sen. John McCain, who would go on to be the Republican nominee for president, was a leading champion for “cap and trade” legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions. But by 2009, only 35% of Republicans believed in solid evidence of global warming. Even though half of Republicans said in a poll last year that that climate change is a reality, the implications of that skepticism remain.

Most importantly, the belief that human activity is the main cause of global warming has increased among Democrats (from 57% in 2006 to 66% in 2013) but decreased among Republicans (from 31% in 2006 to 24% in 2013).

And if you don’t think human activity caused a problem, you likely don’t think human activity or policy or much anything else can solve it. Fully 7 out of 10 Tea Party supporters believe there is “no solid evidence” that the earth is warming. As we’ve seen across issues, this fringe but vocal minority has a disproportionate pull on politics.

Although President Obama is using his executive powers to take steps to address the threat of climate change, it’s no wonder we now have even Democratic candidates hedging their stances on the environment.

Perhaps the political reticence speaks to the fact that while ISIS offers a clear and distant enemy to demonize, in the case of climate change the problem is largely us and our lifestyle — or at the very least, the problem is our oil companies and other corporations no politician is eager to blame, especially not Republicans. Or maybe the objection stems from a sense that fixing climate change is just too expensive, even though that’s not true.

In fact a recent study found that addressing climate change will actually lead to economic growth, therefore in a practical sense not cost a dime. And either way, many Republicans didn’t balk at the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which could top $6 trillion not including what we’re now spending to fight ISIS.

So maybe it’s just a matter of political alignment. If we could bomb our way out of climate change, and thus use it as a rationale for bloating the already-bloated military budget, Republican voters and political leaders might then lead the call to action.

Let’s hope the hesitance certainly isn’t that we have to wait for the climate crisis to wreak even greater havoc all around us before we act.

Unlike ISIS, where the possibility of a future threat was enough to justify action, we absolutely know that climate change will strike America — and that, unaddressed, the severity of that threat will only grow. It’s a crisis we absolutely can solve –but first we have to acknowledge there is a crisis and act accordingly.

Read CNN Opinion’s new Flipboard magazine.

================

Our addition – based on the section on WWII of the new documentary series on the Roosevelt family – is that the slow entree of the US to WWII was caused by the reluctance of Republicans in Congress to see that the US is part of the World at large and that it is US business to dismember the Nazi and Japanese war machines that constitute a direct danger also to the US. This beyond economic interests that were obvious. A war industry provides jobs to the unemployed and that would have helped racial integration and higher income for the poor – something that was anathema to the white Republicans who were the only beneficiaries from the slow process of coming out of the Great Depression. Our point is thus that today’s Republicans are not very different from those of the start of the 1940s.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 20th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Environment – The Guardian / By Fiona Harvey

Lord Stern Report: Transform Global Economy to Fight Climate Change: One of the most influential voices on global warming releases a plan to fight climate change while growing the global economy.

September 16, 2014 |

The world can still act in time to stave off the worst effects of climate change, and enjoy the fruits of continued economic growth as long as the global economy can be transformed within the next 15 years, a group of the world’s leading economists and political leaders will argue on Tuesday.

Tackling climate change can be a boon to prosperity, rather than a brake, according to the study involving a roll-call of the globe’s biggest institutions, including the UN, the OECD group of rich countries, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and co-authored by Lord Stern, one of the world’s most influential voices on climate economics.

The report comes ahead of a UN-convened summit of world leaders on global warming next week at which David Cameron has pledged to lead calls for strong action.

“Reducing emissions is not only compatible with economic growth and development – if done well it can actually generate better growth than the old high-carbon model,” said Stern.

It is his most significant intervention in climate politics since the landmark 2006 Stern review of the economics of climate change, which made the case that tackling climate change as a matter of urgency will be cheaper than attempting to deal with the effects of the problem decades in the future. That report marked a revolution in thinking on global warming, and was a major factor in the agreements forged in Copenhagen in 2009 by which developed and major developing countries for the first time set out joint measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The economic transformation proposed in the new report will improve the lives of billions, the authors argue, from people suffering from air pollution in crowded cities to farmers struggling with poor soils in developing countries, the authors found. But achieving this change will require strong political action to set limits on carbon dioxide emissions, while promoting alternatives such as renewable energy, sustainable cities, teaching modern farming techniques and better-designed transport.

The world is expected to add billions of people to the global population in the next two decades, and trillions of dollars in economic growth – but if the massive expected growth of developing world cities is poorly managed, and global investment is poured into existing high-carbon infrastructure, then a unique opportunity to change the pattern of prosperity will have been lost, and billions of people will be left the poorer as a result, the report warns.

Stern gave the example of cities, which if designed on public transport can have more efficient economies – because people aren’t spending hours commuting and polluting, with its attendant effects on health – as well as better quality of life and lower carbon emissions.

The energy and climate change secretary, Ed Davey, told the Guardian that the UK has already seen benefits from focusing on clean development, and was committed to helping developing countries do the same. He said: “It has required UK business and international investors to recognize the costs of failure and the benefits of change and it has been sustained by a strong, vocal and committed network of NGOs, pressure groups and activists who have been instrumental in sustaining political will and public acceptance.”

At next week’s climate summit, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, will convene heads of state and government from around the world to discuss climate change for the first time since the 2009 Copenhagen conference, which produced the first commitments from major developing countries such as China and India to curb emissions, and marked the first time the US agreed to binding emissions targets, but was widely derided for the scenes of chaos that accompanied it.

Convening world leaders again is a risky strategy, but is seen by the UN as essential to lay the ground for a crunch meeting in Paris next year, at which world governments will attempt to forge a new agreement that will cut global greenhouse gas emissions after 2020, when current pledges run out. The EU has vowed to cut emissions by 40% by 2030, compared with 1990 levels, but is the only major developed country bloc to have laid out clear plans.

Today’s report, the New Climate Economy, from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, says that although technological “fixes” to climate change – such as renewable energy, low-carbon fuels, better urban design and better use of agricultural land – are growing fast, they are currently nowhere near enough to produce the transformation needed. As new power stations, cities and transport networks are built today, they are still being engineered on a high-carbon basis – coal-fired power plants, roads rather than public transport, slums without facilities rather than planned developments – and once these are built they lock in high carbon emissions for decades to come. Breaking that cycle requires a coordinated effort, from rich and poor countries, that prioritizes sustainability and penalizes high-carbon growth, for instance through a price on carbon.

Such efforts will come at a price, but this is far outweighed by the benefits in economic growth and improvements in health, the report suggests. For instance, reducing the world’s dependence on coal and other dirty fuels will cut air pollution and remove a key source of strain on healthcare systems.


The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, launched a year ago by the UK along with six other countries, has involved the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD, the International Energy Agency and the UN, as well as several research institutes, and former world premiers. It has been chaired by the Mexican president, Felipe Calderón, and advised by leading economists including Lord Stern and Nobel prize winners Daniel Kahneman and Michael Spence.

Ottmar Edenhofer, chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and an adviser to the report, said: “Economic growth and emissions reductions can be achieved together, the report clearly confirms …

Pricing CO2 is key. The heaven above us today is a waste dump for gases that harm our climate system. Wealthy states are disposing of them, free of charge, at the expense of all of us. If emitting CO2 came at a reasonable price, this would stabilize investors’ expectations so they can push forward the innovation of climate friendly technologies.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 20th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


The New York Climate Week: Where to discuss, rally and protest climate change in the Big Apple.

4 Big Activist Events for New York’s Climate Week

Cliff Weathers, AlterNet

Where to discuss, rally and protest climate change in the Big Apple. READ MORE»

—————-

The Climate March: Will It Be a Call to Arms For the Earth, Or Are More Radical Actions Needed?

By Bill McKibben and Chris Hedges, Democracy Now!, Truthdig

Two opposing viewpoints from the event’s organizer and an activist journalist. READ MORE»

—————-

We’re Wrecking the Planet for the Next Millennia: Biggest Rally Over Climate Change in Human History Coming Up

Eddie Bautista, La Tonya Crisp-Sauray and Bill McKibben, Tom Dispatch

We march because we know that climate change affects everyone, but its impacts are not equally felt. READ MORE»

—————

Paul Krugman Has Some Truly Shocking News About Climate Change

By Janet Allon, AlterNet

Hint: It’s good. But will deniers and despairers listen? READ MORE»

————–

Lord Stern Report: Transform Global Economy to Fight Climate Change

By Fiona Harvey, The Guardian

One of the most influential voices on global warming releases a plan to fight climate change while growing the global economy. READ MORE»

————–

People’s Climate March: How We’re Sharpening the Environmental Justice Movement

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, Popular Resistance

It will take a mass ‘movement of movements’ to counter the power of money and corruption that prevents the change we need in regard to climate. READ MORE»

————-

What to Do When You’re Running Out of Time

By Rebecca Solnit, TomDispatch

When it comes to climate change, there’s still a window open for action — but it’s closing. READ MORE»

————-

Texas Proposes Rewriting School Books to Deny Manmade Climate Change

By Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian

In the proposed 6th grade texts, students were introduced to global warming amid false claims that there was scientific disagreement about its causes. READ MORE»

————–

How We Can Rescue a World That’s Going Up in Flames

By Rebecca Solnit, Tom Dispatch

Personal changes aren’t enough; only great movements and collective action can save us now. READ MORE»

—————-

Naomi Klein on the Great Clash Between Capitalism and the Climate

Don Hazen, Jan Frel, AlterNet

Klein discusses her new book, “This Changes Everything.” READ MORE»

————–

Do You Really Want to Save the Earth? After the Climate March, Flood Wall Street!

By Richard (RJ) Eskow, Huffington Post

Monday’s rally in NY’s financial district will target the role of global capitalism, the root cause of our environmental crisis. READ MORE»

—————–

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 18th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

World’s leading institutional investors managing $24 trillion call for carbon pricing.

Blackrock, CalPERS, PensionDanmark, Deutsche AWM, South African GEPF, Australian CFSGAM, Cathay Financial Holdings
among 340 investors urging heads of state to take strong action on climate change

NEW YORK CITY, 18 September 2014 – Days before UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon convenes the Climate Summit at the United Nations to spur climate action and facilitate a global climate agreement in 2015, more than 340 global institutional investors representing over $24 trillion in assets have called on government leaders to provide stable, reliable and economically meaningful carbon pricing that helps redirect investment commensurate with the scale of the climate change challenge, as well as develop plans to phase out subsidies for fossil fuels.

“Gaps, weaknesses and delays in climate change and clean energy policies will increase the risks to our investments as a result of the physical impacts of climate change, and will increase the likelihood that more radical policy measures will be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said the statement – the largest of its kind by global investors on climate change. “Stronger political leadership and more ambitious policies are needed in order for us to scale up our investments.”

According to the International Energy Agency, the world must invest at least an additional $1 trillion per year – a Clean Trillion – into clean energy by 2050 if we have any hope of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius and avoiding the worst impacts of climate change on our environment, health and the global economy. Yet global investment in clean energy was just $254 billion in 2013.

The statement recognizes the role investors play in financing clean energy, outlines the specific steps they are committing to take, and calls on policymakers to take action that supports, rather than limits, investments in clean energy and climate solutions. It was coordinated by the four investor groups on climate change – Ceres’ Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) in the United States, the European Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC), the Investors Group on Climate Change (IGCC) in Australia and New Zealand, and the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change (AIGCC) – with the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) and Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI).

“The perception prevails that we need to choose between economic well-being or climate stability. The truth is that we need both. What is needed is an unprecedented re-channelling of investment from today´s economy into the low-carbon economy of tomorrow. Investors are owners of large segments of the global economy as well as custodians of citizens’ savings around the world. Having such a critical mass of them demand a transition to the low-carbon and green economy is exactly the signal Governments need in order to move to ambitious action quickly,” said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme.

“It is significant that the largest institutional investors from around the world are in agreement that unmitigated climate change puts their investments at risk,” said Mindy Lubber, director of INCR and president of the U.S.-based nonprofit sustainability advocacy group, Ceres. “The financial community has a message for heads of state gathering at the United Nations next week: we can’t afford to wait any longer for a climate deal.”

Stephanie Pfeifer, Chief Executive of IIGCC said: “The international investor community has today made it clear that the status quo on climate policy is not acceptable. Investors are taking action on climate change, from direct investment in renewables to company engagement and reducing exposure to carbon risk. But to invest in low carbon energy at the scale we need requires stronger policies. At the UN climate summit next week, policymakers can ensure pockets of climate leadership turn into mainstream actions.”

“Asia presents perhaps the greatest challenges and most significant opportunities in the efforts to transition towards a green economy,” said Alexandra Tracy, Chairman of the Association for Sustainable and Responsible Investment in Asia and Senior Advisor to AIGCC. “Policymakers need to balance difficult trade-offs between a development agenda and environmental concerns, but we see promising moves from governments in the region, such as the measures in China’s most recent Five Year Plan.”

Alongside the statement, the investor groups have published a report detailing examples of action being taken by investors that support a low carbon, climate resilient economy. While ambitious policy is required in order for low carbon investments to be brought to scale, these examples demonstrate that investors are already acting on climate change in a variety of ways. These activities include direct low carbon investments, the creation of low carbon funds, company engagement, and reducing exposure to fossil fuel and carbon intensive companies.

“Stronger carbon and climate frameworks are needed to catalyze institutional investment,” said Fiona Reynolds, managing director of PRI. “The time is now for national governments to overcome the political obstacles that prevent global carbon pricing and hinder long term capital flows into climate mitigation and adaption.”

Examples in the report from both developed and developing countries include:

· Danish pension fund PKA looking to increase its new and existing offshore wind farm investments to €1.5 billion by the end of 2015.
· U.S. insurer and pension fund provider TIAA-CREFF reduces the carbon footprint of its real estate portfolio by 17 percent, cutting 58,000 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions.
·Swedish pension fund AP4 is committed to decarbonizing its entire $20 billion listed equities portfolio.
·China Utility-Based Energy Efficiency Finance Program provides loans worth $790 million, financing 226 projects and reducing emissions by 19 million metric tons of carbon.
·ASN Bank in the Netherlands to become fully carbon-neutral by 2030.
·Zurich Insurance Group to invest up to $2 billion in green bonds, one of many commitments this year that has resulted in 20-fold growth in green bond market since 2012.
·HSBC Armenia partners with IFC to finance nine small-medium size enterprise energy efficiency projects in Armenia, totaling approximately $25 million and reducing carbon emissions by more than 6,600 tons per year.
·Global bank ING has in 7 years reduced its energy project loan allocation to coal power from 63 to 13% and increased its allocation to renewable energies from 5 to 39 percent.

In addition, the investor groups have launched a public online database of select low carbon investments made by asset owners such as pension funds and insurance companies. The Low Carbon Investment Registry identifies how institutional investors are directing capital towards low carbon assets. Asset owners around the world will be encouraged to add examples to the Registry leading up to the climate negotiations in Paris.

“The Low Carbon Investment Registry shows how investors are already supporting the transition to a low carbon economy by investing in a variety of different ways – directly into renewable energy projects, into clean energy funds, through green bonds and through the establishment of public-private-partnerships,” said Nathan Fabian, Chief Executive of IGCC. “It gives policymakers a better understanding of how private capital is currently flowing into low carbon investments.”

Several signatories to the Global Investor Statement on Climate Change are expected to announce significant new individual commitments related to climate risk and low carbon investment at the UN Summit on Climate Change on September 23. For more information, contact  pickering at ceres.org and  NWilliams at IIGCC.org.

Visit www.ceres.org to download a recording of today’s press briefing on the statement, featuring Donald MacDonald, BT Pension Scheme trustee director and Chairman of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (Europe); Frank Pegan, CEO Catholic Super and Chair, Investor Group on Climate Change (Australia); David Pitt-Watson, Chair, UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI); Strategic Advisor, Inflection Point Capital; Assaad Razzouk, Group Chief Executive of Sindicatum Sustainable Resources, Singapore; Asia Investor Group on Climate Change; Anne Stausboll, CEO, California Public Employees’ Retirement System and member of Ceres’ Investor Network on Climate Risk (North America); and Faith Ward, Chief Responsible Investment and Risk Officer, Environment Agency Pension Fund.
###
===========================================================

About the Asia Investor Group on Climate Change
The Asia Investor Group on Climate Change (AIGCC) is an initiative set up by the Association for Sustainable and Responsible Investment in Asia (ASrIA) to create awareness among Asia’s asset owners and financial institutions about the risks and opportunities associated with climate change and low carbon investing. AIGCC provides capacity for investors to share best practice and to collaborate on investment activity, credit analysis, risk management, engagement and policy. With a strong international profile and significant network, including pension, sovereign wealth funds insurance companies and fund managers, AIGCC represents the Asian voice in the evolving global discussions on climate change and the transition to a greener economy. aigcc.asria.org/.

About Ceres’ Investor Network on Climate Risk (United States)
The Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR) is a North America-focused network of institutional investors dedicated to addressing the financial risks and investment opportunities posed by climate change and other sustainability challenges. INCR currently has more than 110 members representing over $13 trillion in assets. INCR is a project of Ceres, a nonprofit advocate for sustainability leadership that mobilizes investors, companies and public interest groups to accelerate and expand the adoption of sustainable business practices and solutions to build a healthy global economy. Visit www.ceres.org.

About Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (Europe)
The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for investors. IIGCC’s network includes over 90 members, with some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, representing €7.5trillion in assets. IIGCC’s mission is to provide investors a common voice to encourage public policies, investment practices and corporate behaviour which address long-term risks and opportunities associated with climate change. Visit www.iigcc.org.

About Investors Group on Climate Change –(Australia/New Zealand)
IGCC is a collaboration of 65 Australian and New Zealand institutional investors and advisors, managing approximately $1 trillion and focusing on the impact that climate change has on the financial value of investments. The IGCC aims to encourage government policies and investment practices that address the risks and opportunities of climate change, for the ultimate benefit of superannuants and unit holders. Visitwww.igcc.org.au.

About PRI
The United Nations-supported Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI) Initiative is an international network of investors working together to put the six Principles for Responsible Investment into practice. Its goal is to understand the implications of Environmental, Social and Governance issues (ESG) for investors and support signatories to incorporate these issues into their investment decision making and ownership practices. In implementing the Principles, signatories contribute to the development of a more sustainable global financial system. Visit www.unpri.org.

About UNEP FI
UNEP FI is a global partnership between UNEP and the financial sector. Over 230 institutions, including banks, insurers and fund managers, work with UNEP to understand the impacts of environmental and social considerations on financial performance. Through its Climate Change Advisory Group (CCAG), UNEP FI aims to understand the roles, potentials and needs of the finance sector in addressing climate change, and to advance the integration of climate change factors – both risks and opportunities – into financial decision-making. Visitwww.unepfi.org. For more information, contact: UNEP News Desk,Tel; +254 (20)762 5022; Email;  unepnewsdesk at unep.org

***********************************
Jim Sniffen
Programme Officer
UN Environment Programme
New York
tel: +1-212-963-8094
sniffenj at un.org at gmail.com
  Permalink | | Email This Article Email This Article
Posted in Archives, Real World's News, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 18th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)


September 17, 2014
High Court Rules Haredi Schools Don’t Have To Teach Math, Science, Other Secular Subjects.


High Court of Justice ruled today that Haredi schools can continue to be exempt from teaching Israel core curriculum – meaning basic secular subjects like math, Hebrew and science will not be taught by Haredi schools – or will be given short shrift by them.


High Court Rules Haredi Schools Don’t Have To Teach Math, Science, Other Secular Subjects
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com


In a 7-2 ruling, the court upheld an education law passed in 2008 exempting haredi schools from teaching the core curriculum mandated for all other schools in the country, claiming that changing the education requirements that apply to haredi schools would be a paternalistic blow to the rights of others, Ha’aretz reported.


“This is an unusual petition, in which a third party is asking to require the state to act paternalistically toward another. Even though it could be that a demand from the state to act paternalistically toward a third party could be accepted in extreme instances, it is clear that this matter is not one of them. Another unique characteristic of this petition is that, truth be told, this petition is seeking to advance a broad public interest at the price of infringing on the (possibly constitutional) rights of others,” Supreme Court President Asher Grunis wrote for the majority.

The court also ruled that that the petitioners had not proved that haredi educational standards infringed on children’s right to an education.

The petition demanding haredi schools teach basic secular subjects was filed in 2010 by a group of ex-haredim and by teachers.

The petitioners reportedly included Amnon Rubinstein and Uriel Reichman, both legal scholars and former politicians; and Major General (Ret.) Elazar Stern, a Member of Knesset from the centrist Hatnuah Party who once headed the army’s personnel directorate.

Haredi students graduate their yeshivas so ill-prepared that even if they opt to join the IDF or try to find employment, they must undergo months (and sometimes years) of remedial education just to get them to the educational level of an average secular high school graduate.


The court’s ruling likely guarantees that another generation of haredi children will have to lead much or all of their adult lives relying heavily on government welfare programs and charity.


IN OUR OPINION – THIS RULING AGAINST ISRAEL, BY ITS SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE, CONSTITUTES A HIGHER BLOW TO THE COUNTRY THEN WHAT THE OUTSIDE TERRORISTS HAVE ACHIEVED – in effect this is nothing less then the perpetuation of the hold of the ultra-orthodox parties on the fast multiplying country’s poor who are being forced into servitude to the Rabbis that guarantee them meager hand-outs in exchange for keeping them unemployable except for general oversubscribed religious tasks.
This undermines the future of the State of Israel. How did this get the votes of 7 out of the 9 members of the Court?

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 18th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

THE FOLLOWING WAS POSTED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES BLOG CITY ROOM – NEW YORK TODAY

Climate March Countdown
- By Annie Correal – September 18, 2014.


The People’s Climate March is happening on Sunday in Manhattan.

We checked in with Lisa Foderaro, The Times’s reporter who covered the preparations for the march.

The climax will be a moment of cacophony at 1 p.m., when about 20 marching bands and church bells across the city will “sound the alarm” on climate change.

Horns, whistles, cellphone alarms and other disruptive noisemakers are encouraged, too.

The occasion is the United Nations Climate Summit next week.

The march is part demonstration, part parade. For months, people have prepared floats and huge props.

“The Rockaways group has this big 30-foot life preserver that is orange and silver that they’ll carry over their heads,” Ms. Foderaro said.

“Scientists have a chalkboard with calculations about carbon levels. Religious leaders have this ark that they will ride in. A Filipino group has a giant mop to symbolize having to clean up after the typhoon.”

The march, which as of this week had confirmed 496 buses coming from as far away as Kansas, will coincide with similar events in 158 countries.

Though the buses will be using gas, the floats will either be powered by biodiesel or pulled by hand, Ms. Foderaro noted.

Some things to know if you’re going:

• Central Park West north of Columbus Circle to 86th Street will be closed to traffic before the march.

• People can gather from 65th Street to 86th Street. These are the access points.

• The march starts at 11:30 a.m. at Columbus Circle and ends at 11th Avenue and 34th Street, where participants can join a party until 5 p.m. This is the route.

• At 12:58 p.m., there will be a moment of silence followed by several moments of loud noise.

• A list of things you should and should not bring.

• Share your experience of the march with us over Twitter using #nytoday and #peoplesclimate.

Here’s what else you need to know.

WEATHER

Nothing but blue skies. Sunny again with a high of 75.

COMING UP TODAY

• Climate March events: Al Gore speaks at an Interfaith Leaders Climate March Breakfast at Union Theological Seminary in Morningside Heights. 9 a.m. [Livestream] …

• … Anti-fracking advocates call for a statewide ban outside the Plaza, during a fund-raiser for Governor Cuomo. Noon. …

• … Naomi Klein talks about her new book, “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate,” at the New School. 6 p.m. [Livestream] …

• … And a panel on jobs and climate change at S.E.I.U. Local 1999 headquarters in Midtown. 6 p.m.

• Mayor de Blasio makes an announcement at the Bronx Zoo. 1:15 p.m.

• Officials preview a taxidermy mount of “Lonesome George,” the last known Pinta Island tortoise (he died in 2012), at the American Museum of Natural History. 3 p.m.

• “Photoville,” a sprawling exhibition in Brooklyn Bridge Park, opens with a D.J.-accompanied slide show capturing 30 years in Brooklyn. 7:30 p.m.

IN THE NEWS

• The gap between the rich and the poor in Manhattan is greater than anywhere else in the country, according to Census data. [New York Times]

• About 100,000 people who identify as Garifuna live in the Bronx. [NY1]

• Scoreboard: Yankees pin Rays down, 3-2. Marlins outswim Mets, 4-3.

AND FINALLY …

Once, fires in the city had to be detected by watchmen, who stood in towers, scanning the horizon for smoke.

One historic tower still stands today: a 47-foot, cast-iron tower, designed by Julius B. Kroehl, atop an outcropping in what is now Marcus Garvey Park in Harlem.

The watchtower, built in 1857, was decommissioned when alarms came along in 1878, and its fortunes have dwindled ever since. Now, it is about to be dismantled, The Times reports. It’s not clear when, or even if, it will be restored.

There was a time, though, when the tower guarded the entire upper end of Manhattan.

It served another purpose, too.

“At one period it governed time in all of Harlem and the surrounding villages. All watches and clocks within sound of the bell were regulated by it,” The Times noted in 1896.

Firefighters rang the bell at 8 a.m., noon and 9 p.m.

“It was proposed several years ago to tear the tower down on account of its shaky condition, but the residents raised such an opposition that it was left standing.”

New York Today is a weekday roundup that stays live from 6 a.m. till late morning. You can receive it via email.

What would you like to see here to start your day? Post a comment, email us at  nytoday at nytimes.com, or reach us via Twitter using #NYToday.

Follow the New York Today columnists, Annie Correal and Andy Newman, on Twitter.

You can always find the latest New York Today at nytoday.com.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 18th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

We learned that the timing of the March – Sunday, September 21, 2014, has more to do with the release last night (September 16th, 2014) at the Ethical Culture Society New York Headquarters at Central Park West and 64th Street, then with the forthcoming September 23rd UN event on Climate Change.

The movie is -”THE FUTURE OF ENERGY: Lateral Power to The People” – which is in effect a logic – non-UN inspired – sequel to  Franny Armstrong’s “THE AGE OF STUPID” that was released in 2009 prior to the Copenhagen COP 15 of the UNFCCC (The UN Convention on Climate Change). That movie belonged still to the time people believed in multilateralism as a way to answer the growing threat to humanity from our super-dependence on fossil-carbon fuels. Today the “People” are sophisticated enough to realize that governments via multilateralism do not stand a chance to an agreement that gives birth to a solution to the on-going changes in the global environment that lead to global warming and climate change. The PEOPLE in their own actions – in their communities – are our only hope. This is now the wave of the future – not the UN.

The UN was good to make it crystal clear that there is a problem that needs a solution – but the UN is impotent when it comes to provide the solution. This belongs now to the PEOPLE – the ethical guardians of their own future and the future of the generations to come.

This was made clear to me as I asked the panel that followed the inaugural viewing of the movie “What they expect of the upcoming event at the UN?” The answer from the Producer/Writer – Mr. Maximilian DeArmon – was very short and clear. What will save us are the People in their LOCALITIES and the fact that the non-fossil-carbon solutions to energy needs are already economical and their introduction will make them cheaper, while the continuing use of fossil-fuels makes those trouble-causing fuels more expensive. The logic is here and the People recognize what that means to politics, the economy, and their daily lives.

——————————————————————————–
The March – 11:30 am, Sunday, September 21st
Assembly Location: Central Park West, between 65th and 86thstreets.
NOTE – Some streets will be closed.  Enter on 65th, 72nd, 77th, 81st, or 86th street.

March Route:  The march will begin at 11:30 am.  Assembly starts from 9:00 a.m.
March down Central Park West and go east on 59th Street.  Turn onto 6th Ave. and go south to 42nd Street. Turn right onto 42nd Street and go west to 11th Ave.  Turn left on 11th Ave. and go south to 34th Street
End Location: 11th Ave. in the streets between 34th Street and 38thStreet.

350NYC at the People’s Climate March! Meet us on Central Park West between 71st and 72nd by 10am on Sunday Sept 21st.  We’ll be marching in the green “Solutions” section of the march. T
To receive updates.

 www.BeyondTheMarch.org

 www.PeoplesClimate.org

——————————————————————————————

At the UN highlights were during the years of Secretary-General Kofi Annan and we want to mention two of his innovations:

(a) he chaperoned the introduction to the UN of the Principle of THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (R2P) which, as he understood it – was the responsibility of governments to protect their citizens from the wrath of the government itself. Clearly, this was not the obviously understood – the responsibility of a government to protect their citizens from outside attacks.
Let us say that this was the first innovation of the UN Charter since the Declaration of Human Rights championed by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. We like to view R2P also as a call to governments regarding their responsibility to protect the citizens from the effects of Climate Change and to act in order to avoid this subservience to fossil fuels and corporate greed.

(b) he was responsible for the creation of the United Nations Global Compact.

The United Nations Global Compact is a UN initiative to encourage businesses worldwide to adopt sustainable and socially responsible policies, and to report on their implementation. The UN Global Compact is a principle-based framework for businesses, stating ten principles in the areas of human rights, labour, the environment and anti-corruption. Under the Global Compact, companies are brought together with UN agencies, labour groups and civil society. Cities or localities can join the Global Compact through the Cities Programme.

The UN Global Compact is the world’s largest corporate citizenship initiative with two objectives: “Mainstream the ten principles in business activities around the world” and “Catalyse actions in support of broader UN goals, such as the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).” We like to see here an opening regarding the effects of Climate Change and the need that corporations are bound to help avoid Global Warming and Climate Change.

The UN Global Compact was announced by then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in an address to the World Economic Forum on January 31, 1999, and was officially launched at UN Headquarters in New York on July 26, 2000.

Under UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon Climate Change continued to get a lot of attention, but we did not see yet the needed push to hold governments and corporations responsible for acting along the lines that became available under his predecessor’s leadership. It seems that telling Dr. Assad that he is not allowed to gas his citizens is much easier then telling China not to poison Beijing’s air by building more coal-fired power plants.

 

Nevertheless – we found that above might change now.
Please see: www.unglobalcompact.org/Issues/B…

Since 2008, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has convened the UN Private Sector Forum during the opening session of the General Assembly in order to bring the voice of the private sector to inter-governmental debates on key topics.

This year, the UN Private Sector Forum will be an integral part of the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Summit. The Climate Summit will serve as a public platform for leaders at the highest level – all Member States, business, finance, civil society and local leaders – to:

  • Catalyze ambitious action on the ground to reduce emissions and strengthen climate resilience
  • Mobilize political will for an ambitious global legal agreement by 2015 that limits the world to a less than 2-degree Celsius rise in global temperature.

Convened by the UN Global Compact in close cooperation with the World Bank Group, and with the support of UN partners, the Private Sector Forum will provide a unique platform for Governments and business to demonstrate their leadership on climate change.

The theme of this year’s luncheon segment of the Forum will be carbon pricing, focusing on actions that the public and private sectors can take to achieve an equitable and fair valuation of carbon through long-term strategies, investments and policies.

Objectives

Comprising two programme segments to showcase and catalyse leadership on climate change, the Private Sector Forum seeks to:

  • Provide a platform for business and investors to demonstrate the contribution that they can make towards reducing global emissions and strengthening resilience; and
  • Inspire new public policy measures, commitments to action, and public-private partnerships to steer global and local climate action

Put a Price on Carbon:

Carbon pricing is a critical tool to address climate change, and momentum is building to put in place carbon pricing schemes. Nearly 40 countries and more than 20 cities, states and provinces use carbon pricing mechanisms such as emissions trading systems and carbon taxes or are preparing to implement them. The private sector has been increasingly outspoken in its support for consistent carbon pricing.

Many companies already operate in countries with carbon pricing and use an internal carbon price in their planning and investments, however more leadership is needed if we are to limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius.

Two separate initiatives representing a progression of commitments to support carbon pricing will be presented during the Private Sector Forum on 23 September 2014. To learn more, please read this letter from the UN Global Compact and the World Bank Group.

But the working part of the September 23rd meetings are slim. They amount to:

11:40 Welcoming Remarks -Mr. Georg Kell,
Executive Director, United Nations Global Compact
-
11:50 Introduction to the Roundtable Discussion by the Master of Ceremonies Ms. Christiana Figueres,
Executive Secretary, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
11:50 – 12:20 Roundtable Discussion
Participants will be seated at tables of ten and will discuss the following question:
What effective measures can private and public sectors take to significantly advance corporate
action on climate change and help limit global temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Celsius?

12:20 – 12:50 Report back and Announcements: Commitments to Action
The Master of Ceremonies calls on leaders from business and civil society to report back on the roundtable
discussions and to announce a commitment to action

Mr. Feike Sijbesma, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, Royal DSM
Mr. Ajit Gulabchand, Chairman and Managing Director, Hindustan Construction Company, India
Mr. Kerry Adler, President and Chief Executive Officer, SkyPower, Canada
Mr. Jose Lopez, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Nestle, Switzerland
Mr. Morten Albaek, Group Senior Vice President and Chief Marketing Officer, Vestas, Denmark
Mr.  Jerry Lynch, Vice President and Chief Sustainability Officer, General Mills, USA
Mr. Peter Bakker, Chief Executive Officer, The World Business Council for Sustainable Development
12:50 – 12:55 Closing Remarks – Mr. Adolfo Heeren, Chief Executive Officer, Cálidda, Peru
12:55 – 13:00
Wrap up by the Master of Ceremonies Participants move to their seats in the Delegates Dining Room

===================================================

The Age of Stupid is a 2009 British film by Franny Armstrong, director of McLibel and Drowned Out, and founder of 10:10, and first-time producer Lizzie Gillett. The Executive Producer is John Battsek, producer of One Day in September.

The film is a drama-documentary-animation hybrid which stars Pete Postlethwaite as a man living alone in the devastated world of 2055, watching archive footage from the mid-to-late 2000s and asking “Why didn’t we stop climate change when we had the chance?”

———————————————————————————————————-
 www.thefutureofenergy.org/

            Impact HUB NYC screening w/ Filmmakers

future of energy card

=================================================

 

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 17th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

On Golan, After Ladsous’ Peacekeepers’ Surrender,  UNSG Ban Ki-moon Tells ICP For Safety.

By Matthew Russell Lee reporting for Inner City Press and FUNCA.

UNITED NATIONS, September 16 — With UN Peacekeepers in the Golan Heights having first surrendered to the Al Nusra Front, then left weapons, vehicles and uniforms for them, Inner City Press on September 16 asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

Inner City Press: Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. On behalf of the Free UN Coalition for Access, thanks for taking questions and I hope in the next two weeks we have as much access as possible.

I want to ask about the Golan Heights.  There is a lot of controversy about what has taken place there, with apparently an order to surrender and Al-Nusra is now running around with UN trucks and vehicles.  And it was said at the stakeout this morning that the equipment was given over and basically that the mission is no longer completing what its mission is, which is to monitor both sides of the ceasefire line.

So I wonder what are you going to do in terms of getting to the bottom of if a surrender was ordered, who ordered the surrender and what can you say to the troop contributing countries who say that this is kind of a disarray and people need to know what the role of peacekeepers is, stand and fight or surrender and run?

SG Ban: For that issue I understand that Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous, Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations, has explained to you in detail what had happened.  And, as you know, the security situation was very, very urgent and dangerous at that time.  Therefore, you should also appreciate the peacekeepers were and still are working on the very difficult and dangerous situation.  That is why, as was briefed by the spokesperson yesterday, we had to relocate this UNDOF [United Nations Disengagement Observer Force] peacekeepers to a safer and more secure place.  This is a part of and continuing efforts to make sure that our peacekeepers and UN staff’s security and safety are ensured.

  While the change to put the question to Ban was appreciated, things are arranged for DPKO chief Herve Ladsous to avoid the tough questions, just as he has announced he will not respond to questions of media whose questions he doesn’t like. Video here and here and here.

 

  While respecting safety of peacekeepers, how does this relate to the Office for Internal Oversight Services’ critique of Ladsous’ DPKO has not protecting civilians? If they cannot protect themselves, how can they protect civilians?

 

  Inner City Press on September 2 asked Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman Stephane Dujarric:

Inner City Press: the Philippines military has complained that the military force commander of UNDOF asked or ordered the Filipino peacekeepers to lay down their weapons in some sort of in relation to the Fijians and they refused to do so and has asked, as they say, for an investigation of the commander.

Could you explain under what circumstances the UN central peacekeeping or force commander would ask peacekeepers to lay down their weapons in the face of a hostile group and why?

Spokesman Dujarric: Again, as the situation is ongoing and the situation in the Filipinos and Fijians are obviously linked, I’m not getting into the detail of it. What I will say is that we will respond to any formal request made by Member State. Its normal procedure of review of action being taken and after review action be taken by mission once the situation has concluded. So, I think we have to get through this is extremely volatile situation. The safety of all our peacekeepers here is foremost on our mind. It’s at risk. We have seen the kind of area they are operating on and I think we need to let this — we need to let all of this conclude and then we can address it more formally.

Inner City Press: for troop-contributing countries, are you aware of any other case in which peacekeeping has asked peacekeepers to essentially surrender and are they supposed to obey those orders? Usually they complain the other way and they are ordered to fight and they won’t fight. Are you aware of any other case when they are ordered to surrender?

Spokesman Dujarric: And I think every situation is different, and as I said what is foremost on our mind is the safety of our soldiers.

Back on September 3, Inner City Press asked about the black-flagged UN vehicles, and about public and widely reported comments by Ireland’s minister of defense that no more Irish troops will be send to the UNDOF mission until it is reviewed.

  Dujarric said no formal communication has been received from the Irish government.

  Earlier on September 3 the first, set-aside UNCA soft ball question, unpressed, was about Filipino Colonel Ezra James Enriquez. Ladsous said he has “tendered his resignation” but that “is a matter for them.” For whom? It was then reported that Ezra James Enriquez has “left his post.”

There is more to be said.  Watch www.InnerCityPress.com  – the informed investigative reporting from the UN.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 8th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

From:  Vanessa, People’s Climate March    -    peoplesclimate.org

   PLEASE SEE - ” title=”http://peoplesclimate.org/march/” target=”_blank”>Click here to find a bus near you: peoplesclimate.org/transportation.

More buses are being confirmed every day, so there may even be more than one nearby.

If the bus fills up and/or you’d like to step up and organize your own bus, click here to volunteer to be a bus captain.

It’s pretty simple, and there’s even some funding available –  the awesome bus team  will support you every step of the way.

If you need more info on transportation (and housing) options for the People’s Climate March, click here.

We have a real chance to make a difference on the issue of our time – make sure you have a ticket to New York to be part of it.

Click here to find a bus near you: peoplesclimate.org/transportation.

We can’t wait to march with you,
Vanessa T & the bus team

P.S. If you already have a ticket (or after you buy yours now), join our Thunderclap promoting the march. It only takes a second — you can sign up with your Twitter, Facebook, or Tumblr to join a huge simultaneous social media post on September 15th and make sure everyone knows that this is too big to sit out.

====================================================

Sierra Club - Explore, enjoy and protect the planet


Dear Pincas –
Climate change is personal. March with us.

RSVP now!

RSVP now for the People’s Climate March!

Trapped and hungry, in the middle of New York City. Climate change is here.

That is what I thought when I drove into Brooklyn, after Hurricane Sandy. My name is Carl Giles. I am a groundskeeper for the New York City Housing Authority and was dispatched after the storm to clear debris and set up generators and pumps at some of our hard-hit public housing.

I and other members of my union, Teamsters Local 237, were out even before the storm, to keep city residents safe and to prepare for the damage that Sandy would bring. The images from those days will be with me forever. People without power, begging for just an opportunity to charge their cell phones and let family members know that they are ok. Families in public housing without heat as cold weather bore down on the Northeast. Signs of the storm surge left behind; water marks three stories high on apartment buildings and four feet of sand covering the street.

Pincas, we’ve seen what climate change can do. That is why I and my Teamster brothers and sisters will be marching in the People’s Climate March on September 21st. Will you join the fight and march alongside us?

Working people are on the front lines of climate change. We live in the most vulnerable neighborhoods. We lead the recovery after extreme weather. And work in the industries that have to change to reduce emissions and clean our atmosphere.

For many Teamsters, Hurricane Sandy was a traumatic experience. I heard about one member working in an underground garage who drowned during the storm. Another Teamster lost two children. Too many lost homes and livelihoods.

At the same time, we were called on to put our city back together. Many Teamsters cleared roads and delivered supplies by day, while repairing their own homes at night.

We are marching because we want to tell our story and tell the world that workers are part of the solution to climate change. Teamsters in the private waste hauling industry are working to reduce pollution from their garbage trucks. Meanwhile, Teamsters in food distribution are working to build a more climate-resilient food system for our city.

We are all part of the solution. March with us on September 21st. RSVP now.

Thanks,

Carl Giles
Member, Teamsters Local 237

P.S. If this march is going to be big enough to get the world’s attention, we need everyone. After you RSVP, forward this message to five of your friends and family and share it on Facebook and Twitter to get the word out.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 2nd, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

from: Nanette Woonton  sprep.org 

   
 

Talofa,

 

The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) has several key events during the UNSIDS we would like to invite you to attend:

Tuesday 2 September, 5.30 – 7.00

The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) will open their Pacific-sub office at the SPREP Headquarters in Vailima. 

The Honourable Prime Minister Tuilaepa Fatialofa Dr. Sailele Malielegaoi, Prime Minister of Samoa, Achim Steiner the Executive Director of UNEP and Mr. David Sheppard Director-General of SPREP will present at today’s historical event.  Transport to the SPREP Headquarters will be available from Gate 6 at the UNSIDS Conference Venue an hour before the event.

 

Wednesday 3 September

11.00 – 12.30

The Cook Islands will be launching the Vital Harbours DVD developed under the Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change Project at the SIDS Venue – CR1.  The Honourable Prime Minister Henry Puna of the Cook Islands will launch the dvd.

5.00 – 6.30pm

Launch of the SIDS Sustainable Energy Partnership will take place at the SIDS Venue – CM4, an event coordinated by SPREP

7.00 – 8.30

Official launch of the Framework for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas in the Pacific Islands region 2014 – 2020: A partnership platgorm followed by the signing of partnership agreements at the SPREP Headquarters.  The key address will be presented by Braulio Ferreira de Souza Dias, Executive Secretary of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.  Transport to the SPREP Headquarters will be available from Gate 6 at the UNSIDS Conference Venue an hour before the event.

Kia manuia.

Nanette Woonton | Media and Public Relations Officer
Attachée de relations publiques
Phone | +685 21929 Ext 305Fax  | +685 20231 |
Website |
www.sprep.orgEmail  | nanettew@sprep.org |
The Pacific environment – sustaining our livelihoods and natural heritage in harmony with our cultures

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 2nd, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

THE WASHINGTON POST AS PER AN EARTH INSTITUTE/ GALLUP POLL STUDY.

A fascinating map of the world’s happiest and least happy. countries

By Caitlin Dewey September 10, 2013

The results of Columbia University’s World Happiness Report, mapped. Click to enlarge. (Max Fisher/The Washington Post)

Denmark, Norway, Switzerland and the Netherlands are the happiest countries in the world, according to the U.N.-sponsored “World Happiness Report” released Monday by Columbia University’s Earth Institute. The report infers happiness using a number of social and economic metrics, measured using data from 2010 to 2012.

The very least happy countries, all in sub-Saharan Africa, are Togo, Benin, Central African Republic, Burundi and Rwanda. Syria also falls within the bottom 10. The United States ranks 17th of the 156 ranked countries, behind Mexico (16) and Panama (15).

The happiness metrics are highest in the Western, developed world: North America, Western Europe and Australia. But, as you can see in the above map, it’s also quite high in much of Latin America and on the Arabian Peninsula. It tends to be lower in poorer countries, with some interesting outliers and sub-trends.

The science of assigning a concrete number to something as abstract as happiness is, unsurprisingly, neither straightforward nor uncontroversial. This report used three measures of happiness, each evaluated by Gallup polls: life satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 10, positive emotional state the prior day (Did you smile a lot yesterday? Did you experience enjoyment?) and negative emotional state the prior day (Did you experience anger or sadness?). The researchers aimed for a sample size of 3,000 people in each country over three years of Gallup polls — which, as they point out, risks skewing the data as events change within those countries over those years.

Here are regional trends in happiness metrics over time:


(World Happiness Report 2013)

The statistics do, however, seem to mirror some wider medium- and long-term social trends, such as the global recession and the ongoing political instability in parts of the Middle East and Central Africa. Between the 2005-07 period and the 2010-12 period, happiness fell most in the Middle East than in any other part of the world. Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal also did not fare well: On average, people there rated their lives about two-thirds of a point lower than they would before the financial crisis.

Happiness also correlates to things like life expectancy and GDP per capita, though perhaps not quite how you’d expect. While longer lives and more money do correlate to national happiness, they’re not nearly as important as social support, which researchers define as “having someone to count on in times of trouble.” The report also found that perceptions of corruption and generosity (the latter measured by donations to charity in the past month) are better indicators than GDP per capita.

That could help explain, in part, why Scandinavian countries consistently rank at the top: Their wide-ranging social welfare policies, per Denmark’s Ministry of Social Affairs and Integration, tend to be much stronger than in richer Western countries and are based on the principle that all citizens have a safety net “in case they encounter social problems such as unemployment, sickness or dependency.”

But while there’s obvious value in understanding aggregate happiness — it contributes, after all, to things like health and economic productivity — it’s unclear how well reports like this one really capture that. Countless factors can influence an individual’s perception of her happiness: the order of survey questions, a bad day at work, the weather. As The Post’s Peter Whoriskey reported in 2012, researchers have debated a host of alternative survey methods, from diary-keeping to digital devices, just to overcome the tendency of people to answer these questions differently based on the time of day.

There’s also an entire discourse on the philosophy of happiness, which economist Deirdre McCloskey examined at enormous length in her article skewering happiness economics last year. At one point, she points to the case of a theoretical man “tormented by starvation and civil war” in South Sudan who rated himself as three, “very happy,” on a happiness scale of one to three. But if he won an immigration lottery and left South Sudan, McCloskey argues, he’d undoubtedly become happier. It’s all relative, a matter of perception and experience.

Other economists might point out that McCloskey’s example ties subjective happiness to public policy, which is exactly the type of link they’re trying to make. That’s the big so-what of these rankings and other reports like it: One day, with more and better data, policymakers could embrace happiness, rather than GPD per capita, as an end-goal metric. In fact, former British Cabinet secretary Gus O’Donnell argues that that t transition has already begun.

“This is only the second World Happiness Report,” he writes, “but already the importance of well-being as the goal of policy is spreading.”

Caitlin Dewey runs The Intersect blog, writing about digital and Internet culture. Before joining the Post, she was an associate online editor at Kiplinger’s Personal Finance.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 1st, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

LOOKING AT THE  FREEDOM HOUSE MAP OF PRESS FREEDOM 2014 – THE ONLY UN MEMBER STATES RATED AS ALLOWING FOR FREE PRESS ARE – JAPAN, TAIWAN, and ISRAEL   JUST THREE STATES.

RATED AS PARTIALLY FREE ARE – MONGOLIA, SOUTH KOREA, INDIA, BHUTAN, BANGLADESH, LEBANON, KUWAIT, HONG KONG (the PART OF CHINA that is governed with the help of an agreement with the UK), THE PHILIPPINES, INDONESIA, and EAST TIMOR. Any other country is just – “NOT FREE.”

Judging from the above mentioned map,  it is clear that FREEDOM OF THE PRESS is not the “Forte” of Asia, Africa, or Latin America – so why does misbehavior of South Korea excite us?  The answer is to be found in the fact that this is the home country of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who seemingly has allowed the UN as a whole to fall behind when it comes to allowing for  truly Free Access to a Free Press in its dealing with the media. That, rather then South Korea per se, is the true content of the following complaint in Matthew Lee’s reporting from the UN.

—————————————————————————————————————————

As S. Korea Cracks Down on Questioning of Park, Ban’s UN Notably Silent.

By Matthew Russell Lee – Reporting from inside the UN for Inner City Press.

UNITED NATIONS, August 31 — A recent and ongoing press freedom case in South Korea has echoed all the way to the UN in New York. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was a long-time South Korean diplomat before taking up his UN post. But he has been notably quiet about press freedom generally, and now strikingly, with regard to South Korea.

  The government in Seoul has summoned Sankei Shimbun’s Tatsuya Kato on possible charges of defaming President Park Geun-hye, and has blocked him from leaving South Korea in the interim.

  At issue is an article that Tatsuya Kato wrote and Sankei Shimbun published, citing the South Korean publication Chosun Ilbo, that during the sinking of the Sewol ferry in April, President Park was not seen for seven hours and may have been trysting with a recently divorced former aide.

  While understandably causing anger, such a report should not trigger travel bans or criminal charges.

  It is particularly troubling that while Tatsuya Kato of Japan’s Sankei has been targeted, the South Korean publication Chosun Ilbo from which he quoted is not being targeted. This disparate treatment of journalists, based on nationality or other factors, should not be tolerated.

 

{SO THE ISSUE IS NOT ONLY FREEDOM OF THE PRESS – BUT MISUSE OF CENSORSHIP FOR FOREIGN POLICY REASONS AND THE QUESTION HOW THIS IS TRANSFERRED TO THE UN PROPER?  THIS AS ADDED COMMENT BY SUSTAINABILITANK.INFO}

  As a comparison, when Afghanistan recently imposed a similar travel ban on a New York Times reporter, not only the US State Department but also many others spoke out.

  But when at the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman was twice — three times, actually — asked about South Korea’s treatment of Sankei Shimbun’s Tatsuya Kato, only platitudes emerged.

Continuing the trend on August 31, Ban Ki-moon’s comment on the coup in Lesotho did not mention that the military took over the television and radio stations there.

  The day’s New York Times recounted how South Korean artist Hong Sung-dam had his painting depicting Park Geun-hye and his view of her role in the sinking of the Sewol ferry censored by authorities in Gwangju.

  Some including the new Free UN Coalition for Access, an anti-censorship alliance established at the UN during and counter to Ban Ki-moon’s time in control, have noted a trend toward ignoring some attacks on the media. How far back does it go? What will happen in South Korea, and at the UN?

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 31st, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

Fijians negotiating with Islamist captors of 44 {or 45?} peacekeepers.

Head of Fiji’s army says exact location of kidnapped troops cannot be confirmed.

By Times of Israel staff and AP  – August 31, 2014, 3:12 pm
For what the UN releases on this – please look www.InnerCity.Press.com – whose reporter at the UN Headquarters in New York – Matthew Russel Lee – is following closely this topic.
The Freedom House Map of “Press Freed0m 2014″ has Fiji and The Philippines among the “Partly Free States” – thus reflecting on the source of the UN Mercenary hired personnel that is the human fodder to Peace Keeping Missions that do not get full UN backing when finding themselves in difficult situations.
Members of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) using binoculars to watch the Syrian side of the Golan Heights near the Quneitra border crossing, on August 31, 2014. (photo credit: AFP Photo/Jalaa Marey)

Members of United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) using binoculars to watch the Syrian side of the Golan Heights near the Quneitra border crossing, on August 31, 2014. (photo credit: AFP Photo/Jalaa Marey)

The Fijian military said Sunday that it was pursuing negotiations with the Syrian Islamic rebel group which kidnapped 44 UNDOF peacekeepers in the Syrian Golan Heights Thursday, but still had not received word on where the soldiers were being held.

Fiji has been told that the men were unharmed and were being treated well, but “we still at this stage cannot confirm the exact location of our troops. We are continuing negotiations at all levels,” said Brig. Gen. Mosese Tikoitoga, head of the Fijian army, according to a Reuters report.

 

“However, we are still very concerned that we cannot confirm at this stage their exact location, whether they are still in Syria or whether they have been moved to neighboring countries,” the general added.

Tikoitoga’s comments came after 40 Filipino peacekeepers made a daring escape after being surrounded and under fire for seven hours by Syrian rebels in the Golan Heights on Sunday, leaving the 44 Fijian troops in the hands of al-Qaeda-linked insurgents.

The peacekeepers became trapped after Syrian rebels entered the UN-patrolled buffer zone between Syria and Israel this past week, seizing the Fijian soldiers and demanding that their Filipino colleagues surrender. The Filipinos, occupying two UN encampments, refused and clashed with the rebels on Saturday. The first group of 35 peacekeepers was then successfully escorted out of a UN encampment in Breiqa by Irish and Filipino forces in armored vehicles.

As night fell and a ceasefire took hold, a further 40 Filipinos fled with their weapons, traveling across the chilly hills for nearly two hours before meeting up with other UN forces, who escorted them to safety inside Israel early Sunday, Philippine officials said.

The clashes erupted after Syrian rebel groups — including al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate, the Nusra Front — overran the Quneitra crossing on the frontier between Syrian- and Israeli-controlled parts of the Golan on Wednesday and seized the 44 Fijians.

The SITE Intelligence Group reported that the Nusra Front posted a statement on its Twitter account Saturday taking responsibility for detaining the Fijian peacekeepers. The Nusra Front stated that the Fijian detainees “are in a safe place, and they are in good health, and that we have given them what they need of food and treatment.”

The Nusra Front also posted a photo showing what it said were the captured Fijians in their military uniforms along with 45 identification cards, SITE said.

SITE added that the Nusra Front claimed the Fijians were seized in retaliation for the UN’s ignoring “the daily shedding of the Muslims’ blood in Syria” and even colluding with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s army “to facilitate its movement to strike the vulnerable Muslims” through a buffer zone in the Golan Heights. The SITE report could not be independently confirmed.

The UN mission has 1,223 troops from six countries: Fiji, India, Ireland, Nepal, Netherlands and the Philippines. A number of countries had previously withdrawn their peacekeepers due to the escalating violence.

Philippine officials said Filipino forces would remain in Golan until their mission ends in October despite the rebel attacks and the capture of the Fijian peacekeepers.

Both UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council strongly condemned Saturday’s attack on the peacekeepers’ positions and the ongoing detention of the Fijian peacekeepers.

The Nusra Front has recently seized hostages to exchange for prisoners detained in Syria and Lebanon.

Read more: Fijians negotiating with Islamist captors of 44 peacekeepers | The Times of Israel www.timesofisrael.com/fijians-negotiating-with-islamist-captors-of-44-peacekeepers/#ixzz3BzEeLB38

————————————————————————————————————————————-

As of July 31, 2014 UNDOF has 1,223 peacekeepers from six countroies – Fiji, India, Irelamd, Nepal, Netherlands and the Philippines.

The mission was established in 1974 with the purpose to monitor the disengagement accord between Syria and Israel after the 1973 war (the Yom Kippur War). In effect they monitor the line between the no-man’s zone and the Syrian State. But let us not forget that the Syrian Government these days rules only over part of Syria and rebels of Al-Qaeda persuasion – organized in the Al-Nusra front and the ISIL – Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant – are what the UN peacekeepers are facing now – this rather then a Syrian State military. Does the original mandate hold under these conditions? Seemingly Austria had some doubts and pulled out their troops at last mandate-renewal.

Actually – the mandate is up to renewal every 6 months and the current mandate ends on December 31, 2014.  Would this not be a good opportunity to allow the current forces to go home? Ireland, Netherlands and Austria were not there for the money, and those that are in for the money better learn that this is a tough spot, and it is rather without real purpose – only potential harm.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 30th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

Please forget the old question of what is a Non-Government Organization and when it is the front for a particular autocratic government as now we have the final list of 38 participants that are tasked with telling the angle of the “WE THE PEOPLE” – that are those that feel the brunt of Climate Change – while our governments – we elected or self-styled – might be more interested in superficial monetary gains then in our true suffering.

These 38 participants have now been given the chance to speak to the 100 Heads of State that answered the call of the UN Secretary General to participate at this ONE-DAY SUMMIT he has called.

Please also note that the remaining 94 Heads of UN Member States State will not be present in person on that day.

 

……????
……??
……Español
……Français
……???????
……Dansk

 

At the request of the UN Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team, UN-NGLS issued an open call for nominations of civil society speakers and attendees for the 2014 UN Climate Summit, with a deadline of 15 August. UN-NGLS received 544 nominations, which can be viewed here (multiple submissions for the same person were consolidated into one entry). Between 16-25 August, UN-NGLS facilitated a civil society Selection and Drafting Committee to review all nominees. A list of the members of the Committee is available here.

The Committee short-listed 76 candidates for consideration by the Secretary-General’s Climate Change Support Team (CCST). From this list of 76 candidates, the CCST has now selected the following 4 speakers and 34 attendees for the Climate Summit:

 

Speaker for the Opening Ceremony:
Kathy Jetnil-Kijiner – College of the Marshall Islands and Jo-Jikum – Marshall Islands .
.
3 Panellists for the “Voices from the Frontlines of Climate Change” Thematic Debate (organized by UN Women, UNICEF, and UNFPA):

Alina Saba – Mugal Indigenous Women’s Upliftment Institute / Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development – Nepal

Christina Ora – Pacific Youth Council – Solomon Islands

Sylvia Atugonza Kapello – Riamiriam Civil Soceity Network Karamoja – Uganda .
.
34 Attendees (in alphabetical order by first name):

Agnes Kinaka – Carterets Catholic Parish/Leitana Nehan Women’s Development Agency (LNWDA)/Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development – Papua New Guinea

Alexandra Vanessa D. Pierre – PLURIELLES – Haiti

Arthur Mychal Johnson – South Bronx Unite – USA

Assia Korichi – Friends of the Environment Association “Ahbab EL Biaa” – Algeria

Bianca Hakena Carwinn – Leitana Nehan Women’s Development Agency/ Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development – Papua New Guinea

Carlos Bernabe Chex Mux – Asociación Ak’ Tenamit – Guatemala

Caroline Usikpedo – Niger Delta Women’s movement for Peace and Development (NDWPD) – Nigeria

Catherine de Medici Jaffee - 350.org – USA

Daniel Temesgen Gelan – Pastoralist forum Ethiopia – Ethiopia

Diana Eurydyka Maci?ga – Pracownia na rzecz Wszystkich Istot (Association Workshop for All Beings) – Poland

Emad Adly – Arab Network for Environment and Development (RAED) – Egypt

Erika Pires Ramos – RESAMA – South American Network for Environmental Migrations – Brazil

Fadoua Brour – Arab Youth Climate Movement & Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network – Morocco

Farah Kabir – ActionAid Bangladesh – Bangladesh

Gladys Lorena Terrazas Arnez – Network Peace Integration and Development – Bolivia

Jatani Sora Liban – Gayo Pastoral Development Initiative (GPDI) – Ethiopia

Kandi Lea Marie Mossett – Indigenous Environmental Network – USA / Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara tribal nation

Kanyinke Sena – Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee (IPACC) – Kenya

Kathryn Kay Leuch – Philippine Movement for Climate Justice Phillippines

Linda Onyenya Wamune – SolarAid – Kenya

Margaret Hiza – Indian Nations Conservation Alliance – USA / Crow Tribe

Maria Theresa Nera-Lauron – IBON International – Phillippines

Melissa Ann Daniels – Native Women’s Association of Canada – Canada / Athebasca Chipewa

Mohamed Adow Iman – Christian Aid – Kenya

Osver Jaime Polo Carrasco – Iniciativa Construyendo Puentes – Peru

Relinda Melania Sosa Perez – National Confederation of Women Organized for Life and Integrated Development (CONAMOVIDI) / GROOTS Peru – Peru

Saleemul Huq – International Institute for Environment and Development – Bangladesh

Sandra Leticia Guzman Luna – Grupo de Financiamiento Climático para América Latina y el Caribe (GFLAC) – Mexico

Sara Suwan – Heinrich Boell Foundation Palestine and Jordan – Palestine

Sharad Joshi – Centre for Community Economics and Development Consultants Society (CECOEDECON); Public Advocacy Initiatives for Rights and Values in India (PAIRVI) – India

Sheng Ying – Shanghai Tongji Urban Planning & Design Institute – China

Tshiwe Shiri – Zimbabwe chapter of the Rural Women’s Assembly (RWA) – Zimbabwe

Ursula Regina Rakova Tulele Peisa – Papua New Guinea

Xinxin Bi – China Association for NGO Cooperation – China

————————————

Related articles

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 30th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

Middle East

Can the Middle East Redraw Itself?

 

11

 

Amre Moussa, the former Arab League head from Egypt, is calling for a Middle Eastern equivalent of the 1814 Congress of Vienna, in which Europe’s great powers established a new order to prevent wars between empires following the defeat of Napoleon. Admittedly, Moussa quickly backtracked to say the plan couldn’t initially include Iran, Turkey or Israel, making it really just another Arab League meeting. Still, I think he’s onto something.

For years, the people of the Middle East have complained that the U.S. and Europe treat it as a kind of colonial playground, while the West has moaned the region must take more responsibility to regulate and provide security for itself. This week, reports of United Arab Emirates airstrikes in Libya, launched from airstrips in Egypt, suggest that is beginning to happen — but in precisely the wrong way. The airstrikes pit the more secular client of one Persian Gulf state, UAE, against Islamists supported by another, Qatar.

This is a recipe for a long and bloody civil war in Libya, at a time when the Middle East is imploding and the U.S. is no longer willing or able to police it alone. Divisions among the Sunni states and an expanding proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia have already resulted in a vortex of human suffering and instability in Syria that has spawned the Islamic State.

So Moussa’s idea of a congress “emanating from the Middle East” itself, rather than from the U.S. or Europe, and focused on how to ensure stability in the region makes sense. As a model, the Congress of Vienna has an attractive echo for the Middle East’s monarchies and dictators, as it was designed mainly by conservative autocrats as they sought ways to contain the subversive republican fervor unleashed by the French revolution. Old regime leaders in the Middle East see the Arab Spring in much the same light.

“We are talking about a major change in the Middle East,” Moussa said at a conference I’m attending this week in Salzburg, Austria, on lessons to be drawn from the Vienna Congress and the outbreak of World War I, hosted by the International Peace Institute and the Salzburg Global Seminar. “We have to discuss this like grownups: What are we going to do when this wave of change comes to its end?”

The Congress of Vienna was also used to redraw the map of Europe after the Napoleonic wars, and then fix borders and establish a mechanism to agree on changes. In this light, Moussa was adamant that proposals to break up Iraq along sectarian lines would be infectious and disastrous for the region. A deal in in which the likes of Iran and Saudi Arabia guaranteed the non-violation of borders is appealing.

Of course, there are plenty of reasons to be skeptical. For one thing, Iran and Saudi Arabia are involved in what they see as a zero-sum contest for power, and a meaningful agreement between them seems fantastical: The empires of Europe were driven to reconciliation only after nearly 20 years of defeats forced them to learn the value of alliance. Indeed, while Saudi Arabia’s Prince Turki al-Faisal, also in Salzburg, supported Moussa’s idea, his focus was on how to create a united Arab front toward Iran — a poor starting point if the goal is to reconcile Iranian and Saudi interests

So long as the focus is on getting the Arab house in order, this is unlikely to get anywhere. A more serious attempt would focus not on Arab identity but on who needs to be at the table so that any deal that is reached would be meaningful. At a minimum, that means Iran, Israel and Turkey must be present. Inviting the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to facilitate and hold the ring would also be smart. It’s crazy, and it’s worth a try.

 

To contact the author: Marc Champion at  Bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Tobin Harshaw at  bloomberg.net

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 27th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

 

From James Snifen, UNEP

UNEP Targets Innovative Learning to Reduce Disaster Risk Worldwide.

More than 1,000 risk and disaster experts, practitioners and government officials from over 100 countries convene in Davos this week to tackle the growing challenge of disaster risk.

DAVOS, Switzerland, 26 August 2014 – In the past decade, natural disasters have cost over 1.2 million lives and economic losses have continued to skyrocket. Projections indicate that damages from disasters will climb up to US$400 billion per year and with climate change expected to worsen these impacts, identifying innovative solutions and responses has become an urgent priority.

This week at the 5th Annual International Disaster Risk Conference (IDRC), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) unveiled its latest effort to build resilience to this global challenge. UNEP is launching the first-ever Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) focusing on how to minimize disaster risk through “natural” or ecosystem-based solutions.

Ecosystems such as forests, wetlands and reefs often provide valuable protection against natural hazards like avalanches and flooding. They also supply vital services such as food, fuel and shelter following a disaster event. Yet limited awareness of the services offered by ecosystems and false perceptions on their effectiveness as a tool for disaster risk reduction is preventing concrete action.

“In order to bring disaster losses under control, we need more skills, scale and speed in our disaster risk reduction efforts. This MOOC improves access at a global scale by enabling people to learn directly from experts and practitioners how to apply ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and adaptation in their own communities,” said Dr. Muralee Thummarukudy, Senior Manager for Disaster Risk Reduction at UNEP.

This MOOC will also broaden awareness on the different tools available beyond concrete or engineered solutions by demonstrating how climate change, disasters and the environment are linked. It exposes participants to a range of tools for eco-disaster risk reduction and adaptation. With over 20 hours of video lectures, guest lectures from world leaders and real-life case studies, the MOOC targets policy-makers and decision-makers, practitioners, experts and the wider public.

Today, UNEP and the Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR) are also hosting an interactive panel discussion on “Bridging disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation through ecosystems management.” The panel aims to demonstrate through field projects how ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction and adaptation are building resilience in communities worldwide.

 

The MOOC is the result of a collaboration between UNEP and the Centre for Natural Resources and Development, a consortium of 11 universities from around the world that is coordinated by the Cologne University of Applied Sciences (CUAS), Germany.

Further details on UNEP’s disaster risk reduction programme are available at www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/Introduction/DisasterRiskReduction/tabid/104159/Default.aspx

The Partnership for Environment and Disaster Risk Reduction (PEDRR) is a global alliance of UN agencies, NGOs and specialist institutes; see www.pedrr.org

The International Disaster Risk Conference is a major biennial forum on disaster risk; see www.idrc.info

 

For more information, please contact:

UNEP Newsdesk, Nairobi, Kenya: unepnewsdesk@unep.org

Cassidy Travis, Communications Advisor, UNEP Post-Conflict & Disaster Management Branch: +41 22 917 8839 or Cassidy.travis@unep.org

===============================================

On this website we believe that the qualifier “Natural Disasters” is Unnecessary and misleading.These are disasters – All-Right – but there is nothing Natural with them.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 27th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

As per e-mail from Maya Valcheva  —  Maya.VALCHEVA at unitar.org  – on behalf of  envdem.yale@gmail.com and envdem@unitar.org where ENVDEM siands for ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE and DEMOCRACY two topics that did not make it into the AGENDA of the RIO Conference of 1992 and are being tackled only now in the run-up to the Post-2015 decision making process.

————–

Human Rights, Environmental Sustainability, Post-2015 Development Agenda, and the Future Climate Regime.

3rd UNITAR-Yale Conference on Environmental Governance and Democracy
Yale University, 5-7 September 2014
 
 
The 2014 Conference on Human Rights, Environmental Sustainability, Post-2015 Development Agenda, and the Future Climate Regime will take place from 5-7 September 2014 at Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.
The Conference is organized by Yale University and the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the United National Development Programme (UNDP), and the World Resources Institute (WRI).
The Conference will bring together more than 100 scholars and policy experts to discuss state-of-the-art knowledge at the nexus of human rights and the environment, building on more than 70 papers which will be written by researchers and expert practitioners from 40 different countries as a contribution to the Conference.
The keynote presentation will be given by John Knox, the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment.
Given that the Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals was just completed, and the upcoming climate change negotiations in Peru are approaching, the Conference also provides an opportunity to develop policy insights for strengthening the human rights-environment interface at the international level.
Details concerning the Conference are available on this Web Page.  
Inquiries may be sent to envdem.yale@gmail.com with cc to envdem@unitar.org.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 27th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

ISIS is to America as Hamas is to Israel

by Alan M. Dershowitz

President Barak Obama has rightfully condemned the ISIS beheading of American James Foley in the strongest terms.  This is what he said:

“There has to be a common effort to extract this cancer so it does not spread. There has to be a clear rejection of the kind of a nihilistic ideologies. One thing we can all agree on is group like (ISIS) has no place in the 21st century.  Friends and allies around the world, we share a common security a set of values opposite of what we saw yesterday. We will continue to confront this hateful terrorism and replace it with a sense of hope and stability.”

At the same time that President Obama has called for an all-out war against the “cancer” of ISIS, he has regarded Hamas as having an easily curable disease, urging Israel to accept that terrorist group, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, as part of a Palestinian unity government.  I cannot imagine him urging Iraq, or any other Arab country, to accept ISIS as part of a unity government.

Former President Jimmy Carter and Bishop Desmond Tutu have gone even further, urging the international community to recognize the legitimacy of Hamas as a political party and to grant it diplomatic recognition.  It is hard to imagine them demanding that the same legitimate status be accorded ISIS.

Why then the double standard regarding ISIS and Hamas?  Is it because ISIS is less brutal and violent than Hamas?  It’s hard to make that case.  Hamas has probably killed more civilians—through its suicide bombs, its murder of Palestinian Authority members, its rocket attacks and its terror tunnels—than ISIS has done.  If not for Israel’s Iron Dome and the Israeli Defense Forces, Hamas would have killed even more innocent civilians.  Indeed its charter calls for the killing of all Jews anywhere in the world, regardless of where they live or which “rock” they are hiding behind.  If Hamas had its way, it would kill as least as many people as ISIS would.

Is it the manner by which ISIS kills?  Beheading is of course a visibly grotesque means of killing, but dead is dead and murder is murder.  And it matters little to the victim’s family whether the death was caused by beheading, by hanging or by a bullet in the back of a head.  Indeed most of ISIS’s victims have been shot rather than beheaded, while Hamas terrorists have slaughtered innocent babies in their beds, teenagers on the way home from school, women shopping, Jews praying and students eating pizza.

Is it because ISIS murdered an American?  Hamas has murdered numerous Americans and citizens of other countries.  They too are indiscriminate in who they kill.

Is it because ISIS has specifically threatened to bring its terrorism to American shores, while Hamas focuses its terrorism in Israel?  The Hamas Charter does not limit its murderous intentions to one country.  Like ISIS it calls for a worldwide “caliphate,” brought about by violent Jihad.

Everything we rightly fear and despise from ISIS we should fear and despise from Hamas.  Just as we would never grant legitimacy to ISIS, we should not grant legitimacy to Hamas—at the very least until it rescinds its charter and renounces violence.  Unfortunately that is about as likely as America rescinding its constitution.    Violence, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are the sine qua non of Hamas’ mission.

Just as ISIS must be defeated militarily and destroyed as a terrorist army, so too must Hamas be responded to militarily and its rockets and tunnels destroyed.

It is widely, and in my view mistakenly, argued by many academics and diplomats that there can never be a military solution to terrorism in general or to the demands of Hamas in particular.  This conventional wisdom ignores the lessons of history.  Chamberlain thought there could be a diplomatic solution to Hitler’s demands.  Churchill disagreed.  History proved Churchill correct.  Nazi Fascists and Japanese militarists had to be defeated militarily before a diplomatic resolution could be achieved.

So too with ISIS and Hamas.  They must first be defeated militarily and only then might they consider accepting reasonable diplomatic and political compromises.  Another similarity between ISIS and Hamas is that if these terrorist groups were to lay down their arms, there might be peace, whereas if their enemies were to lay down their arms, there would be genocide.

A wonderful cartoon illustrates this:  at one end of the table is Hamas demanding “death to all the Jews!”  At the other end is Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu.  In the middle sits the mediator, who turns to Netanyahu and asks:  “Can’t you at least come half way?”

No democratic nation can accept its own destruction.  We cannot compromise—come half way—with terrorists who demand the deaths of all who stand in the way of their demand for a Sunni caliphate, whether these terrorists call themselves ISIS or Hamas.  Both are, in the words of President Obama, “cancers” that must be extracted before they spread.  Both are equally malignant.  Both must be defeated on the battlefield, in the court of public opinion and in the courts of law.  There can be no compromise with bigotry, terrorism or the demand for a caliphate.  Before Hamas or ISIS can be considered legitimate political partners, they must give up their violent quest for a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

==================================================

What Barack Obama Can Learn from Richard Nixon on Israel and Foreign Policy.

August 26, 2014  -  3 comments

Richard Nixon and Barack Obama are rarely compared.  But the way these two presidents have dealt with crises in the Middle East provides instructive contrasts on the nature of leadership.

This summer marks the 40th anniversary of the resignation of President Nixon, a man more associated with skullduggery than leadership.  But in October 1973, when his Vice President was resigning in disgrace and the congressional investigation into his own misconduct was moving to its fatal conclusion, Nixon demonstrated how a leader can take command, master events, and shape history.

His example provides a contrast to the current President, whose concept of leadership involves “leading from behind.”  To the extent it involves taking initiative, it is the initiative of “avoiding doing stupid shit.”

President Obama has not abandoned Israel, nor has he declared himself neutral in its current struggle against Hamas. But time after time, he has undercut Israel’s position, in an effort to curry favor with a hostile world.

His Secretary of State tried to involve Turkey and Qatar, two implacable foes of Israel, in the cease-fire negotiations, even though their financial support enabled Hamas to amass the missiles and build the tunnels that threaten Israel. After an Israeli shell landed close to a UNRWA school in Rafah, his Administration joined the global anti-Israel chorus. Before any investigation could be conducted, the State Department immediately declared itself “appalled” by Israel’s “disgraceful” act – even though Hamas rockets have been found in UNRWA schools at least three times, and even though the U.S. armed forces conducted similar attacks against schools used by hostile forces in Afghanistan. (The Israeli 4-year old boy killed on Friday was the victim of a missile fired from a site near a UNRWA school.)

Most disturbing, Obama’s White House has recently changed the military-to-military relationship by which American weaponry has been transferred to Israel, to require White House and State Department approval. Now these are U.S. weapons, and it is of course up to the U.S. government to set the protocols for their transfer. But to change the rules so abruptly, while Israel is under daily bombardment, is unprecedented.

Once again, it represented the Obama Administration’s tendency to placate the world, rather than stand by a lonely ally. This emerges from an observation by a “senior Obama Administration official” to the Wall Street Journal:

“We have many, many friends around the world. The United States is their strongest friend,” the official said. “The notion that they are playing the United States, or that they’re manipulating us publicly, completely miscalculates their place in the world.”

In other words, the Administration was telling Israel by these leaked remarks: We have many friends.  You do not. Don’t ever forget it.

Sniping at friends to placate their enemies is not leadership. It is not even shrewdness. The United States has won no new friends from undercutting Israel.

To see a different kind of leadership, travel back in time and consider the performance of Richard Nixon in October 1973.

Israel faced a military crisis. Egypt and Syria, backed by nine Arab states and lavishly supplied by the Soviet Union, attacked on Yom Kippur. Israeli forces were thrown back in the Sinai and on the Golan Heights. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan told Prime Minister Golda Meir that Israel faced imminent defeat. The situation was so dire, that the Israeli government considered resorting to a last ditch nuclear option.

In this crisis situation, Richard Nixon ordered a massive airlift of military supplies to Israel. During a 32-day period beginning October 14, jumbo U.S. military aircraft touched down in Israel 567 times, delivering some 22,300 tons of material.

Conducting such an operation was a complicated task. Then, as now, Israel was not popular on the international scene. Fearful of the Arabs’ oil weapon, NATO allies refused to allow U.S. transport planes to refuel in their countries – even while NATO members Turkey and Greece were allowing Soviet supply planes to overfly their territory. Ultimately, the U.S. managed to pressure Portugal to allow landing in the Azores for refueling.

Meanwhile, in Washington, bureaucratic hurdles threatened to delay the airlift. Nixon took charge personally. White House counsel Leonard Garment recalled:

It was Nixon who did it. I was there. As [bureaucratic bickering between the State and Defense departments] was going back and forth, Nixon said, “This is insane….He just ordered Kissinger, Get your [behind] out of here and tell those people to move. “

Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, concerned by the reaction of the Arabs and Soviets to the airlift, advised sending just three transports. Nixon responded: “We are going to get blamed just as much for three as for 300…Get them in the air, now.”

Nixon worked closely with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on the airlift. When Kissinger gave him a list of the type and quantity of weaponry sought by the Israeli military, Nixon ordered him to double it, then added: “Now get the hell out of here and get the job done.” Informed of a delay caused by disagreements in the Pentagon over which planes to use, Nixon shouted at Kissinger: “[Expletive] it, use every one we have. Tell them to send everything that can fly.”

The airlift helped turn the tide. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat proposed a ceasefire enforced by Soviet and U.S. troops on the ground. The U.S. rejected the proposal. Soviet leader Brezhnev then threatened to send Russian troops to the Middle East unilaterally. Nixon ordered that U.S. military to be put on high alert. Air Force strike units were prepared for attack, and two aircraft carriers were deployed to the Eastern Mediterranean. Brezhnev backed down.

Richard Nixon neither sought nor received any political gain for his decisive leadership. The Watergate investigation intensified, culminating in his resignation ten months later. American Jews, who voted overwhelmingly for Humphrey in 1968 and McGovern in 1972, remained, and remain today, hostile to the man.

But Golda Meir never forgot Nixon’s leadership. For the rest of her life she referred to him as “my president.” She once said, in tones reminiscent of the Passover haggadah: “For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the material that meant life to our people.”

It is doubtful that any Israeli, of any political persuasion, will ever remember Barack Obama as “my president.”

It is also doubtful that friends of the United States in other parts of the globe will remember him that way. When Iranian populists remember Obama, they are likely to remember him as the President who reached out to the regime’s theocratic dictators, but failed to support the courageous demonstrators of the Green Revolution. When the Poles and Czechs remember Obama, they are likely to recall him as the President who reneged on the promise to build a missile defense shield in Europe, to avoid irritating the Russians.  When Ukrainians remember Obama, they are likely to recall him as the President who, after the non-irritated Russians annexed the Crimea, responded by airlifting, not weapons, but 300,000 ready-to-eat meals.

The irony of leadership is that it often proves a more effective tool to win over foes than supplication.  Obama’s forbearance has won the United States no points from Russia or Iran, or any of our other opponents.  It has only disappointed our friends. In contrast, Richard Nixon steadfastly supported Israel during wartime – and was lionized by Egyptians in the aftermath of that war after brokering a ceasefire.

In June 1974, just weeks before his resignation, Nixon visited Egypt and rode in an open railway car from Alexandria to Cairo with President Sadat. An estimated 6 million Egyptians lined the route, cheering him. Sadat saluted Nixon with these words:

Since the 6th of October, and since the change that took place in the American foreign policy, peace is now available in the area. And President Nixon never gave a word and didn’t fulfill it; he has fulfilled every word he gave.

Richard Nixon was a man of many flaws, not least of which was a strong strain of anti-Semitism. But he was also a leader. The current President, driven to make America liked again, may have more charity in his heart, but he has far less spinal fluid in his backbone.

——————————-

Lawrence J. Siskind is a San Francisco attorney, who blogs on issues of politics, foreign policy, law, and culture, at ToPutItBluntly.com.

 

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 25th, 2014
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

August 25, 2014

To: Listings/Critics/Features
From: Jazz Promo Services
Press Contact: Jim Eigo, jim@jazzpromoservices.com
www.jazzpromoservices.com

 

For the eleventh consecutive year, on a glorious end-of-summer night, the intersection of Wall and North Front Streets in Kingston will become “The Jazz Corner of Upstate New York.” Once again, in an evening of music that should not be missed, the Wall Street Jazz Festival presents an array of some of today’s finest jazz artists – pianist Laura Dubin’s trio, saxophonist Virginia Mayhew’s quintet, pianist Roberta Piket’s sextet, plus two all-star ensembles featuring saxophonists “Sweet” Sue Terry and Claire Daly, singers Jay Clayton and Teri Roiger, pianist (and the festival’s Artistic Director) Peggy Stern, among others. For many years now, this annual event has been one of the highlights of my summer, an exciting and engaging way to enjoy the music I love in an elegant, intimate, and inviting setting. 

The Wall Street Jazz Festival, “where the traditions meet the progressives, and all the leaders are women,” it’s happening Saturday, August 30, from 5:00 to 10:00 p.m. in Kingston, NY – and it’s all free!

www.wallstreetjazzfestival.com/home.html

 

Bob Bernotas, Host of “Just Jazz,” Sunday nights, 10:00 p.m-3:00 a.m. at

www.wnti.org

 

======================================================================

Zephyr Teachout teaches at Fordham Law School. She is the former National Director of the Sunlight Foundation and Director of Online Organizing for Howard Dean’s Campaign. She is a Board Member of Public Campaign Action Fund and Fight for the Future.

She wrote: “In a blog post this week, Former White House Counsel Bob Bauer critiqued an essay I wrote recently entitled “Constitutional Purpose and the Anti-Corruption Principle.” The basic argument of my essay is that the global purposes of the Constitution should be relevant in making hard Constitutional decisions. We ought look beyond the purposes of particular clauses and to the Constitution as a whole when making sense of the application of particular clauses. As I point out in the essay, Courts already do this: they interpret clauses to be consistent with the global principle of Separation of Powers, for instance, even though there is no “Separation of Powers” clause. Therefore, given the strong historical evidence that anti-corruption concerns were as fundamental as any other at the Constitutional convention, anti-corruption concerns should get significant constitutional weight when interpreting other clauses, like the First Amendment.

She was a Professorial adviser to “Occupy Wall Street” – and that is why we make the connection here.

N.Y. / Region

Cuomo Opponent Unbowed by Underdog Status.

By

 

There she was, Prof. Zephir Teachout of Fordham University, just to the right of the stage, waving her arms furiously, hoping that the event’s host, Eric L. Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, would see her and give her a shout-out. No such luck; a tall security guard was in the way.

As Zephyr Teachout was leaving the gospel concert in East Flatbush, a man in a wheelchair called out, “Who are you?” Ever eager, she explained that she was running as a progressive against Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in the Democratic primary.

The man, won over, pointed to a homemade campaign button pinned to Ms. Teachout’s jacket. “Can I have your button?” he asked. She gladly obliged.

———————————————————-

Just a few months ago, Ms. Teachout was a popular Fordham University law professor with ties to Occupy Wall Street and a keen interest in political corruption. But after the liberal Working Families Party approached her to run against Mr. Cuomo — before it arrived at a bitterly contested decision to stick by the governor — Ms. Teachout decided, with the encouragement of other liberal activists, to mount her own long-shot campaign.

Photo

 
Ms. Teachout, a candidate for governor, gave away her campaign button to a potential supporter this month after a gospel concert in East Flatbush, Brooklyn. Credit Andrew Renneisen/The New York Times

Yes, she knows that few New Yorkers have heard of her. Yes, she knows that she will not have enough money for television ads. And yes, she knows that her best shot at statewide exposure — a debate with Mr. Cuomo — is unlikely. Still, she insists that she is gaining momentum, and is zestily campaigning with a kind of cynicism-free optimism that makes her a sunny surprise.

“I didn’t know politics would be this much fun!” she beamed after a South Asian festival in Queens a week ago.

Privately, Ms. Teachout’s admirers say that her campaign has already succeeded, by forcing Mr. Cuomo to embrace more liberal causes. If she gets more than 25 percent in the Sept. 9 primary, some argue, then Mr. Cuomo might need to worry about liberal angst heading into a general election against the Republican candidate, Rob Astorino, the Westchester County executive.

Ms. Teachout does not pretend that her task will be easy. But she said the worst that could happen would be that she got only 1 percent of the vote, and that she became known as an idealistic but politically naïve professor.

“We’re underdogs, we know that, but we’re serious underdogs,” she said at a house party near her apartment in Fort Greene, Brooklyn.

Ms. Teachout and her running mate for lieutenant governor, Tim Wu, a Columbia University law professor, talked about winning over the small number of Democrats who actually vote in primaries.

They hope to tap into disillusionment or even anger with Mr. Cuomo among teachers, public employees and upstate residents opposed to hydraulic fracturing.

Photo

 
Ms. Teachout speaking at a cocktail party in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, where she currently resides. Credit Andrew Renneisen/The New York Times

“In the face of Andrew Cuomo’s silence, I am being loud,” she said in Fort Greene.

Mr. Cuomo has not publicly mentioned Ms. Teachout by name, and his campaign has declined to comment on her candidacy.

Still, avid Democrats are getting to know her. A Vermont native, Ms. Teachout, 42, worked as a death penalty lawyer in North Carolina and co-founded an organization intent on breaking up Wall Street banks. The author of a coming book on political corruption, she is on track for tenure at Fordham early next year.

Her most formative political experience came in 2003, when she became the director of online organizing for Howard Dean’s presidential campaign.

“She was terrific; she was hard-working,” Mr. Dean said during a 10th-anniversary celebration that Ms. Teachout attended for Democracy for New York City, a Dean-inspired group.

She often mentions two United States senators — Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Sherrod Brown of Ohio — as role models. She also raves about State Senator Gustavo Rivera of the Bronx and Letitia James, the New York City public advocate.

She even buys into the anti-“crony capitalism” message, if not the prescription, of Dave Brat, the Virginia professor and Tea Party upstart who defeated Eric Cantor, the former House majority leader, in the Republican primary in June.

Photo

 
Ms. Teachout tried on a sari this month at the Chatpati Mela festival in Jackson Heights, Queens. She spoke with the vendors about the challenges of running small businesses. Credit Andrew Renneisen/The New York Times

Like Mr. Brat, Ms. Teachout has little money. But contributions have increased so much since Mr. Cuomo unsuccessfully tried to kick her off the ballot that a highly targeted online advertising campaign is planned. She has a paid staff of about 10, and shares a cramped office in Midtown Manhattan with lawyers, real estate brokers and a casting company.

On the trail, she often asks people what they want in a governor. She has also honed a stump speech, talking about her unusual name (yes, that is her first name, and her last name is Dutch), then touching on public schools, small businesses, transportation and infrastructure.

“In my vision we can have an economy and a democracy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy and well-connected,” she said at a street fair outside the Bronx Zoo a week ago, eliciting a few “that’s right” replies.

To get around, Ms. Teachout usually takes public transportation or relies on rides from volunteers, especially when she travels to Ithaca, Binghamton and other areas to fire up “fractivists.” One afternoon she spent $65 to take five people, including an aide and an independent filmmaker, from the Bronx to Queens by livery cab.

Things do not always go according to plan.

At the Chatpati Mela celebration in Jackson Heights, for example, she could not distribute any campaign literature (black-and-white photocopies) or speak onstage — it was a strictly nonpartisan affair.

Unfazed, she talked excitedly with vendors until she stumbled upon some Bangladeshis selling saris. After hearing about the travails of establishing small businesses, she bought an orange one for $20, and tried it on.

“Should I wear this to my debate with Governor Cuomo?” she joked.

———————————

A version of this article appears in print on August 25, 2014, on page A15 of the New York edition with the headline: Cuomo Opponent Unbowed by Underdog Status.

###