links about us archives search home
SustainabiliTankSustainabilitank menu graphic

Follow us on Twitter

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

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. 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. streams original Ethical Markets productions and video gathered from around the world. fowpal-banner.gif

Posted on on June 20th, 2019
by Pincas Jawetz (

From the Center for American Progress based in Washington DC.

What We Could Have Had for $1.9 Trillion that President Trump’s tax cuts gave to corporations.
By Galen Hendricks and Daniella Zessoules

Throughout his campaign and since taking office, President Donald Trump has promised to stand up for working people and families.

But the most far-reaching bill he’s signed into law—the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017—was a handout for corporate America and the wealthy at the expense of working- and middle-class families. President Trump’s tax handout is estimated to cost $1.9 trillion between 2018 and 2027, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Working- and middle-class families deserve better. In fact, for the same $1.9 trillion cost of President Trump’s tax giveaway, the United States could afford to: completely eliminate child poverty; double its federal investment in climate science; extend universal access to affordable child care and pre-K; provide a $10,000 raise for teachers in high-poverty schools; provide free community college; and take dramatic action to tackle the opioid epidemic.

In reality, these investments are even less costly than President Trump’s tax giveaway. The $1.9 trillion price tag does not include the cost of extending certain tax cuts that were enacted as temporary, which would add another $650 billion to the 10-year cost.



Posted on on June 17th, 2019
by Pincas Jawetz (

On September 27, 2019, CCSI, the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Landesa, and Wake Forest Law School will be hosting a day-long conference on the intersection between land use, the climate crisis and clean energy transition, and human rights.

For more information, and to register, please contact:

Karl P. Sauvant, Ph.D.
Resident Senior Fellow
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Columbia Law School – Earth Institute
Ph: (212) 854-0689


Posted on on June 17th, 2019
by Pincas Jawetz (






Posted on on July 30th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

On Wednesday, July 4th and Thursday, July 5th I have attended an event designed to mark the Danube Day 2018 at the Vienna International Center at the United Nations Headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

The event was organized by the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR) in cooperation with the Austrian Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism, and the United Nations. The program was as follows:
Danube Day 2018 “Get active for a healthier Danube!”
Wednesday, 4 July and Thursday 5 July 2018
Vienna International Centre (VIC), Rotunda
Wagramerstrasse 5, 1220 Vienna


Day 1: Wednesday 4 July
1 PM – 2 PM, Rotunda, VIC
Welcome and exhibit opening by Ivan Zavadsky, Executive Secretary, International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR)

Remarks by Susanne Brandstetter, Chairperson of the ICPDR Public Participation Expert Group, Unit for Strategic Communication and Information, Austrian Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism

Remarks by Veronika Koller-Kreimel, Chairperson of the ICPDR Hydromorphology Task Group, Division IV/3 – National and International Water Management Austrian Federal Ministry for Sustainability and Tourism

Remarks by Cristian Istrate, Permanent Representative of Romania to Austria, Permanent Mission of Romania (tbc)
The event is moderated by Martin Nesirky, Director, UNIS Vienna.

Day 2: Thursday 5 July
10 AM – 12 AM, Rotunda, VIC

The exhibition featured a “meet the press” session with special guest Pascal Rösler, who has traversed 2,467 km of the Danube River on his stand-up paddle board (SUP), and felt the incredible power of the water, and the great importance water has for our lives. This expedition was documented in a film “2467 – Eine Reise bis ins Schwarze Meer” which was shown at the UNIS cinema room, (German with English subtitles) after the press meeting.

The exhibition was open at the Vienna International Centre until 1pm Friday 6 July 2018.


The International Danube Day was initiated by the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River (ICPDR), the organisation responsible for achieving a cleaner, healthier and safer Danube River for all citizens to enjoy.

The exhibition showcases some of the highlights of previous and ongoing celebrations of International Danube Day. It is a celebration of healthier rivers following 24 years of ground breaking international cooperation. During June and July, riverside festivals, public meetings and fun, educational events pay tribute to the Danube river, its peoples and the progress being made. The events strengthen “Danube solidarity”: in spite of different cultures and histories, we have a shared desire and responsibility to protect our precious resource.

The Danube River Basin is the most international river basin in the world, covering 817,000 kilometers and embracing 18 countries. From the Black Forest in Germany to the Black Sea at the Romanian–Ukrainian border, it is home to over 80 million people. The Danube and its tributaries, the Inn, Morava, Drava, Tisza, Sava, Iskar, Siret and Prut, are rivers of life, providing people with water, food, power, livelihood, recreation, and a commercial link to the rest of Europe. The rivers are a unifying force, bringing together communities with very different cultures, languages, and histories.

On the second day I attended the “Meet the Press” with special guest Pascal Rösler, an Austrian activist, born on the bank of the Danube in Austria. Pascal has traversed 2,467 km of the Danube River on is stand-up paddle board (SUP) from Germany to the Black Sea in Romania. It took him 62 says and in his words he felt the incredible power of the water, and the great importance water has for our lives. His journey was documented in a film “2467 – Eine Reise bis ins Schwarze Meer” which was later shown at the UNIS cinema room.

Pascal was very emotional about his trip, and is committed to continue to work further to promote awareness of the important of clean water in the Danube for generations to come.



Posted on on May 29th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

May 28 2018 we saw on CNN’s Christiane Amanpour program her interview of Mr. Kaveh Madani
An renown Iranian water scientist who goes now by titles like “Former Deputy Head of Environment Department and “Former Vice President of Iran”.

The name rang bells with us as we remembered from mailings by the American-Iranian Council:

“The campaign known as Bi-Zobaleh (Persian for “no rubbish”) focusing on the issue of waste, which was initiated by Kaveh Madani, the education and research deputy at the Department of Environment, has successfully completed its 100-day operations.”

“Iranian Academic’s Death Puts Spotlight on Political Infighting.”

“The feud turned more fraught over the weekend with the death of Kavous Seyed Emami, an academic, and confusion about the whereabouts of Kaveh Madani, the deputy head of Iran’s Department of Environment.

Since his first election in 2013, Rouhani has been in the hardliners’ crosshairs over his desire to open Iran through a nuclear deal with world powers, and his declared commitment to greater personal liberties. His recent decision to tackle a growing crisis over heavy smog and a water shortage — an issue where Iranians with Western links have been active — has given rivals another opportunity to pounce on him. (Bloomberg)”

Above quotes sent us to look up KAVEH MADANI. We found in THE GUARDIAN – Environment section:
by Saeed Kamali Dehghan Iran correspondent – Wed 18 Apr 2018.

“Top scientist leaves Iran after crackdown on environmentalists
Kaveh Madani had been seen as symbol of Rouhani government’s attempt to reverse brain drain.”

“A top Iranian environmental scientist wooed by Hassan Rouhani’s administration to return home from the UK has left Iran amid a crackdown on environmentalists and pressure from hardliners.

Kaveh Madani had been persuaded to leave his position at Imperial College London last year to serve as the deputy head of Iran’s environment department.

He was seen as a symbol of Rouhani’s efforts to reverse the country’s brain drain, but his decision to step down less than a year later demonstrates the president’s failure to curb the power of the unelected faction of the Iranian establishment that is bent on undermining his policies.

Madani was named as one of the four winners of the Arne Richter award for outstanding young scientists by the European Geosciences Union in 2016. His appointment in Iran was widely applauded. The water conservation expert was promoted because of his expertise and international profile rather than his political affiliation, at a time Iran is facing its worst drought in modern times.

At 36, Madani was the youngest and the most educated government official at his level. His resignation and decision to leave the country has sparked a huge reaction online.

When Iran carried out mass arrests of environmental activists in February, Madani was detained for 72 hours. It also emerged at the time that an Iranian-Canadian environmentalist, Kavous Seyed-Emami, died in custody in mysterious circumstances. At least 13 other activists remain behind bars.

As hardliners launched an onslaught against Madani in the conservative press at the end of March, images surfaced on social media that they said showed him drinking and dancing abroad. Others accused him of being a dual national at a time when suspicion runs high against such Iranian citizens, despite the fact that Madani is solely Iranian.

Madani confirmed the news of his departure from Iran on Twitter after an outspoken member of the parliament broke the news. “Yes, the accused fled from a country where virtual bullies push against science, knowledge and expertise and resort to conspiracy theories to find a scapegoat for all the problems because they know well that finding an enemy, spy or someone to blame is much easier than accepting responsibility and complicity in a problem,” he wrote.

Madani has been critical of Iran’s past policies on water, believing the country has passed the time of crisis and entered an era of water bankruptcy. He has been particularly critical of Iran’s aggressive dam building and cloud seeding. Many such policies have been propagated by the Revolutionary Guards through its industrial arm, which has benefited from the projects.

This meant Madani fell foul of the Guards, who act independently of Rouhani’s administration and have huge influence within the judiciary and the intelligence apparatus.

After his appointment, Madani had tweeted: “I have returned with the hope of creating #hope.” In December, he told the Tehran Times that “there are a lot of people abroad, waiting and watching closely to see what’s going to happen. If I succeed, we might see more people coming back to help the government”.

Abbas Milani, an Iranian-American historian and the director of Iranian studies at Stanford University, said on Twitter that Madani’s departure was an instance of a 38-year battle between elites “who want good for Iran and know how to rescue it” and those who were hiding their hunger for power and self-interest under the cover of Islam.”

We see thus that Madani is an Iranian-Britisher who feels Iranian at heart and
was ready to help Iran in an area of his expertise – The Environment and water
problems. President Rouhani was happy to see him back but the Ayatollas saw
a danger in his professionalism that was received with open arms by the people.
It is these PEOPLE that could bring about change by quiet protests.

Madani’s professionalism showed in the Amanpour interview by saying that Israel
is part of the region and can help with water technology in dry areas like
those he wants to help with his people in Iran.

Clearly, the political leadership does wrong for the PEOPLE of Iran.

We write this because we found another area in the Middle East where the
politicians just led to a missed opportunity. It is the story we quote here
and the country is Palestine – the Gaza part thereof – that just hosted the
Student Alumni of the MENA Water Research Alumni Forum (the Arab World).
By excluding any help from the Israeli water technologists they harm the
Arab World like the Iranians harm their own country.

We like the fairness of Professor Kaveh Madani.

MEDRC Introduce New Student Led Alumni Forum.

07 05 2018 00:00
Gaza May 7th, 2018: The first event of the newly revamped MEDRC Water Research Alumni Forum was held today in Palestine.

The Alumni Forum is a follow up initiative of the Fellowship program, designed to further facilitate support for water research by offering a platform from which current students and alumni can showcase their work, view research outputs of their peers and connect with leading experts in the water sector.

To further maximize development opportunities MEDRC have introduced a student led approach to organizing the forum, whereby students are given responsibility to propose the Forum theme, curate discussion panel topics, nominate expert participants, select moderators and manage event logistics.

The Student Steering committee was selected following a call for applications and consists of several key elected positions which were determined by the Higher Committee. The Higher Committee is chaired by the Deputy Head of the Palestinian Water Authority, Eng. Rehby Al Sheikh.

Today’s event was held under the title ‘Desalination and Treated Water Reuse, Towards Sustainable Development’ and was attended by MEDRC Center Director, Ciarán Ó Cuinn, Kirsten Winterman, Head of Development Cooperation, MEDRC and Brendan Smith, Development Cooperation Program Manager, MEDRC . Leading water experts and stakeholders were also present, with Eng. Rebhy El Skeikh, Deputy Head of the Palestinian Water Authority (PWA) delivering the key note address.

The discussion panel topics included; Economics of Desalination and Water Reuse; Desalination Technologies; Wastewater Treatment and Reuse and Water and Energy Nexus. 6 of the most outstanding Alumni were selected to be given the honor to present their work as part of the Research Showcase.

Jordan based Alumni will host their Alumni Forum at the Geneva Hotel, Amman on May 10th, 2018 under the forum title ‘Integrated, Decentralized Wastewater Management for Resource Recovery in Rural and Peri-Urban Areas’.

MEDRC’s Fellowship program is delivered in partnership with water authorities in Palestine and Jordan. It offers exceptionally talented students an opportunity to pursue post graduate research at participating universities. To date the program has awarded 191 Fellowships in Palestine and Jordan with 30 more due to be awarded this year, bringing the total to 221.


Posted on on May 28th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

Why the lingering dispute between Denmark and Canada over a high Arctic island is so important.

ANALYSIS: The long-running dispute over an island halfway between Nunavut and Greenland is a reminder that sovereignty matters.

By Martin Breum -May 27, 2018

Not many people ever get to this island, which is a real pity. This tiny, nondescript, icy and basically useless piece of real estate far up in the Kennedy Channel between northwestern Greenland and Ellesmere Island in the far north of Canada is one of the only pieces of territory still disputed by two Arctic nations.

Canada claims that this rocky, uninhabited piece of rock is 100 percent Canadian. Denmark says that every inch of it is part of Greenland and that the entirety therefore belongs to the Danish Kingdom. I cannot imagine many purposes for which Hans Island, or Tartupaluk in Greenlandic, would be useful for a government at all. It is extremely remote, provides no shelter, no decent landing for any vessels. No oil and gas reserves are known to hide in its vicinity, no mineral deposits in its core. It is ice-encapsulated and dangerously windswept most of the year. Perhaps in a distant ice-free future a bit of high Arctic marine traffic might pass by, but it would still most likely have no reason to dwell here.

But, of course, as a political phenomena Hans Island is extremely provoking. It bears testimony to just how easily even the lowliest, most desolate piece of territory may still excite otherwise friendly, democratic, NATO-embedded nations and make them unable to reach any semblance of an agreement even after 45 years of negotiations. The Danish foreign minister Anders Samuelsen this week told the media that a diplomatic task force will now seek a solution, but he did not specify why this force is more likely to succeed than previous attempts.

[Denmark, Canada agree to settle Hans Island dispute]

Hans Island, all 1.3 square kilometers of it, is worth keeping in mind for several reasons.

For one, so that we may reflect more deeply over our own ways when we come across calls for increased sovereignty in Scotland, Greenland, Nunavut, the Faroe Islands, Catalonia or elsewhere. These are deep-rooted sentiments that one cannot meet only with simplistic counter-arguments.

Hans Island also reminds us of our own potential tenacity when we look forward to the diplomatic negotiations over who owns which parts of the seabed under the Arctic Ocean. Here a lot more is at stake and in this instance Canada and Denmark will not be the only contenders. Russia has also filed a claim. Russia has done so peacefully, according to U.N. procedures and not aggressively wide — but nevertheless a claim that overlaps the even more ambitious Danish-Greenlandic claim and most likely also the upcoming Canadian claim that was delayed only so that Canada could also claim the North Pole.

Two flagpoles
I landed on top of Hans Island in an Air Greenland helicopter 168 meters above sea level in blasting sunshine and with a spectacular view of the Kennedy Channel high up in the Nares Strait. Snowy Canadian mountain peaks were easily visible some 18 kilometers to the west and their Greenlandic counterparts just as easily visible to the East. Hans Island lies precisely in the middle of the channel. It was named after Hans Hendrik, one of the Greenlandic assistants on the 1871 so-called North Polar Expedition, led by C. F. Hall. Our helicopter, a large, red Sikorsky S-61, arrived from the north as part of the support for a team of Swiss climate scientists, artist and a business leader touring north Greenland on a private, unofficial visit; an initiative to boost Switzerland’s presence in the Arctic and its contributions as a new observer-member of the Arctic Council.

No flags fly on Hans Island any longer, but the two flagpoles are still there, some 10 meters apart. The island is not divided in two; both countries claim the entire island, but the Canadian flagpole stands towards Nunavut, the Danish one towards Greenland.

The Danish flagpole is white and in wood, with a broken white cord and very evidently between jobs. The Canadian flagpole is metallic, constructed in three pieces, only the lowest still standing, the two other rusty and dismantled on the ground. The Canadian flag was metallic, too. A red, broken and haggard piece of red metal, the last part of the flag, is still screwed onto one of the dismantled parts of the pole. The rest of the flag has probably been secured for posterity.

In 2005 the two claimants to Hans Island, the government in Ottawa and that in Copenhagen, formerly agreed to stop all national posturing on the island, hence the absence of flags. Only smaller signs of patriotic chest-thumping are still here: On a brick pillar about 1.5 meters high, next to the Danish flagpole, the names of visiting Danish naval ships can still be read on small metallic placards. Danish soldiers used to come here to replenish wind-torn Danish flags. Tradition was that they would leave a bottle of Danish booze as a gesture to their Canadian counterparts, who would then retaliate with Canadian booze when possible. All very cozy until it was not so cozy anymore.

The Canadian — unofficial — story of the escalation goes that in the early part of this century the Danish navy began popping by more frequently. The Danes acknowledge no such change of attitude. Then, in 2005, Canada’s minister of defense, Bill Graham, paid a visit.

The Canadian flag was hoisted, and a inukshuk — a traditional stone-structure once used as a way-points by Inuit travelers from Canada — was built. Bill Graham also had the Danish flag on Hans Island carefully downed, folded, shipped back to Ottawa and officially handed over to Her Majesty, Queen Margrethe II’s representatives at the Danish Embassy.

Legend in Denmark has it that this flag was delivered neatly folded in a cardboard box from a local bakery in Ottawa. It was badly shredded by several years of Arctic storms on Hans Island. I know, since I saw it later on a wall in the office of an official in the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He had had it framed, probably as a reminder of how unresolved sovereignty can potentially lead to bad trouble. The same man later became one of the lead authors of the famous Ilulissat Declaration from 2008 in which the five states around the Arctic Ocean, including Canada and Denmark, Russia, Norway and the U.S. vowed to solve all issues of sovereignty in the central Arctic Ocean by peaceful, U.N.-sanctioned rules. This declaration, which celebrates its 10th anniversary these days, was provoked by the Russian planting of the Russian flag at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean where sovereignty is still disputed – precisely at the North Pole – the year before.

Still unresolved
In 2005, the Danes were not amused by Bill Graham’s visit or the downing of the Danish flag. A Danish naval ship was dispatched towards Hans Island and for a brief moment things looked unsavory. Nobody really knew what the Danish marines would do when, or if, they reached Hans Island, inaccessible as it often is because of ice and bad weather.

Then of course, common sense took sway. The foreign ministers of the two nations, Per Stig Møller from Denmark and Pierre Pettigrew of Canada, both of whom where in New York anyway, met and quickly agreed to stop all further foolishness at Hans Island, hence today’s absence of flags. The Danish navy was called back and the ministers agreed that no more posturing would henceforth take place. They also declared their common desire to soon find a lasting solution.

The problem is that this was 13 years ago and that nothing has since changed except the decaying flagpoles. In 2008, a joint Automated Weather Station was installed between the flagpoles, but as far as sovereignty is concerned, there has been no news for more than a decade. In 2012, Canada and Denmark agreed on the exact border in the waters between Canada and Greenland all the way to the shores of Hans Island, but the island itself remains as disputed as ever.

Inuit land
To some in Canada and Greenland much of the ice, land, water, inlets, islands, polynyas, fish, mammals and fowl in the part of the Arctic that includes Hans Island shouldn’t even be considered as something to which the governments may lay claim.

To those who support this line of argument, this is ancestral land, inhabited by Inuit for millennia without much attention being paid to legal title. And in the great open water not far south of Hans Island something is stirring.

The so-called North Water Polynya, or Pikialasorsuaq, is home to very rich hunting; whales, polar bears, walrus, seals and waterfowl congregate here in astonishing numbers, and a joint commission of Inuit from Nunavut in Canada and from Greenland has recently suggested that this phenomenal polynya — water that never freezes over — should be governed by the Inuit themselves, regardless that the governments of Canada and Denmark each hold sovereignty over parts of it. The Pikislasorsuaq Commission, established by the Inuit Circumpolar Council in 2014, does not concern itself with Hans Island at all, but it takes little imagining for the rest of us to extend potential inuit governance over Pikialasorsuaq to Hans Island. In 2015 a suggestion was indeed made to hand over power over Hans Island to the Inuit of both Canada and Greenland, not by the Inuit themselves, but by two prominent Arctic experts, professor Michael Byers from the University of British Columbia and associate professor Michael Böss of the University of Aarhus, Denmark.

When we landed on Hans Island last Saturday, the mechanic on the Sikorsky, Søren Lund, born in Greenland and of Inuit descend, was very happy to have his picture taken on the island. Like me, he also brought a small piece of the island with him home. He would have liked to also wave the Greenlandic flag, just to make a subtle point, but he held back, not wanting to create any trouble for the Swiss guests or Air Greenland, his employer. Flags of any sort on Hans Island may cause turbulence. When tourists from a Danish cruise vessel landed on the island in 2010 and Facebook showed them planting the Danish and Greenlandic flags, the head of Denmark’s Arctic Command had to act. He urgently called his Canadian counterpart and made sure that there was no room for misinterpretation: The flags were not officially Danish and did not represent any hostile act whatsoever. It seems the situation remains volatile.

Personally, as a happy greeting to all future visitors, I left my business card on the island, tucked behind one of the old placards with names of ships on it. I hope no one who might find it takes offense.


The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by “ArcticToday” which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary (at)


This lingering dispute is just a tiny taste of what will go on with the USA, Russia, China joining the fight about territory and resources of the high Arctic region.



Posted on on May 17th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

The Frankfurt School UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate & Sustainable Energy Finance will organize several events at the upcoming Innovate 4 Climate Conference organized by the World Bank in Frankfurt 22-24 May and you are welcome to attend them all. Find below an overview with link to the agendas of the different activities. We will also have a stand in the German Pavilion and provide interviews through the Digital Media Zone.

From Emmerich, Malin  M.Emmerich at — If you plan to come by our stand, please just send me an e-mail and I will make sure to be there to greet you.

Looking forward to meet you in Frankfurt at I4C!

Tuesday 22 May

Workshop: The Business Case for Adaptation in the Private Sector

14:30 – 15:30, room Satellit

Moderated by Silvia Kreibiehl, Co-Head Frankfurt School – UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate and Sustainable Energy Finance


Workshop: Green Financial Centers – Added Value and What They Do

14:30 – 15:30, room Plateau 1

Moderated by Karsten Löffler, Managing Director Sustainable Finance Cluster / Co-Head FS-UNEP Centre | Sustainable Finance Clustere.V.,


Thursday 24 May

Parallel Session: Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment Report 2018 – banking on sunshine

15:00 – 15:45, German Pavilion stage

Presented by Silvia Kreibiehl Co-Head Frankfurt School – UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate and Sustainable Energy Finance and

Professor Ulf Moslener, Head of Research for Frankfurt School – UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate and Sustainable Energy Finance and professor for Sustainable Energy Finance at the faculty of Frankfurt School

There is still time to register for the annual Climate & Sustainable Energy
Finance Summer Academy June 18 – 22, 2018 by FS-UNEP Centre until 31st May!



Posted on on May 12th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

JUNE 7, 2018, Vienna — Multilogue —
Development Investments

Ein Multilogue mit Responsability-CEO Rochus Mommartz zu Trends und Chancen von Development Investments, einer Rendite-orientierten Anlageklasse in Unternehmen aus Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländern.

Rochus Mommartz
Die im September 2015 verabschiedete Agenda 2030 der Vereinten Nationen setzt für die Finanzierung der 17 Sustainable Development Goals ganz zentral auf den Privatsektor. Der Finanzierungsbedarf für die nächsten Jahre wird dabei auf mehr als 1.000 Mrd. Euro pro Jahr geschätzt. Eine gewichtige Rolle kommt so genannten Development Investments zu, Rendite-orientierten Anlagen in Unternehmen, von deren Geschäftsmodellen breite Bevölkerungsschichten in Schwellen- und Entwicklungsländern profitieren. Der erste Sektor, den private Investoren entdeckt hatten, war der Finanzsektor, in den vergangenen Jahren haben sich weitere Anlagethemen wie Infrastruktur, Energie und Landwirtschaft etabliert. Private Investoren profitieren dabei oft auch vom Engagement öffentlicher Entwicklungsbanken.

Entwicklungsinvestitionen zeichnen sich zumeist durch einfache und transparente Strukturen aus und zielen auf marktübliche Renditen ab. Bei den zugrunde liegenden Anlageinstrumenten handelt es sich hauptsächlich um Private Debt (private Fremdfinanzierung) und Private Equity (Beteiligungskapital). Mithilfe privaten Kapitals können Unternehmen in für die Entwicklung eines Landes wichtigen Sektoren neue Produkte und Dienstleistungen für unterversorgte Endverbraucher anbieten. Investoren können einem Geschäftsmodell zum Durchbruch verhelfen, wie das etwa im Mikrofinanzsektor zu beobachten war.

Es lohnt sich, den Hunderten von Millionen neuer Konsumenten Beachtung zu schenken – ihre Bedürfnisse und Ambitionen sind ein Motor des Wandels. Diese Märkte investierbar zu machen, ist eine große Herausforderung der Gegenwart. Der corporAID Multilogue diskutiert, wie sich die Nachfrage nach Development Investments in den vergangenen Jahren entwickelt hat, welche Rolle Entwicklungsbanken dabei zukommt und welche Möglichkeiten sich für private Investoren ergeben können.

Veranstalter: ICEP
Datum: 7.6.2018, 16.30-18.30 Uhr
Ort: OeKB Reitersaal, Strauchgasse 3, 1010 Wien


JUNE 8, 2918, Vienna — Design Thinking Workshop Business meets NGO Challenge.

In diesem interaktiven Workshop entwickeln Unternehmen gemeinsam mit entwicklungspolitischen NGOs und WissenschafterInnen neue Geschäftsmodelle zur Lösung drängender Herausforderungen in Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern. Die TeilnehmerInnen bringen Ihre Expertise ein, vernetzen sich mit potentiellen KooperationspartnerInnen und profitieren von deren Know-How.

Zeit: 8. Juni 2018, 9 -13 Uhr & anschließender Networkingempfang
Ort: WKO, Wiedner Hauptstraße 63, 1040 Wien (Saal 7)


Österreichische NGOs haben, basierend auf ihrem Wissen über aktuelle Herausforderungen in Entwicklungs- und Schwellenländern, konkrete Problemstellungen (Challenges) formuliert:

Mit grüner Energie erfolgreich in Armenien (Hilfswerk International)
Innovativ in der Humanitären Hilfe (Österreichisches Rotes Kreuz)
Effiziente Wasserversorgung im Senegal (Welthaus Graz)
Ökologischer Gemüseanbau im trockenen Afrika (World Vision, ADRA)
Für jede Challenge wird im Vorfeld ein multidisziplinäres Team zusammengestellt, wobei darauf geachtet wird, dass sich die Expertisen der Teammitglieder optimal ergänzen. Während des Workshops suchen die Teams nach kreativen Lösungen für ihre Challenge, wobei innovative Methoden des Design Thinkings zum Einsatz kommen.

Im Anschluss bietet ein kleiner Networkingempfang Gelegenheit zum Austausch mit anderen TeilnehmerInnen und ExpertInnen.


Wir bitten um Anmeldung bis zum 28. Mai 2018 an  ilona.reindl at Bitte geben Sie bei der Anmeldung den Namen der Challenge an, bei der Sie sich einbringen möchten.

Die Teilnahme ist kostenlos, die TeilnehmerInnenzahl pro Challenge jedoch begrenzt.

Für Fragen stehen Ilona Reindl ( ilona.reindl at, Tel: 01 5224422-17) und Markus Haas ( aussenwirtschaft.projekte at, Tel: 05 90900-4186) zur Verfügung.

Es wird darauf hingewiesen, dass am Veranstaltungsort Fotos angefertigt werden und zu Zwecken der Dokumentation der Veranstaltung veröffentlicht werden können.

Weitere Informationen:

Nachlese Design Thinking 2017
Projekt “Erfolgreiche Kooperationen zwischen NGOs und Unternehmen” der AG Globale Verantwortung
WKO AUSSENWIRTSCHAFT Netzwerk Projekte International



Posted on on May 6th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

Jeremy Rifkin
born January 26, 1945 (age 73)
Denver, Colorado, U.S.

Main interests
Economy, political science, scientific and technological change
Jeremy Rifkin is an American economic and social theorist, writer, public speaker, political advisor, and activist. Rifkin is the author of 20 books about the impact of scientific and technological changes on the economy, the workforce, society, and the environment. His most recent books include The Zero Marginal Cost Society (2014), The Third Industrial Revolution (2011), The Empathic Civilization (2010), and The European Dream (2004).

Rifkin has been an unpaid advisor to the European Union since 2000. He has advised the current president and the past two presidents of the European Commission and their leadership teams. Rifkin has also served as an unpaid advisor to the leadership of the European Parliament and prominent European heads of state – including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany – on issues related to the economy, climate change, and energy security.

Rifkin is the principal architect of the Third Industrial Revolution long-term economic sustainability plan to address the triple challenge of the global economic crisis, energy security, and climate change.[1] The Third Industrial Revolution was formally endorsed by the European Parliament in 2007 and is now being implemented by various agencies within the European Commission.[2]

Rifkin has been advising the leadership of the People’s Republic of China in recent years. The Huffington Post reported from Beijing in October 2015 that “Chinese Premier Li Keqiang has not only read Jeremy Rifkin’s book, The Third Industrial Revolution, but taken it to heart”, he and his colleagues having incorporated ideas from this book into the core of the country’s thirteenth Five-Year Plan.(3) According to EurActiv, “Jeremy Rifkin is an American economist and author whose best-selling Third Industrial Revolution arguably provided the blueprint for Germany’s transition to a low-carbon economy, and China’s strategic acceptance of climate policy.”[4]

Rifkin has taught at the Wharton School’s Executive Education Program at the University of Pennsylvania since 1995, where he instructs CEOs and senior management on transitioning their business operations into sustainable economies. Rifkin is ranked #123 in the WorldPost / HuffingtonPost 2015 global survey of “The World’s Most Influential Voices.” He is also listed among the top 10 most influential economic thinkers in the survey.[5] Rifkin has lectured before many Fortune 500 companies, and hundreds of governments, civil society organizations, and universities over the past thirty five years.[6]

Rifkin is also the President of the TIR Consulting Group, LLC,[7] in connection with a wide range of industries including renewable energy, power transmission, architecture, construction, IT, electronics, transport, and logistics. TIR’s global economic development team is working with cities, regions, and national governments to develop the Internet of Things (IoT) infrastructure for a Collaborative Commons and a Third Industrial Revolution. TIR is currently working with the regions of Hauts-de-France in France,[8] the Metropolitan Region of Rotterdam and The Hague,[9] and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg[10] in the conceptualization, build-out, and scale-up of a smart Third Industrial Revolution infrastructure to transform their economies.


Jeremy Rifkin, looking at effects of globalization started theorizing about what the new World will look like. When the ideas coalesced in his mind, In 2011, Mr. Rifkin published “The Third Industrial Revolution: How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World.” It became an immediate New York Times best seller when the Wall Street Journal analyzed the economic
aspects of Rifkin’s theory. The WSJ article pointed at the potential financial winners and the potential financial losers – but as we already pointed out in
our last column his proposals contain much more. In effect he points out that
if we consider the years 2008-2009 as the first Global collapse of financial institutions caused by high costs of fossil fuels, unemployment, unreasonably
swelling of National debt, then what we are now heading to is nothing less
then the onset of the second Global collapse of the economy.

Now, like then, the price of energy and food is climbing, unemployment remains high, the housing market has tanked again, consumer and government debt is soaring, and the recovery is slowing. Facing the prospect of a second collapse of the global economy, humanity is desperate for a sustainable economic game plan to take us into the future. The difference from the first collapse is in
the arrival of new big Nation States and Regional-blocs of Nations.

Jeremy Rifkin explores how Internet technology and renewable energy are merging to create the powerful “Third Industrial Revolution.” He asks us to imagine hundreds of millions of people producing their own green energy in their homes, offices, and factories, and sharing it with each other in an “energy internet,” just like we now create and share information online.

Rifkin describes how the five pillars of the Third Industrial Revolution will create thousands of businesses and millions of jobs and usher in a fundamental reordering of human relationships, from hierarchical power to lateral power, that will impact the way we conduct commerce, govern society, educate our children, and engage in civic life.

When the 2011 book was published, Rifkin’s vision was already gaining traction in the international community. The European Parliament had issued a formal declaration calling for its implementation, and nations in Asia, Africa, and the Americas are quickly preparing their own initiative for transitioning into this new economic paradigm.

But furthermore, now Rifkin points out that looking at the effects of the Second Industrial Revolution – the switch from coal to fossil fuels, led eventually to WWI when human life lost its value – but even more – to the
calamity of the influenza epidemics that took another 50,000 lives as if it were a mini-extinction.

The Third Industrial Revolution could thus be an insider’s account of the next great economic era, including a look into the personalities and players—heads of state, global CEO’s, social entrepreneurs, and NGOs—who are pioneering its implementation around the world, but it could also involve moves towards WWIII
and massive extinction of life.

We are adding these columns because of this week’s “Sustainable Energy for All Forum” (SE4All) two days (May 2-3, 2018) Session In Lisbon, with Jeremy Rifkin
as Key-Speaker.

As per “2018 Sustainable Energy for All Forum – Day 2 Wrap Up” with Mr. Rifkin
as Key Speaker, it was all about speed and scale of solutions – the urgency of
momentum on the SDG7 goals – concrete actions to leave no one behind. It is this call to a decrease in the inequality of the distribution of wealth that
will be picked up now at the May 14-16 2018 Vienna Energy Forum when the
Federal President of Austria, Mr. Alexander Van der Bellen, will host at the Hofburg Palace the Second Day of the meetings. The First Day of the meetings,
to be held at the Vienna International UN Center and hosted by UNIDO – the
UN Industrial Development Organization – will deal with Climate and technical aspects of Clean Energy Innovation helped by a Global Network of Sustainable Energy Centers.

At the center of all this is the UN SDG7 – the Sustainable Development Goal
number 7 that reads: “Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and
modern energy for all.” The critics point at the huge amounts of money needed
to achieve that goal and the fact the UN has not created the mechanism needed
to come up with the funds. The buds of hope have appeared nevertheless as individuals, communities, and even some regional groupings, have started to
create mechanisms for local achievement of this goal. These are small lights
in the right direction Mr. Rifkin is suggesting.

A summary by IISD of the Lisbon meetings can be found at:
IISD SEforALL Bulletin
Volume 181 Number 22 | Sunday, 6 May 2018


Posted on on May 5th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

The Great Crack-Up, Then and Now.

May 4, 2018 SHERI BERMAN, Project Syndicate.

The Great War laid waste to the economic and political foundations of Europe, but did not establish a new international order, thus setting the stage for the disasters of the 1930s and 1940s. As the world approaches another period of vast economic and political change, the lessons of the interwar interregnum are more relevant than ever.

Peter Clarke, The Locomotive of War: Money, Empire, Power and Guilt, Bloomsbury, 2017.
Robert Gerwarth, The Vanquished: Why the First World War Failed to End, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016.
Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931, Penguin Random House, 2014.
Philip Ziegler, Between the Wars: 1919-1939, MacLeHose Press, 2016.
NEW YORK – Many now fear that we are witnessing the disintegration of the liberal international order, which has for decades ensured peace and prosperity in the West and many other parts of the world. That order was established after World War II, but it is worth remembering that its origins lie in the period following World War I.

WWI was a staggering conflagration with far-reaching consequences. Beginning as a confrontation between the Triple Entente – France, the United Kingdom, and Russia – and the Central Powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary, the war quickly engulfed all of Europe, with the exception of Spain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Scandinavia. In time, it dragged in the Ottoman Empire, Japan, the United States, and various members of the British Commonwealth. And, eventually, its impact was felt as far afield as Latin America and Asia.

Needless to say, WWI was immensely destructive: approximately ten million people died, and perhaps three times as many were injured. By 1918, Europe was shattered, exhausted, and demoralized. And just as the war was ending, a global influenza pandemic struck, eventually killing perhaps 50 million more people. The world that had existed before the war was gone forever.


I know that the article does not do justice to its title. On Jeremy’s great
presentation at the May 2-3, 2018 Lisbon meeting of SE4All (Sustainable Energy for All) – The switch from Fossil Fuels to Renewable Energy – with parallel switches involving communication and transportation – we will have a separate article. I posted this article because it deals actually with the Second Industrial Revolution – the one that switched society from Coal to Fossil Fuels and was source of unemployment and social misery. Jeremy Rifkin has written extensively on these developments and is predicting change we just hinted to
in our article that positioned the EU and the US in terms of just released 2017 emissions data.



Posted on on May 5th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

Europe Shouldn’t Be Too Smug with US About Emissions – suggests CNN’s Fareed Zakaria of the Global Public Square:

A UN climate meeting began in Bonn this week. But while Europe has talked a good game in recent years, America actually bested the continent in cutting emissions last year, writes Bob Berwyn for Pacific Standard.

“Despite a year-long pro-fossil fuel propaganda campaign by the government, US emissions dropped in 2017 by 0.5 percent (32 million tons); the EU, which talks a good climate game, saw emissions increase by 1.5 percent last year,” Berwyn notes.

“Regarding the one-year comparison between emissions in the US vs. the EU, [climate expert Glen] Peters says that, while it doesn’t tell the whole story, the comparison is a clarifying piece of that story, and demonstrates that market incentives can be just as important as policies and regulations.”

“The US emissions decline was bigger than in any other major developed economy, mainly thanks to rapid deployment of renewable energy sources, including in red states like Texas and Kansas. But that may change in the future, pending the outcome of current efforts to encourage expanded oil and gas drilling, as well as coal production, and to roll back anti-pollution measures like auto efficiency standards and the Clean Power Plan.”


Europe talks a good game on climate, but its emissions rose last year—while in the U.S., despite the efforts of the Trump administration, emissions fell.
BOB BERWYNMAY 3, 2018, THE PACIFIC STANDARD based in Ventura County, California.

Climate negotiators gathering in Bonn, Germany, this week must grapple with the fact that the carbon age still hasn’t peaked.

After plateauing for three years, global CO2 emissions increased in 2017 by 1.4 percent, to a record 32.5 gigatons, according to the International Energy Agency. The European Union, China, and India all registered a hefty increase in emissions, but in the United States, they dropped, despite the Trump administration’s pro-coal agenda.

Overall, the global increase is bad news for communities trying to adapt to climate extremes caused by heat-trapping pollution. It also raises the stakes at the current round of climate talks under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn this week, where the focus is on on finalizing the rulebook for the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to less than two degrees Celsius.

The remaining questions about the rulebook are big ones: Who will count and verify carbon emissions? What will assessments of emission-reduction measures look like? How will we know that we’ve finally bent the global emissions curve downward for good?

Last year’s jump in CO2 emissions increases the pressure on the climate negotiators because it puts the most ambitious target of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius farther out of reach. Hitting that goal would require a 70 to 90 percent reduction of emissions by 2050 (from 2010 levels), according to Climate Analytics, a non-profit climate think tank. And that will become nearly impossible if emissions continue to go up for just a few more years.

If emissions don’t peak by 2020, we’ll be forced to try the much more expensive paths of trying to suck CO2 out of the air, or potentially dangerous geo-engineering.

The global emissions increase in 2017 was driven by increased energy demand from the rapidly growing economies of India and China, showing that economic growth and carbon emissions have not yet been completely decoupled, says Glen Peters, a climate expert with the Global Carbon Project, a non-profit think tank that closely tracks the world’s CO2 budget. But both countries are headed in that direction. China’s economy grew by 7 percent in 2017, while its emissions grew by just 1.7 percent.

Notable was the contrast, highlighted in the IEA report, between emissions in the U.S. and the E.U., Peters says. Despite a year-long pro-fossil fuel propaganda campaign by the government, U.S. emissions dropped in 2017 by 0.5 percent (32 million tons); the E.U., which talks a good climate game, saw emissions increase by 1.5 percent last year.

Regarding the one-year comparison between emissions in the U.S. vs. the E.U., Peters says that, while it doesn’t tell the whole story, the comparison is a clarifying piece of that story, and demonstrates that market incentives can be just as important as policies and regulations.

The U.S. emissions decline was bigger than in any other major developed economy, mainly thanks to rapid deployment of renewable energy sources, including in red states like Texas and Kansas. But that may change in the future, pending the outcome of current efforts to encourage expanded oil and gas drilling, as well as coal production, and to roll back anti-pollution measures like auto efficiency standards and the Clean Power Plan.

“The damage may not come for a few years in the U.S.,” Peters says. “The changes to regulations on oil and gas extraction could take years to take effect.” At the same time, he notes that some of the U.S. emissions reductions in the past decade did not come from climate policy, but were driven by simple energy economics: the declining price of wind and solar.

Recent adjustments to the E.U. emissions system should start raising the price of carbon by 2020, leading to bigger CO2 cuts, and individual European countries have announced an ambitious slew of initiatives to make much deeper cuts in the years ahead.

The United Kingdom, for example, is aiming for net zero carbon by 2050; Norway wants to electrify all domestic flights by 2040, and a group of seven major European countries, including France, agreed in advance of the Bonn negotiations to enact a more ambitious European climate policy that would include big emissions cuts by 2030 to reach the Paris target.

But those good intentions are partly at the mercy of the E.U.’s unwieldy decision-making process.

“The E.U. is a slave to its weakest link, and that’s Poland. Your climate policy can only be as strong as Poland will allow, and that’s going to make things harder,” Peters says.

Poland still relies heavily on coal to keep its economy growing, and there’s no sign of a significant short-term shift in that country’s energy policy. The real debate for Europe is about goals for 2030, since the bloc has essentially already met its 2020 target, Peters adds.

One year’s worth of data doesn’t necessarily indicate a trend, so we shouldn’t overhype the 2017 drop in U.S. emissions, Kelly Levin, a climate analyst with the World Resources Institute, tells Pacific Standard.

“If you look behind the numbers, the pace of decline certainly slowed in the U.S.; CO2 emissions from energy production fell at half the rate of the 2005–16 average. This 2017 blip may not be indicative for what’s coming in the U.S.,” Levin says, explaining that the drop from emissions in the power sector masks increases from transport, industry, and aviation.

Overall, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects U.S. emissions will increase by 1 percent in 2018, which is is a big deal, because the U.S. is still the second-biggest global emitter after China, responsible for 14 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

But the pro-coal push by the current U.S. government may be more sound and fury than anything else, according to Susanne Droege, an energy and climate policy expert with the German Institute for International and Security Affairs.

“[President Donald] Trump isn’t really getting anywhere with coal revival. Producing more coal-fired electricity is not happening on any large scale,” Droege says.

The global push to cut emissions may also hit an obstacle in November, when Poland hosts the COP 24 talks, the penultimate UNFCCC session as the earliest deadlines for mitigation, financing, and stock-taking under the Paris Agreement approach in 2020.

According to Droege, there is some concern that Poland’s current nationalistic path will be reflected in a continued pro-coal climate policy that could hinder E.U.-wide efforts toward more ambitious reductions.

And since it will be tough for the world to reach its global climate goals if U.S. emissions were to soar over the next few years, the American negotiating team will once again be scrutinized for clues as to the direction of U.S. climate and energy policy—especially after speculation that French President Emmanuel Macron may be able to woo Trump back into the climate deal.



Posted on on April 14th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

This month, the Trump administration gave oil companies the chance to identify spots they’d like to drill in the Beaufort Sea – a region predominantly off-limits to development. This request is another massive step towards new oil and gas drilling in Arctic waters full of beluga and bowhead whales, Arctic seals and walrus.

The good news is, you can speak up too! Please oppose new lease sales in the Arctic Ocean today.

Risky Arctic Ocean drilling isn’t about needing new oil. It is about sacrificing our Arctic Ocean and damaging our climate to bolster a struggling administration shackled to its oil allies. We should not rush forward with new leasing when a single spill would devastate wildlife and local communities, and take us further down a path of climate disaster.

Please speak out against new drilling leases in the wildlife-rich Beaufort Sea.

No lease sales should take place in the Arctic Ocean. Time and time again, millions of people across the country have determined that it’s too risky and dirty to take any chances with these fragile waters.

Thank you,
Arctic Campaign Manager



Posted on on March 2nd, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

from the American-Iranian Council in the US.

Rouhani: Iran ‘ready’ to talk to Arab neighbors.

US-Iran Relations

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday said Iran is ready to discuss regional security issues with its Gulf Arab neighbours as long as foreign powers are kept out of any potential talks.

“We don’t need foreigners to guarantee the security of our region,” Rouhani said in a speech broadcast on state television.

“When it comes to regional security arrangements, we are ready to talk to our neighbours and friends, without the presence of foreigners,” he added. (The New Arab)

Trump Administration Turns Away Iranian Christians

The Trump administration has denied asylum to more than 100 Iranian Christians and other refugees who face possible persecution in their home country, despite White House promises to relieve the plight of religious minorities in the Middle East.

The group of refugees, mostly Christians along with other non-Muslims, have been stranded in Vienna for more than a year, waiting for final approval to resettle in the United States. Now they face possible deportation back to Iran, where rights advocates say they face potential retaliation or imprisonment by the regime in Tehran for seeking asylum in the United States.

U.S. Vice President Mike Pence has vowed action to alleviate the suffering of Christians in the region and the administration has condemned Tehran’s treatment of religious minorities. But critics say the decision on the Iranian Christians shows the administration had failed to live up to its own rhetoric. (Foreign Policy)



Posted on on March 2nd, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

From the New York Times – March 2, 2018:

• The North Pole has been warmer than parts of Europe this week.
A growing body of research suggests that, because of climate change, the warming Arctic is weakening the polar vortex, allowing cold air to escape, much like when you leave your refrigerator door open.
Snow, freezing rain and brutal winds paralyzed cities across Europe. Expect road, rail and air traffic to continue to be disrupted, although temperatures could rise slightly on some parts of the Continent.
But it’s not over yet: A storm that is moving north from the Iberian Peninsula is expected to worsen conditions in Britain and Ireland.



Posted on on March 2nd, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (



US plans to impose steel and aluminium tariffs risk prompting a wider trade war after the EU, China, and others vowed to retaliate.
“We will not sit idly while our industry is hit with unfair measures that put thousands of European jobs at risk,” European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker said on Thursday (1 March).
He said the EU would “react firmly” in “the next few days” with “countermeasures” that were compatible with World Trade Organisation rules.

He also indicated that US president Donald Trump’s “blatant … protectionism” risked doing wider harm to transatlantic relations.

“The EU has been a close security ally of the US for decades,” Juncker noted, after Trump ignored proposals by his own trade chief to exclude “friendly states” from the metals decision.

Trump said, earlier on Thursday, that steel importers would have to pay a 25 percent tariff and aluminium importers 10 percent after the measures entered into life next week.

Germany is the EU’s biggest steel exporter to the US and shipped 1.4 million tonnes there last year.

That figure is small compared to Canada and Brazil, which shipped around 5 million tonnes each to the US.

But VW Stahl, the German steel lobby, said Trump’s move threatened to flood the EU market with foreign steel when those countries diverted exports from the US.

“If the EU does not act, our steel industry will pay the bill for protectionism in the US. Europe is threatened by trade diversion by a new steel spill, in a situation where the import crisis in the EU market is far from over,” VW Stahl chief Hans Juergen Kerkhoff said, referring to global overcapacity in the sector.

With Canada, Brazil, and other steel exporters, such as China, also threatening retaliatory measures, Kerkhoff added that the risk of a broader trade war risked seeing EU exporters shut out of other markets as well.

“German supplies to other countries would also be affected, as the US measures would have imitation effects and thus an increase in global protectionism,” he said.

He spoke after Canadian foreign minister Chrystia Freeland said “Canada will take responsive measures to defend its trade interests and workers”.

The US measures “overturn the international trade order,” Wen Xianjun, vice chairman of the China Nonferrous Metals Industry Association, said, adding: “Other countries, including China, will [also] take relevant retaliatory measures.”

The Chinese reaction is expected to target US exports of soy beans as well as metals, highlighting the risk of a wider protectionist backlash around the world.

The Trump tariffs raise “risks of an all-out trade war, which could dampen economic growth,” the Australia & New Zealand Banking Group said in a note.

Trump made the announcement at a meeting with a dozen or so CEOs of US steel makers, including US Steel Corp and Arcelor Mittal, which stand to gain from his decision.

But the resulting hike in raw materials costs for US steel-using industries, such as energy companies, car makers, and the aerospace and construction sectors, which employ 80 times as many people as US steel makers, risked undoing any benefits for the American economy.

“We are urging the administration to avoid killing US jobs through a steel tariff that impacts pipelines,” said Andy Black, CEO of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines, a US pressure group.

The situation was quickly reflected on Wall Street, where shares in US steel firms rose by 7 percent on Thursday, while those in steel-users such as Ford, Caterpillar, and Boeing fell by 3 percent.

Shares in steel firms in China, Japan, and South Korea also fell on the news.


And from The New York Times – March 2, 2018:

Major stock markets in the U.S. and Asia fell after President Trump announced stiff tariffs on steel and aluminum.
The European Union, Canada and others threatened to retaliate. The stability of the global trade system is at risk, our senior economics correspondent writes.
Mr. Trump’s announcement highlighted the dysfunction in the White House, which has not completed a legal review of the measures. The president’s chief economic adviser, who lobbied fiercely against the measures, threatened to quit.


And from Trump’s Washington:

President Trump on March 1 announced tariffs on steel and aluminum. “Without steel and aluminum, your country is not the same,” Trump said.

President Trump on Thursday said he has decided to impose punishing tariffs on imported steel and aluminum in a major escalation of his trade offensive, disappointing Republican congressional leaders and inviting retaliation by U.S. trading partners.

Speaking at the White House, the president said he has decided on tariffs of 25 percent for foreign-made steel and 10 percent for aluminum.

“We’ll be imposing tariffs on steel imports and tariffs on aluminum imports,” the president said. “…You will have protection for the first time in a long while, and you’re going to regrow your industries.”



Posted on on March 2nd, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

The Ultimate Blowback Universe, a Planet Boiling With Unintended Consequence.

By Tom Engelhardt in TomDispatch of 01 March 2018

The Ultimate Blowback Universe
A Planet Boiling With Unintended Consequences.

ou want to see “blowback” in action? That’s easy enough. All you need is a vague sense of how Google Search works. Then type into it phrases like “warmest years,” “rising sea levels,” “melting ice,” “lengthening wildfire season,” or “future climate refugees,” and you’ll find yourself immersed in the grimmest of blowback universes. It’s a world which should give that CIA term of tradecraft a meaning even the Agency never imagined for it.

But before I put you on this blowback planet of ours and introduce you to the blowback president presiding over it, I want to take a moment to remember Mr. Blowback himself.

And what a guy he was! Here’s how he described himself in the last piece he wrote for TomDispatch just months before his death in November 2010: “My own role these past 20 years has been that of Cassandra, whom the gods gave the gift of foreseeing the future, but also cursed because no one believed her.”

He wasn’t being immodest. He had, in many ways, seen the shape of things to come for what he never hesitated to call “the American empire,” including — in that 2010 piece — its decline. As he wrote then, “Thirty-five years from now, America’s official century of being top dog (1945-2045) will have come to an end; its time may, in fact, be running out right now. We are likely to begin to look ever more like a giant version of England at the end of its imperial run, as we come face to face with, if not necessarily to terms with, our aging infrastructure, declining international clout, and sagging economy.”

You know how — if you’re of a certain age at least — there are those moments when you go back to the books that truly mattered to you, the ones that somehow prepared you, as best anyone can be prepared, for the years to come. One I return to regularly is his. I’m talking about Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire.

The man who wrote that was Chalmers Johnson, a former CIA consultant and eminent scholar of modern Asian history, who would in that work characterize himself in his former life as a “spear-carrier for empire.”

Blowback was published in 2000 to next to no notice. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, it became a bestseller. There was so much to learn from it, starting with the very definition of blowback, a word he brought out of the secret world for the rest of us to consider. “The term ‘blowback,’ which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use,” he wrote, “refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of ‘terrorists’ or ‘drug lords’ or ‘rogue states’ or ‘illegal arms merchants’ often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations.”

And if “unintended consequences” isn’t a supremely appropriate title under which to write the misbegotten history of the years that followed 9/11 in the era of the self-proclaimed “sole superpower” or, as American politicians love to say, “the indispensable nation,” what is? Of course, in the best blowback fashion, al-Qaeda’s attacks of that day hit this country like literal bolts from the blue — even the top officials of George W. Bush’s administration were stunned as they scurried for cover. Of all Americans, they at least should have been better prepared, given the warning offered to the president only weeks earlier by that blowback center of operations, the CIA. (“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” was the title of the presidential daily brief of August 6, 2001.)

Osama bin Laden would prove to be the poster boy of blowback. His organization, al-Qaeda, would be nurtured into existence by an all-American urge to give the Soviet Union its own Vietnam, what its leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, would later call its “bleeding wound,” and to do so in, of all places, Afghanistan. In October 2001, 12 years after the Red Army limped out of that country in defeat and a decade after the Soviet Union imploded, in part thanks to that very wound, Washington would launch a “Global War on Terror.” It would be the Bush administration’s response to al-Qaeda’s supposedly inexplicable attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. The Taliban’s Afghanistan would be its first target and so would begin America’s second Afghan War, a conflict now almost 17 years old with no end in sight. Yet in our American world, remarkably few connections are ever made between the present war and that blowback moment against the Soviets nearly 40 years ago. (Were he alive, Chalmers Johnson, who never ceased to make such connections, would have been grimly amused.)

Giving Imperial Overstretch New Meaning

Talk about the endless ramifications of blowback. It was bin Laden’s genius — for a mere $400,000 to $500,000 — to goad Washington into spending trillions of dollars across significant parts of the Islamic world fighting conflict after conflict, all of which only seemed to create yet more rubble, terror outfits, and refugees (who, in turn, have helped fuel yet more right-wing populist movements from Europe to Donald Trump’s America). Tell me it’s not a blowback world!

As it happened, bin Laden’s 2001 attacks brought official Washington not to its knees but to its deepest post-Cold War conviction: that the world was its oyster; that, for the first time in history, a single great power potentially had it all, a shot at everything, starting with Afghanistan, followed by Iraq, then much of the rest of the Middle East, and sooner or later the whole planet. In a post-Soviet world in which America’s leaders felt the deepest sense of triumphalism, the 9/11 attacks seemed like the ultimate insult. Who would dream of doing such a thing to the greatest power of all of time?

In an act of pure wizardry, bin Laden drew out of Bush, Cheney, and company their deepest geopolitical fantasies about the ability of that all-powerful country and, in particular, “the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world,” the U.S. military, to dominate any situation on Earth. The early months of 2003, when they were preparing to invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, may have been their ultimate hubristic moment, in which imagining anything other than success of a historic sort, not just in that country but far beyond it, was inconceivable.

Until then, never — except in Hollywood movies when the bad guy rubbed his hands with glee and cackled that the world was his — had any power truly dreamed of taking it all, of ruling, or at least directing, the planet itself. Even for a globalizing great power without rivals and wealthy almost beyond compare that would prove the ultimate in conceptual overstretch. Looking back, it’s easy enough to see that almost 17 years of ceaseless war and conflict across the Greater Middle East, Africa, and even parts of Asia, of massive destruction, of multiplying failed states, of burgeoning terror outfits, and of blowback of every sort, have given the old phrase, “biting off more than you can chew,” new geopolitical meaning.

Washington created what was, in effect, a never-ending blowback machine. In those years, while the distant wars went on and on (and terrors of every imaginable sort grew in this country), the United States was transformed in a remarkable, if not yet fully graspable, fashion. The national security state now reigns supreme in Washington; generals (or retired generals) are perched (however precariously) atop key parts of the civilian government; a right-wing populist, who rose to power in part on the fear of immigrants, refugees, and Islamic extremists, has his giant golden letters emblazoned on the White House (and a hotel just down Pennsylvania Avenue that no diplomat or lobbyist with any sense would dare not patronize); the police have been militarized; borders have been further fortified; spy drones have been dispatched to American skies; and the surveillance of the citizenry and its communications have been made the order of the day. Meanwhile, the latest disturbed teen, armed with a military-style AR-15 semi-automatic, has just perpetrated another in a growing list of slaughters in American schools. In response, the president, Republican politicians, and the National Rifle Association have all plugged the arming of teachers and administrators, as well as the “hardening” of schools (including the use of surveillance systems and other militarized methods of “defense”), and so have given phrases like “citadel of learning” or “bastion of education” new meaning. In these same years, various unnamed terrors and the weaponization of the most psychically distraught parts of the citizenry under the rubric of the Second Amendment and the sponsorship of the NRA, the Republican Party, and most recently Donald Trump have transformed this country into something like an armed camp.

It seems, in other words, that in setting out to take the world, in some surprising fashion this country both terrorized and conquered itself. For that, Osama bin Laden should certainly be congratulated but so should George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and all their neoconservative pals, not to speak of David Petraeus, James Mattis, John Kelly, H.R. McMaster, and a host of other generals of America’s losing wars.

Think of it this way: at what looked like the height of American power, Washington managed to give imperial overstretch a historically new meaning. Even on a planet without other great power rivals, a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East, no less the full-scale garrisoning and policing of significant parts of the rest of the globe proved far too much for the sole superpower, no matter how technologically advanced its military or powerful and transnational its economy. As it turned out, that urge to take everything would prove the perfect launching pad for this country’s decline.

Someday (if there is such a day), this record will prove a goldmine for historians of imperial power and blowback. And yet all of this, even the fate of this country, should be considered relatively minor matters, given the ultimate blowback to come.

Humanity Nailed to a Cross of Coal

There was, in fact, another kind of blowback underway and the American empire was clearly a player in it, too, even a major one, but hardly the only one. Every place using fossil fuels was involved. This form of blowback threatens not just the decline of a single great imperial power but of humanity itself, of the very environment that nurtured generation after generation of us over these thousands of years. By definition, that makes it the worst form of blowback imaginable.

What I have in mind, of course, is climate change or global warming. In a way, you could think of it as the story of another kind of superpower and how it launched the decline of us all. On a planetary scale, the giant corporations (and national fuel companies) that make up global Big Energy have long been on the hunt for every imaginable reserve of fossil fuels and for ways to control and exploit them. The oil, natural gas, and coal such outfits extracted fueled industrial society, still-spreading car cultures, and consumerism as we know it.

Over most of the years such companies were powering human development, the men who ran them and their employees had no idea that the greenhouse gasses released by the burning of fossil fuels were heating the atmosphere and the planet’s waters in potentially disastrous ways. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, however, like scientists elsewhere, those employed by ExxonMobil, the world’s largest oil company, had become aware of the phenomenon (as would those of other energy companies). That meant the men who ran Exxon and other major firms recognized in advance of most of the rest of us just what kind of blowback the long-term burning of oil, natural gas, and coal was going to deliver: a planet ever less fit for human habitation.

They just didn’t think those of us in the non-scientific community should know about it and so, by the 1990s, they were already doing their damnedest to hide it from us. However, when scientists not in their employ started to publicize the new reality in a significant way, as the heads of some of the most influential and wealthiest corporations on Earth they began to invest striking sums in the fostering of a universe of think tanks, lobbyists, and politicians devoted to what became known as climate-change denial. Between 1998 and 2014, for instance, Exxon would pump $30 million into just such think tanks and similar groups, while donating $1.87 million directly to congressional climate-change deniers.

It doesn’t take a lot of thought to realize that, from its inception, this was the functional definition of the worst crime in history. In the name of record profits and the comfortable life (as well as corporate sustainability in an unendingly fossil-fuelized world), their CEOs had no hesitation about potentially dooming the human future to a hell on Earth of rising temperatures, rising sea levels, and ever more extreme weather; they gave, that is, a new, all-encompassing meaning to the term genocide. They were prepared, if necessary, to take out the human species.

But I suspect even they couldn’t have imagined quite how successful they would be when it came to bringing the sole superpower of the post-9/11 world on board. In a sense, the two leading forms of blowback of the twenty-first century — the imperial and fossil-fuelized ones — came to be focused in a single figure. After all, it’s hard to imagine the rise to power of Donald Trump in a world in which the Bush administration had decided not to invade either Afghanistan or Iraq but to treat its “Global War on Terror” as a localized set of police actions against one international criminal and his scattered group of followers.

As it happened, one form of blowback from the disastrous wars that were meant to create the basis for a Pax Americana planet helped to produce the conditions and fears at home that put Donald Trump in the White House.

Or put another way, in the face of the evidence produced by essentially every knowledgeable scientist on Earth, on a planet already feeling the early and increasingly extreme results of a warming atmosphere, millions of Americans elected a man who claimed it was all a “hoax,” who was unabashedly dedicated above anything else (except perhaps his “big, fat, beautiful wall” on the Mexican border) to a fossil-fuelized American planet, and who insisted that he would run an administration that would make this country “energy dominant” again. They elected, in other words, a representative of the very set of lobbyists, climate deniers, and politicians who had, in essence, been created by Big Energy. Or put another way, they voted for a man who pledged to bring back the dying American coal industry and was prepared to green-light oil and natural gas pipelines of whatever sort, open the nation’s coastal waters to drilling, and lift restrictions of every kind on energy companies, while impeding the development of alternative sources of energy and other attempts to mitigate climate change. As the ultimate President Blowback, Donald Trump promptly filled every last faintly relevant post in his administration with climate-change deniers and allies of Big Energy, while abandoning the Paris climate accord.

In other words, President Donald Trump has dedicated himself to nailing humanity to a cross of coal.

Where’s Chalmers Johnson now that we really need him?

Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. His next book, A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books), will be published in May.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, as well as John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt’s Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.


[Note for TomDispatch readers: Just another of my small reminders as 2018 becomes the year from hell. At our donation page, you can, as ever, find a set of outstanding books on that very hell ready to be signed and personalized in return for a donation of at least $100 to this website ($125 if you live outside the United States). Among them are historian Alfred McCoy’s hit Dispatch Book, In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power; John Feffer’s dystopian thriller, Splinterlands; Rebecca Gordon’s American Nuremberg; and my own Shadow Government. Check out our donation page for the details and keep in mind that this website relies on your never-ending generosity to stay afloat in rough seas.


Tom Engelhardt is a co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The United States of Fear as well as a history of the Cold War, The End of Victory Culture. He is a fellow of the Nation Institute and runs His latest book is Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World. His next book, A Nation Unmade by War (Dispatch Books), will be published in May.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Alfred McCoy’s In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, as well as John Dower’s The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, John Feffer’s dystopian novel Splinterlands, Nick Turse’s Next Time They’ll Come to Count the Dead, and Tom Engelhardt’s Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.



Posted on on February 14th, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

The School will take place at St Hilda’s College, Oxford and will address key elements of the new economy transformation, exploring the cutting edge methods and policy applications in ecological economics, with a particular focus on Green Economy for Countries, Cities and Regions: Ecosystems, Economy, Policy. With a clear sustainable development focus, it will draw on the expertise of a range of disciplines: economics, ecology, physics, environmental sciences, finance, politics, international relations, sociology, psychology, complex systems theory, etc. to address the current challenges: climate change, biodiversity loss, resource depletion, water shortages, social cohesion and achieving sustainability.

The course will be composed of theoretical and applied modules and will address the key elements of the environment-economy interaction: the foundations of ecological economics, methodological approaches, finance for the green economy, ecological conflicts, the story of REDD, economic instruments, regulation, environmental taxes, environmentally extended input-output analysis, multiple criteria methods, as well as renewable energy, regenerative cities, ecosystem service and case studies from around the world.

The Summer School will feature interactive simulation games.

Our lecturers will include the leaders in the field of ecological economics: Dr Joachim Spangenberg (SERI Germany), Prof. Juan Martinez-Alier (Autonomous University of Barcelona), Dr Stanislav Shmelev (Environment Europe Ltd), Prof. Robert Ayres (INSEAD), Dr Stefan Speck (European Environment Agency), Ambassador Kevin Conrad (Coalition for Rainforest Nations), Prof. Dave Elliott (The Open University), Prof. Herbert Girardet (The Club of Rome), Prof. Irina Shmeleva (Institute of Sustainable Development Strategies).

The course is designed for multiple points of entry and could be helpfulfor PhD students, government experts, representatives of international organizations and business. The course will give participants an opportunity to explore key methodologies for ecological-economic analysis and to apply these to various case studies. Oxford and SummerWinter Schools in Ecological Economics organized by Environment Europe attracted participants from over 52 countries, including Canada, USA, Mexico, Ecuador, Costa Rica, Brazil, Colombia, Peru, UK, France, Germany, Austria, Spain, Italy, Malta, Portugal, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Sweden, Bosnia, Latvia, Ghana, Nigeria, Jordan, Sri Lanka, China, India, Taiwan, and Australia, including UNEP, UNDP, IUCN, OECD, ILO, DEFRA staff, NGOs, academia and business, including Shell and Deloitte.

In case we receive United Nations, European Commission or other funding for the School, there could be limited opportunities for scholarships for young talented academics and participants from the developing world.
We are looking forward to welcoming you to Oxford.

With best regards,

Dr Stanislav E. Shmelev
Director, Environment Europe Ltd, Oxford, UK
Environment Europe Limited is incorporated in the United Kingdom under the Companies Act 2006 as a private company, Reg. 9328647

Tel: +44(0) 7729 733366
E-mail:  director at

Dear Colleagues,
Environment Europe is pleased to announce that there are still places available at the Oxford Spring School in Ecological Economics will take place 02 – 08 April 2018. Please apply before the deadline of 01 March 2018.…



Posted on on February 3rd, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

Nunes: House panel looking at State Dept. involvement in Russia probe

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) revealed Friday that Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee would examine other agencies, including the State Department, after releasing a controversial memo alleging surveillance abuses.

Speaking on Fox News just hours after Republicans on the committee released a memo alleging surveillance abuses by the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ), Nunes said the panel was moving to “phase two” of its investigation.

“We are in the middle of what I call phase two of our investigation, which involves other departments, specifically the State Department and some of the involvement that they had in this,” Nunes said.

“That investigation is ongoing and we continue work towards finding answers and asking the right questions to try to get to the bottom of what exactly the State Department was up to in terms of this Russia investigation.”

Nunes was asked whether his panel would be releasing additional memos as part of their probe after the White House declassified information to allow the release of a memo alleging that senior FBI and DOJ officials abused their powers to spy on members of President Trump’s campaign.

It’s unclear what role, if any, the State Department played in the law enforcement investigation into whether members of the Trump campaign collaborated with Russia amid Moscow’s efforts to sway the 2016 presidential election.

The decision to release the Nunes memo regarding the FBI and DOJ was highly controversial. Republicans on the Intelligence panel argued that it was necessary, because it shed light on the origins of the Russia investigation, as well as potential abuses of power by federal law enforcement officials.

Democrats and the FBI, however, voiced concerns about the memo’s accuracy, contending that Republicans omitted key facts that would have placed the information in the proper context.

The push to release the memo was largely driven by Nunes, who has been accused by Democrats of trying to undermine and discredit special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s election meddling in order to protect Trump.

SustainabiliTank thinks that the above story is what caused the fall of
Stock markets in the US this week and overseas as well. Investors are
shaken by this infighting in Washington where Congress pits Government Departments one against another. THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE AND CRASH.



Posted on on February 3rd, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

From Gaylor Montmasson-Clair  gaylor at
January 31, 2018

Trade & Industrial Policy Strategies (TIPS) and the Green Economy Coalition (GEC) invite you to the following Development Dialogue on the theme of ‘Electricity beyond the national grid’.

The event will take place in Pretoria, South Africa on Thursday 22 February 2018 (9:30-13.00). Please see below and attached for more details.

Looking forward to welcoming you at TIPS.

Best regards,



Posted on on February 3rd, 2018
by Pincas Jawetz (

From Alexander Zahar,
Wuhan University, Research Institute on Environmental Law.
January 29, 2018

Dear Colleagues,

The Research Institute of Environmental Law at Wuhan University’s School of Law is pleased to announce a one-day Writers’ Workshop to be held at Wuhan University, China, in mid-September 2018. Please see the attachment for details.

I also take this opportunity to encourage graduating LLM/Master’s students interested in environmental law to apply for the fully-funded PhD positions at the Institute (a total of six in 2018). The closing date for these is March 2018.

Please email me at the earliest about your interest in the Writers’ Workshop or for more information on the PhD scholarships.

Alexander Zahar
Luojia Distinguished Professor and Assistant Director
Research Institute of Environmental Law
Wuhan University, China