|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 19th, 2008 A NAGORNO-KARABAKH FOREIGN MINISTRY IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE EU?
Turkmenistan to cut EU dependence on Russian gas. April 14, 2008 - By Renata Goldirova, for the EUobserver. Turkmenistan has agreed to supply 10 billion cubic metres of natural gas to the European Union each year - something that should cut the energy-hungry bloc’s dependence on gas from Russia. “The president [Kurbanguly Berdymukhamedov] gave us assurances that 10 bcm will be set aside for Europe in addition to possibilities in new fields to be tendered,” EU external relations commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner told the Financial Times on Sunday (13 April). Ms Ferrero-Waldner described the deal as “a very important first step” in energy cooperation, although she acknowledged the amount agreed by the two sides does not represent a “vast quantity”. The former Soviet Republic in Central Asia has the world’s fifth largest reserves of natural gas and substantial deposits of oil. It annually produces 60 billion cubic metres of natural gas, but two-thirds are exported to Russia’s state-run Gazprom. Demand for energy is sharply rising in the European Union. By 2020, it is expected to import at least 360 bcm - out of 500 bcm consumed - from third countries. The 27-nation bloc has been trying to diversify its energy supplies away from Russia and is currently pushing for a new energy corridor, the Nabucco pipeline. The pipeline - connecting Turkey with Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary - would enable the transportation of Caspian energy resources to the European market. Main gas supplies could come from countries such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan or Egypt. Speaking about the fresh deal with Turkmenistan, Ms Ferrero-Waldner called on European business to invest in infrastructure in order to bring the project to life. It is still unclear how Turkmen gas will be imported to Europe, with the commissioner suggesting three possible short-term scenarios in the interview with the Financial Times. Under the first one, a 60-kilometre gap between Azeri and Turkmen offshore installations could be closed with a mini-pipeline. Secondly, an onshore link to Kazakhstan could be built to connect with a route to Azerbaijan. Under the third option, the gas could be compressed into liquid form and taken by tanker across the sea. ————————- Russia questions value of Nabucco energy pipeline. April 18, 2008 - By Renata Goldirova from Brussels for EUobserver: Moscow has questioned the viability of the EU-backed Nabucco energy corridor, a pipeline designed to lessen the bloc’s dependency on Russia. “I know few things about political geography. The only way to fill the Nabucco pipeline is to rely on Iranian gas,” Russian ambassador to the EU Vladimir Chizhov told journalists earlier this week (15 April). He added: “But then, it’s up to the West, I would not tell the EU, to make up its mind how to deal with Iran.
“There have been some euphoric comments about Turkmenistan,” the ambassador said, stressing that the volume agreed by the two sides is “not enough”. In addition, he questioned the ability of Azerbaijan, another potential source, to fulfil the union’s sharply rising energy demand. The European Commission considers Nabucco to be “essential” to the EU as it is designed to bring gas from non-traditional suppliers via a new transport route. The pipeline - connecting Turkey with Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary - would enable the transportation of gas from the resource-rich Caspian region to the European market. Its capacity amounts to 31 billion cubic metres of natural gas per year. The bulk of the supplies are expected to come from countries such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan or Egypt. The EU is also hoping to secure natural gas from Iraq, with Baghdad earlier this week pledging to provide five billion cubic metres of gas each year. The two sides are set to sign a so-called energy security memorandum of understanding in coming days. In response to Mr Chizhov’s statements, the commission said that a list of source countries was yet to be defined. It addmitted, however, that once the problems with Iran are solved, Tehran can be taken into consideration on the longer term. Meanwhile, Moscow - the world’s largest producer of natural gas - has been pushing for its own project, the South Stream pipeline. It should connect Russia’s Black Sea coast and Italy, with Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and Serbia already saying they will take part in the project. According to the Russian ambassador to Brussels, there will be enough room for the South Stream, Nabucco and perhaps for another pipeline due to growing energy consumption in Europe - but only in the long run. In the short run, the defining difference is that the South Stream can rely on real gas supply, whereas Nabucco does not have gas, Mr Chizov said. The South Stream project is seen by some as a rival to Nabucco, with the European Commission saying “it is not promoting it actively” because the pipeline will bring more gas from Russia. “The two projects are complementary, not contradictory,” reads the commission’s official line on the issue. The EU needs 80 billion cubic metres of natural gas per year on top of current consumption. But some experts on EU-Russia energy relations have also suggested that Moscow has made a valid point. According to Marco Giuli from the Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies, the Nabucco pipeline is “economically viable only with Iranian gas”. He cited political tensions in Central Asia, the proximity of Chinese market as well as the US’ tough stance on Iran among those factors that cloud Nabucco’s prospects. Within the 27-nation EU, France and the UK seem to have the toughest position towards the Iranian regime, wanting to stop its nuclear ambitions not only through dialogue, but also via sanctions. On the other hand, Italy’s oil and gas producer ENI is set to undertake some investments in Iran - something, Mr Guili says has been endorsed by the country’s outgoing as well as incoming political leadership. Permalink | ### |
Printer Friendly
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 17th, 2008 2008 Goldman Environmental Prize Raises the Stakes. SAN FRANCISCO, California, April 14, 2008 (ENS) - Seven grassroots leaders who are challenging government and corporate interests and working to improve the environment and living conditions for people in their communities have won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize this year. In 2008, each individual Prize award will be increased from $125,000 to $150,000. The winners are being awarded the Prize at an invitation-only ceremony this evening at the San Francisco Opera House and will also be honored at a smaller ceremony on Wednesday at the National Geographic Society headquarters in Washington, DC.
A Mozambican activist-musician who brings education about sanitation and clean water systems through performance and community-based outreach to one of the poorest nations in the world was chosen by the Goldman Prize jury. Other recipients include a Puerto Rican grandmother working to protect a precious marshland, an indigenous Mexican farmer utilizing pre-Columbian agriculture techniques to transform a barren area into rich farmland, a Belgian environmentalist who campaigned to secure the country’s first and only national park, and a Russian woman working to protect Siberia’s Lake Baikal from oil and nuclear interests. The Goldman Environmental Prize, now in its 19th year, is awarded annually to grassroots environmental heroes from each of the world’s inhabited continental regions and is the largest award of its kind. The 2008 Goldman Prize recipients addressed some of the world’s most pressing environmental issues through grassroots efforts, helping to educate and motivate local communities to get involved in the effort to protect the natural environment around them and to stand up for their rights. This year’s winners are:
The Goldman Environmental Prize was established in 1990 by San Francisco civic leader and philanthropist Richard Goldman and his late wife, Rhoda Goldman. It has been awarded to 126 people from 72 countries. Prize winners are selected by an international jury from confidential nominations submitted by a worldwide network of environmental organizations and individuals. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on April 9th, 2008 EU aid chief says rising food prices risk African ‘humanitarian tsunami:’ As food riots sweep the developing world, the EU’s foreign aid chief has warned that sky-rocketing food price rises threaten a “humanitarian tsunami” in Africa, and has promised a boost in aid to support food security.
The last two days have seen food riots in Egypt over a doubling of the price of staple food items in the past year. Some 40 people died in similar riots in Cameroon in February, with violent demonstrations also recently taking place in Senegal, the Ivory Coast, and Mauritania. Less deadly protests in the last week have also occurred in Cambodia, Indonesia, Mozambique, Uzbekistan, Yemen and Bolivia. In the last week in Haiti, five people have been killed in riots over price rises for rice, beans and fruit, with protesters attempting to storm the presidential palace in Port-au-Prince on Tuesday (8 April), while UN staff in Jordan have gone on a one-day strike this week asking for a pay rise to deal with the 50 percent increase in prices. Elsewhere, China, Vietnam, India and Pakistan are introducing restrictions on rice exports. “The security implications [of the food crisis] should also not be underestimated as food riots are already being reported across the globe,” said Mr Holmes, speaking at the Dubai International Humanitarian Aid & Development (DIHAD) Conference, according to the Guardian. “Current food price trends are likely to increase sharply both the incidence and depth of food insecurity,” he added. Kanayo Nwanza, vice president of the UN’s International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) said on Tuesday: “Escalating social unrest as we have seen in Cameroon, Mauritania, Burkina Faso and in Senegal could spread to other countries,” reports AFP. African finance ministers met last week in Addis Ababa to consider the food crisis. In a statement, the ministers warned that food price rises “pose significant threats to Africa’s growth, peace and security.” Last month, the head of the UN World Food Programme, Josette Sheeran, said that high oil prices, low food stocks, growing demand from China and the push for biofuels are causing a food crisis around the world. “We are seeing a new face of hunger,” she said. “We are seeing more urban hunger than ever before. We are seeing food on the shelves but people being unable to afford it.” Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 30th, 2008 From: RickUlfik at WeTheWorld.org Quick Details (Full details below): Tuesday April 1, 2008 204 Varick Street (#1 to Houston, it’s at West Houston and Varick St.) in Manhattan The tickets cost $10 if you mention We, The World, The Open Center, The Foundation for Ethics and Meaning, or the Network of Spiritual Progressives. My good friend and colleague, Mark LeVine is making a rare visit to NYC performing Tuesday April 1st at SOB’s in lower Manhattan (see details below). A prolific author, guitarist/composer, activist and Middle East scholar, Mark (with Rabbi Michael Lerner) founded the Foundation for Ethics and Meaning, the precursor to Michael’s current Network of Spiritual Progressives. For many years Mark has tirelessly advocated for peaceful solutions in the Middle East. He works on many levels to foster understanding and reconciliation between clashing groups. For example, he has often performed in groups composed of both Israelis and Palestinians. And with books like his masterful and comprehensive Why They Don’t Hate Us (438 pages) Mark is one of the leading Jewish public intellectuals today who is raising awareness and understanding about Islam through culture, politics and history in American society and the West. Besides performing and writing music together, Mark and I co-organized many events for Rabbi Michael Lerner and the Foundation for Ethics and Meaning in the 1990s and went on to work with Ralph White and the Open Center leading a phenemenal team to create the historic multi-conference events of Re-Imagining Politics & Society at the Millennium in 1999 and 2000. Mark’s performance Tuesday is, in a sense, part of the book tour for his most recent book, Heavy Metal Islam. I hope you and/or your NY friends will join me there! Rick Ulfik TUESDAY APRIL 1, 2008 Heavy Metal Islam Café Mira Special Guest : Salmen Ahmed (of multi-platinum rock band, Junoon) Sabreena da Witch (Palestinian Hip Hop) Music By:
Admission: $10.00 IN ADV $12.00 DAY OF Reduced to $10 if you mention We, The World, The Open Center, The Foundation for Ethics and Meaning, or the Network of Spiritual Progressives. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 26th, 2008 Why some reserves are going untapped Despite record crude prices, however, not a single barrel has made it out of the ground. Rather than stimulate production, the rising price of oil has actually contributed to lengthy delays with the Kashagan project. Already facing extremely hostile physical conditions, the companies developing the project watched as skyrocketing oil prices fuelled inflation in construction costs and prompted the Kazakh government to revisit the production agreement. A project that was supposed to come on stream in 2005 is now slated to start up in 2011, assuming no further delays by its much-criticized operator, Italy’s Eni SpA, which is partnering with Western giants such as Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch Shell PLC. The problems facing the Kashagan project are increasingly common in today’s global oil industry. Despite a six-year runup in crude prices, which hit a record $110 (U.S.) a barrel last week, oil companies – both publicly traded and state-owned – are having difficulty keeping up with rising world demand. There are myriad reasons for the surprisingly weak supply response to high prices: a paucity of major discoveries in the past several decades; the more costly and complicated nature of developing resources from unconventional sources like oil sands and deep-water fields; the rise of nationalism in resource-rich countries; and the innate conservatism of oil industry executives, who have been burned by oil price collapses in the past. But higher prices themselves may actually discourage the addition of new supply in some circumstances, analysts at Swiss investment bank UBS Ltd. say in a study released yesterday. “With the temptation for governments to tighten fiscal terms with rising prices, the task of identifying appropriate returns has become tougher.” The UBS team, led by London-based analyst Jon Rigby, compiled a roster of major projects – those with expected production of more than 100,000 barrels a day – due to come on stream through 2015. With rising demand, plus declining production from existing fields, the industry needs to add at least 4.5 million barrels a day of new supply each year. But relying on major projects won’t meet that target. In the current year, the UBS analysts estimate new supply sources will produce 4.4 million barrels a day, but that figure drops to 2.9 million in 2009 and a paltry 1.7 million in 2010. That suggests prices could ease this year, as new additions in Saudi Arabia and the former Soviet Union provide a cushion in the face of demand weakened by the global economic slowdown. Thereafter, the market will tighten again as new production is unable to keep up with demand growth. Leading members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, like Venezuela and Iran, are underinvesting in their oil fields. Instead, they are using revenue to provide social subsidies to large and restive populations. Among OPEC members, only Saudi Arabia – and new members such as Angola – have a large slate of new crude oil projects coming on stream in the near future. Canada is well represented in the UBS list, with some two-dozen oil sands projects forecast to add 2.3 million barrels a day by 2016. Despite the increasing power of national oil companies in places like Russia, Venezuela and the Middle East, the international majors have not lost their clout. But they are being careful with their cash. Corporations like Exxon Mobil are returning cash to shareholders rather than invest in projects that don’t meet their high profitability standards. Analyst David Kirsch of PFC Energy Group said companies tend to use extremely conservative price assumptions to determine which projects will proceed. “You just see some deeply ingrained conservatism in what oil price forecast you use when you are pursuing future projects,” Mr. Kirsch said. “And I don’t see that culture changing over night.” Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on March 7th, 2008 Thursday, March 6, 2008, The European Union Studies Center of The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, with the help of the Alexander S. Onasis Public Benefit Foundation (USA), had the great opportunity to hear from one of Greece’s important political figures - Dr. Yannos Papantoniou. Since June 1989, he has been an elected member of the Greek Parliament. He served as deputy minister of National Economy, then variously as minister of Commerce, minister of National Economy and Finance, and minister of National Defense under the Socialist, or Pasok, government. On February 27, 2008, Greece Named Yannos Papantoniou As its Candidate To Lead the the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development , (EBRD). He has also been Governor of the National Bank of Greece in 2000. Over the 12-month period in 2002-03, when Greece held the presidency of the European Union’s Council of Defense Ministers, Dr. Papantoniou helped to coordinate the policies that led to the creation of the European Military Force and its engagement in international peacekeeping operations as well as the establishment of the European Defense Agency. The topic at the CUNY presentation was: “Regional Security in Southeastern Europe.” We got obviously an explicit Greek point of view. At first we got a tour of the European expansion from 15 to 27 States and we saw how this was possible. The Three Baltic States were adopted by the Scandinavian States and this helped their economic integration into the EU. Poland was helped by foreign investment and its relations to US Poles. The Central Europeans were helped by Germany and Austria (Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians - also Slovenia and the future accession of Croatia. The Creation of a partnership for peace at NATO helped Bulgaria and Romania. So now we are left with the remnants of the Balkans. The situation came to an edge with Kosovo declaring unilaterally independence on February 17, 2008 and being by now recognized as an independent State by over 100 countries. Obviously Serbia and Russia do not recognize Kosovo - neither does Greece. We found in effect, on the internet, a 2007 official statement from Greece saying that they do not agree to an “imposed’ solution for Kosovo. They think of the old concept of Sovereignty under which you cannot dismember Serbia, this because if that succeeds, North Cyprus will also want to become an independent Turkish State … Turkey? As an attached State to the West would be an important role player to stabilize the Middle East - that gave me a reason to think that one should also ask the Turks what they think. “The EU is an economic organization with political ambitions.” The requirements for accession are: a. Democracy; b. A market Economy; and c. Adaptation of EU law into National law. “Turkey is a strong regional power. If it were to come into the EU it would come in as a 100 million bloc that would change the balance of power in the EU. They might have more power then Germany and the UK combined, and this is unacceptable. The EU would prefer a special linkage to be offered to Turkey. After 12 additions the enlargement may have reached a limit. The EU has already become less homogeneous and less coherent.” For the Balkans, joining the EU gives them the best motivation to normalize their society and economy. The speaker would like this to happen eventually, but not immediately. Here, Professor Hugo M. Kaufmann, Professor of Economics at Queens College and at the Graduate Center, who chaired the event, opened up for questions, and there were many very interesting questions. I will bring up mainly our own question that came about because of the suggestion of having special relationships between the EU and countries like Turkey, that want to join the EU, but are rebuffed - then offered a special compensation that looks good to some at the EU, but which they cannot accept. Internally their governments will look like losers, and they will become losers indeed because of internal politics. My question was why look at special arrangements with single countries, while a special arrangement with a large group of countries would be much more palatable to these outsiders - and I named three such groups: The Mediterranean Group, The Black Sea Group, and the Turkic Group. The Mediterranean group does exist in effect - this as a result of the Barcelona Process. It started as an alliance to clean up the Mediterranean Sea - as such it had to include the Southern States of the EU - those reaching the sea shores - the North African States, Israel, Lebanon, Turkey etc. It includes countries that do not have good relations with each other - but they have to cooperate - and you know what - it works and gives results. The Black Sea International Council started out as an environmental organization with Greece as the only participating EU member. Now after the EU accession of Romania and Bulgaria, a new Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC) organisation was created. This group that obviously also includes Turkey, Russia, Ukraine, Georgia, has been extended to include the ‘frozen conflicts’ in Georgia, Moldova and between Armenia and Azerbaijan. (To others this reminds of the GUAM countries) This is indeed also an economic power house that can deal with quite a few oil and gas pipelines as well. The Turkic group includes obviously Turkey and the five former Soviet republics of Central Asia. It could include also Azerbaidjan and Georgia. In effect it could be an oil backyard of the EU. The bottom line of all this is that Turkey is a central part of all these three groups - it could in effect come in with all this dowry and thus be welcome in its special arrangement as leader of outside EU alliances. This - rather then thinking of Turkey as the EU opening to a Middle East where Turkey is indeed not welcome to the Arab feast - surely, even less, then its welcome to the EU table. I had also a short question - what about Albania? Why actually not putting it ahead of all this talk about Turkey?
The respected Greek speaker said that Albania was one of the poorest countries in the world and he did not think Germany will want to finance Albania. (I clearly could not reopen this point - if I could I would have reminded him that the Kosovars are also Albanians, so are some 15% of the people of Macedonia. Nobody speaks now of a greater Albania, like nobody speaks now of rejoining the present Greek part of Cyprus with Greece. The latter came about because some sort of solution was found, but leaving Albania dangling brought once Mao to this country, now it could be Al Qaeda. This is just unsound policy.) On the Barcelona process the answer was again money. The process does not go forward because of lack of money. Again I do not think that this is the case - it seems to be rather a jelousy of North EU not wanting to fund deals that favor the South States of the EU - sort of shooting themselves in the feet in the process. The speaker did not pick up the other two groups beyond saying that these are interesting ideas. On the other hand, to a question about the name dispute between Greece and Macedonia, the speaker explained that the problem was that it worries Greece if later Macedonia would put claim to the areas in Turkey and Bulgaria that carry that name. He recognized that you cannot restrain people from naming themselves what they wish, but for international relations purpose they will have to pick for themselves some neutral name because even the temporary name of FYROM is not acceptable to Greece. Because of this - in our eyes total nonsense - Greece is vetoing Macedonia’s entrance to NATO - thus in effect hurting more NATO then Macedonia.
After all of this, when the meeting was called to end, in overtime, a Turkish Consul in New York asked for his right to say also a few words. He said flat that for 200 years Turkey is part of Europe. Turkey’s per capita income is now 1/5 to 1/4 of the average of the EU, but when Spain and Portugal entered the EU they were only 1/10. It is already 45 years that Turkey is trying to get recognition for its potential. With the final end of the meeting I had the chance to talk to Mr. Basar Sen the Turkish Consul. He explained to me that the expectation of joining the EU has created its own logic and the government is now trapped by it, and turning away will have internal consequences. Surely I remember that starting with Ataturk and his “Young Turks,” a secular new Turkey was created out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire - a secular Turkey that wanted to be recognized, already then, as part of Europe. How can the speaker try to push them back into the Middle East from where these military men tried already then to escape? But, sensing a friendly person, I followed up with a question I posed years ago to the Turkish Ambassador to the UN. Something that I think was the cardinal sin of Turkish thinking of last century. The question of the Kurds. The Young Turks wanted to create a homogenized people out of the remnants of the Empire. They still had many - many different ethnic groups in the large piece of land that became Turkey - some say 154 ethnicities with language differences. But even if this was the case, there was only one minority that counted - these were the Kurds. What Turkey feared was that the Kurds will seek independence for their part of the land - so the Turkish government pursued them vehemently and turned them into real enemies. But even if the Kurds might have dreamt of having a larger Kurdistan to include also parts of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Azerbaijan, those other Kurds where not yet convinced that they, themselves, were ready to go for such a frame, with all this uncertainty hanging over the heads of their Turkish brethren. On the other hand, had Turkey realized that there were tremendous benefits in turning Turkey into a bi-national Turkish-Kurdish State, they could have indeed lured into their sphere of influence the Kurds of Iraq - the oil world would have looked differently, and the chances of having created an EU interest in their future would have helped more modernize Turkey, then the way they ended up fighting the greater majority of their people without showing for real economic results. We hope now that the Consul will find a way to provide us with think-tank material to help explain the the thinking of the Turkish leadership - past and present. Permalink | ### |
|
Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on February 27th, 2008 Subject: Women In Great Numbers Descend On The UN for CSW 52 - that is the yearly take-over of the UN by the Commission on the Status of Women. EXXONMOBIL Takes A Ride. ============================================= The Commission on the Status of Women is Having its meeting at the UN - and the UN wants to have us believe that it is all about “Violence Against Women.” The reality is that for the week, a yearly event, women’s organizations take over the UN; the UN will be used for many other purposes, besides the one expressed by the UNSG, as well. This article picked up first the official statement by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, and the very good reporting by Edith Lederer from the Associated Press - based on that UN official position. But then we wish to single out one “Parallel Event” held on February 25, 2008, at the Church Center across the UN. We went to that event because we were sent a flyer that mentioned as a panelist: “EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION - Speaker to be announced.” This was enough to trigger our curiosity and the appetite to devour that unnamed speaker for a named company - this while all other members of the panel were right there named in the open. The title of that event was - “CORPORATE FEMINISM: ENHANCING CORPORATE INFLUENCE THROUGH WOMEN’S EMPOWERMENT.” The Conveners of the event were The International Council of Jewish Women and cosponsored by: Soroptimist International. The first body is represented in the US by the National Council of Women, the second body came to CSW 52 with the theme - “Financing for Gender Equality and Empowerment of Women.” We will have much more about all of this, but as said, we will first introduce the two postings we mentioned in the previous paragraph.
—————————– CSW 52 had nothing to do with the will of the UNSG. As said this is an event organized by the Commission on the Status of Women - though, clearly, it is highly possible and we would say probable, that the UNSG has suggested a topic for this years meeting of the CSW. This is clearly a very welcome move on his part and it comes after we saw so many cases when even UN Peacekeeping forces are accused of rape - not just combatant forces that had to be kept apart by these UN forces. So, besides the global humanitarian problem, there is here also a UN problem - and it could not be soon enough for the UNSG to step into this breach of confidence in the UN. Further - the UNSG in the words of his Spokesperson:
|
