The Australian Greens
Leader	Bob Brown
Deputy Leader	Christine Milne
Founded	1992
Headquarters	GPO Box 1108 CANBERRA GPO ACT 2601
Ideology	Green politics
International affiliation	Global Greens Asia-Pacific Green Network
Official colours	Green
House of Representatives
Senate	9               / 76
www.greens.org.au

The Australian Greens, commonly known as The Greens, is an Australian green political party.

The party was formed in 1992; however, its origins can be traced to the early Environmental movement in Australia and the formation of the United Tasmania Group (UTG), the first Green party in the world, which first ran candidates in the 1972 Tasmanian state election. Co-ordination between green groups peaked in the 1980s with various environmental protests including one of the most significant environmental campaigns in Australian history against the proposed damming of the Franklin River and the subsequent flooding of Lake Pedder. Key people involved in these campaigns included current leader Bob Brown and Christine Milne who went on to contest and win seats in the Tasmanian Parliament and eventually form the Tasmanian Greens.

Through national organisation and affiliations the Greens have grown rapidly in power and scope. The party’s policies have broadened from environmentalism to include policies aligned with the philosophies of grassroots democracy, social justice, conservation and the peace movement.

Today the Australian Greens have five Senators in the Parliament of Australia, 22 elected representatives in State and Territory Parliaments, more than 100 local councillors and close to 10,000 party members.

Following the 2010 federal election, the Green vote in the Senate rose clear above ten percent, with Australian Broadcasting Corporation provisional results^[1] giving the Greens a Senate seat in every state, which would bring the Greens to a total of nine Senators. The Greens also successfully won their first House of Representatives seat at a general election, the seat of Melbourne‘s  Adam Bandt, an industrial relations lawyer, who will be a crossbencher in the first hung parliament since the 1940 federal election.

At the 2010 Tasmanian State Election, the Greens received 21.6 percent of the primary vote in the gaining one of the five seats in each of the five multi-member electorates. They have since held the balance of power in the Tasmanian Lower House with Tasmanian Greens Leader Nick McKim appointed to the new Labor-Green cabinet, making him the first Green Minister in Australia.

——————–

Political ideology

Bob Brown at a climate change rally in Melbourne on 5 July 2008

The Australian Greens are part of the global “Green politics” movement. Former Tasmanian Greens member of the House of Assembly Lance Armstrong summed this position up as, “neither left nor right but forward.”

The Charter of the Australian Greens identifies the following as being the four key pillars underlining the party’s policy:

• social justice,
• sustainability,
• grassroots democracy and
• peace and non-violence

In pursuit of these principles, the Greens support the following:

• renewable energy
• opposition to uranium mining and nuclear power
• promotion of a sustainable approach to water management
• preparation for peak oil
• energy efficiency
• public transport expansion
• in 1991, opposition to the Gulf War, and in 2003, the Iraq War
• support for refugees
• support for independence movements around the world, including East Timor, Tibet, and West Papua
• support for human rights in countries such as China, and Burma
• qualified support for voluntary euthanasia
• increased corporate taxation
• support for same-sex marriage
• during the 1998 Federal Election, opposition to a Goods & Services Tax (the Greens opposed the introduction of a GST, but then, during the 2001 Federal Election, indicated that they would oppose the Australian Labor Party proposal to remove the GST from gas and electricity bills)
• regulated use of cannabis for medical purposes^[5]

————————————

Interactions with other political groups

The Greens do not have formal links to environmental organisations commonly labelled by the media as “green groups” such as the Australian Conservation Foundation, The Wilderness Society and Greenpeace, all of whom claim to be non-partisan. However, it is common for the media to report the activities of such groups and those of The Greens under the general category of “greens”. During elections, there is sometimes competition between The Greens and one or more of these groups negotiating “greens preferences” with other parties. The Greens preference negotiation objectives are to attempt to get Greens Senators elected, and to get policy outcomes on issues like Tasmanian forests, though these objectives may be to a greater or lesser extent in conflict. The outcome is that Greens more often direct preferences to Labor than the Liberals,^[29] but it is claimed that this did not affect federal election outcomes in 2001 and 2004.

Labor Party and unions

Many supporters of the Labor Party and trade unions see the Greens’ policies as destructive of employment in industries like mining and forestry. The forestry industry has been a particular target of environmental campaigns and the Forestry Division of the CFMEU have actively campaigned against the Greens. Left-wing trade unionists and some members of Labor’s Left faction often identify more readily with the Greens, feeling sold out by Labor’s Right faction and sympathising with the Greens’ social policies. Some unionists, such as NTEU and AMWU members have even run for parliament both federally and State under the Greens ticket. One Labor MP, Kris Hanna, the member for Mitchell in South Australia, defected to the Australian Greens in 2003. Hanna left the Greens in February 2006, and was re-elected in Mitchell as an independent in the South Australian state election held on 18 March 2006.^[30]

However, these Green sympathies are not universal within Labor’s Left; the similarities between the two groups often see them competing for the same voters, making the Greens’ growing popularity a threat to Labor.^[31] In 2002, prominent Left member Lindsay Tanner wrote “The emergence of the Greens… is already hurting the ALP’s ability to attract new members amongst young people.”^[32] During the 2004 campaign Tanner’s own seat of Melbourne in Victoria was thought to be under serious threat by the Greens; during that campaign, Tanner described Greens policies as “mad”.^[33][34] In the end, Tanner held the seat comfortably on primary votes (51.78%, +4.35-point swing), and was not even forced to preferences.^[35]

In the 2006 Victorian state election, there was increased bitterness between Labor and the Greens. Labor direct-mailed a letter from Peter Garrett to voters in its threatened inner-Melbourne seats claiming that the Greens were preferencing the Liberal Party, in spite of Greens preferences being either for Labor or being open. The effectiveness of this tactic was confirmed when on 22 March 2007, The Age’s Paul Austin wrote “Labor’s campaign manager, state secretary Stephen Newnham, reckons he knows why the Greens’ support fell away in the last days of the campaign. He has told cabinet and caucus members it was because of Labor’s loud assertions that the Greens had done a secret preferences deal with the Liberals.”

In April 2007, The Age reported^[36] that the Victorian Greens had published a poem titled The Battle of Jeff’s Shed written by Mike Puleston describing ALP officials and volunteers who scrutinised vote counting after the November state election as “the Labor Panzers and their hardened SS troops – SS stood for Sturm Scrutineers”. The poem described the final vote count at the Melbourne Exhibition Centre, which finished about 4am on 14 December and resulted in the election of three Greens MLCs. Labor directed preferences in the upper house to the DLP above the Greens, which resulted in their preferences indirectly electing Peter Kavanagh from DLP in Western Victoria region.

In October 2008, Queensland state Labor MP Ronan Lee defected to the Greens, becoming the first ever Greens MP in the unicameral Queensland parliament. He had made the decision after he claimed the Queensland government had failed to act against climate change.

Conservative groups and parties

Relations between the Greens and conservative parties are almost uniformly poor. During the 2004 federal election the Australian Greens were branded as “environmental extremists” and even “fascists” by members of the Liberal-National Coalition Government.^[37] Fred Nile and John Anderson^[38] described the Greens as ‘watermelons’, being “green on the outside and red on the inside”. John Howard, while Australian Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Party, stated that “The Greens are not just about the environment. They have a whole lot of other very, very kooky policies in relation to things like drugs and all of that sort of stuff”.^[39]

Former Federal Conservation Minister Eric Abetz criticised Australian Greens Senators Bob Brown and Kerry Nettle for spending most of their time on non-environmental issues.^[40]

In a similar vein to the Family First television advertisements in 2004, Country Alliance also ran television advertisements^[41] in the lead up to the 2006 Victorian state election claiming that the Greens policies were “extreme”.

The Greens have voiced opposition and even organised protests against the One Nation Party (an anti-immigration, economically protectionist Party which enjoyed significant publicity in the 1998 Federal Election).^[42]

——————————

State and territory politics

The various Australian states and territories have different electoral systems, some of which allow the Greens to gain representation. In New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia, the Greens hold seats in the Legislative Councils (upper houses), which are elected by proportional representation. The Greens also have four seats in the unicameral Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. In Queensland and the Northern Territory, their unicameral parliaments have made it difficult for the Greens to gain representation.

The Greens’ most important area of state political activity has been in Tasmania, which is the only state where the lower house of the state parliament is elected by proportional representation. In Tasmania, the Greens have been represented in the House of Assembly from 1983, initially as Green Independents, and from the early 1990s as an established party. At the 1989 state election, the Liberal Party won 17 seats to Labor’s 13 and the Greens’ 5. The Greens agreed to support a minority Labor government in exchange for a number of policy commitments. In 1992 the agreement broke down over the issue of employment in the forestry industry, and the premier, Michael Field, called an early state election which the Liberals won. Later, Labor and the Liberals combined to reduce the size of the Assembly from 35 to 25, thus raising the quota for election. At the 1998 election the Greens won only one seat, despite their vote only falling slightly, mainly due to the new electoral system. They recovered in the 2002 election when they won four seats. All four seats were retained in the 2006 election. After gaining 5 seats in the 2010 election, in April 2010 Nick McKim became the first Green Minister in Australia.^[43]

Parliamentarians

Federal

Current

• Senator Bob Brown (Tas), 1996–present
• Senator Christine Milne (Tas), 2005–present (elected in 2004)
• Senator Rachel Siewert (WA), 2005–present (elected in 2004)
• Senator Scott Ludlam (WA), 2008–present (elected in 2007)
• Senator Sarah Hanson-Young (SA), 2008–present (elected in 2007)
• Adam Bandt MP (Melbourne, Vic), 2010–present

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

Analysis: Australia’s “Green” Poll May Accelerate Climate Action.

Open letter from Dr. James Hansen, published in Aftenposten, May 19, 2010

Dear Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg

As you know, I am fond of Norway, and have great respect for your country and its citizens, as well as for your personal ambitions to protect global climate. Your recent rainforest initiative is a splendid example of leadership the world desperately needs. And your commitment at the Copenhagen climate talks to reduce Norway’s emissions 40 per cent by 2020 was exemplary.

However, and especially in light of that, I am disappointed to learn that Statoil, Norway’s state-owned oil company, has taken such backward strides through its strategic decision to invest in Canada’s destructive tar sands industry. As the most energy-intensive source of oil, this project represents the worst of what humans are doing to the planet in a quest to prolong our global addiction to fossil fuels.

It is still feasible to stabilize the climate, but only if we leave the tar sands in the ground. The massive greenhouse gas amounts from the tar sands surely would cause the climate system to pass tipping points, while also trampling on the human rights of Canada’s First Nation communities and greatly damaging the Canadian boreal forest.

Prime Minister Stoltenberg, the world has reached a critical juncture in the climate debate. We can either move into the production of the most damaging fossil fuel, or we can begin to address our destructive addiction. We desperately need leadership at this time. I am confident that you could provide that leadership. Please do not prove me wrong.

In your capacity as owner or more than two-thirds of the shares in Statoil, I urge you to end Norway’s involvement in this dangerous, dirty and destructive project. I ask that you support the resolution at Statoil’s upcoming AGM on May 19th, that Statoil show environmental leadership and pull out of the Canadian tar sands. Statoil may pride itself on being a more responsible company than others, but that will not be enough in the tar sands. If we extract and use the tar sands, there can be no sustainable future for young people.

I look forward to my visit to Norway in June. I hope that it can be a time to celebrate Norwegian leadership in responsible environmental policies

Dr. James Hansen
James E. Hansen is member of the National Academy of Sciences, an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University and at Columbia’s Earth Institute, grandfather and winner of the Sophie Prize 2010.
James E. Hansen will visit Norway June 22 and 23 2010 to receive the Sophie Prize.

—————-

The answer from the Government:

Dear Mr. Hansen,

Thank you very much for your e-mail to the Prime Minister, which was forwarded to the Ministry of Petroleum and Energy as the governmental body responsible for Statoil ownership issues. Let me first take this opportunity to congratulate you on being awarded the Sophie-prize for 2010. I know a lot of people are looking forward to your visit to Norway, and I hope you will enjoy your stay here.

On behalf of the Government, I am pleased to say that we hold your work on climate change in high esteem, and further, that we appreciate your engagement and your views on Norway’s efforts to find good sustainable solutions to the global climate challenges.

As you now know from the results of the Statoil Annual General Meeting, we see Statoil’s oils sands investment as a commercial decision which is within the Statoil board’s area of responsibility. We are of the opinion that such decisions should not be overturned by the AGM. It is our opinion that this is in line with good corporate governance, a view that is also shared by a vast majority in the Norwegian Parliament. I can however assure you that we will continue our offensive stance on climate change issues both at home and abroad, and we look forward to your continued engagement.

Yours faithfully
Robin Martin Kåss
Statssekretær, Olje- og Energidepartementet
Deputy Minister, Ministry of Petroleum and Energy
Postboks 8148 Dep, 0033 Oslo, Norway

Fra: Jim Hansen
Sendt: 24. mai 2010 14:08
Til: Postmottak SMK
Kopi: Jim Hansen
Emne: Climate Change and the Tar Sands Development Vedlegg: Hansen text for ad and letter in both languages.doc

Dear Prime Minister Stoltenberg,

I understand that you may have missed my open letter to you published in Aftenposten, so for your convenience I have attached it here.

My wife Anniek and I are looking forward to visiting your beautiful country in June.
With kind regards,
James E. Hansen

————–

AND THE – Message from Sophie Prize Winner.

I am grateful to Jostein Gaarder and the Sophie Foundation for the opportunity to discuss the state of Earth’s climate, the implications for people and nature, and action that is needed.

Our planet today is close to climate tipping points. Ice is melting in the Arctic, on Greenland and Antarctica, and on mountain glaciers worldwide. Many species are stressed by environmental destruction and climate change. Continuing fossil fuel emissions, if unabated, will cause sea level rise and species extinction accelerating out of humanity’s control. Increasing atmospheric water vapor is already magnifying climate extremes, increasing overall precipitation, causing greater floods and stronger storms.

Stabilizing climate requires restoring our planet’s energy balance. The physics is straightforward. The effect of increasing carbon dioxide on Earth’s energy imbalance is confirmed by precise measurements of ocean heat gain. The principal implication is defined by the geophysics, by the size of fossil fuel reservoirs. Simply put, there is a limit on how much carbon dioxide we can pour into the atmosphere. We cannot burn all fossil fuels. Specifically, we must (1) phase out coal use rapidly, (2) leave tar sands in the ground, and (3) not go after the last drops of oil.

Actions needed so that the world can move on to the clean energies of the future are possible and practical. The actions would restore clean air and water globally, assuring intergenerational equity by preserving creation – the natural world — thus also helping achieve north-south justice. But the needed actions will happen only if the public becomes forcefully involved.
Citizens can help by blocking coal plants, tar sands, and mining the last drops of fossil fuels from public and pristine lands and the deep ocean. However, fossil fuel addiction can be solved only when we recognize an economic law as certain as the law of gravity: as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy they will be used.

Solution therefore requires a rising fee on oil, gas and coal – a carbon fee collected from fossil fuel companies at the domestic mine or port of entry. All funds collected should be distributed to the public on a per capita basis to allow lifestyle adjustments and spur clean energy innovations. As the fee rises, fossil fuels will be phased out, replaced by carbon-free energy and efficiency.
Governments today, instead, talk of “cap-and-trade-with-offsets”, a system rigged by big banks and fossil fuel interests. Cap-and-trade invites corruption. Worse, it is ineffectual, assuring continued fossil fuel addiction to the last drop and environmental catastrophe.

We need a simple honest flat rising carbon fee across the board. It should be revenue neutral – all funds distributed to the public – “100 percent or fight”. It is the only realistic path to global action. China and India will not accept caps, but they need a carbon fee to spur clean energy and avoid fossil fuel addiction.

But our governments have no intention of solving the fossil fuel and climate problem, as is easy to prove: the United States, Canadian and Norwegian governments are going right ahead developing the tar sands, which, if it is not halted, will make it impossible to stabilize climate.

Our governments knowingly abdicate responsibility for young people and future generations. I have been disappointed in interactions with more than half a dozen nations. In the end, they offer only soothing words, “goals” for emission reductions at far off dates, while their actual deeds prevent stabilization of climate.

The Sophie Prize provides a new opportunity to draw attention to the actions that are needed to stabilize climate. Norway may be the best place, with its history of environmentalism. I can imagine Norway standing tall among nations, taking real action to address climate change, drawing attention to the hypocrisy in the words and pseudo-actions of other nations.

So I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister suggesting that the government, as the majority owner of Statoil, should intervene in planned tar sands development. I appreciate the polite response, by letter, from the Deputy Minister of Petroleum and Energy. The government position is that the tar sands investment is “a commercial decision”, that the government should not interfere, and that a “vast majority in the Norwegian parliament” agree that this constitutes “good corporate governance”. The Deputy Minister concluded his letter “I can however assure you that we will continue our offensive stance on climate change issues both at home and abroad”.

A Norwegian grandfather, upon reading the Deputy Minister’s letter, quoted Saint Augustine: “Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.”

The Norwegian government’s position is a staggering reaffirmation of the global situation: even the greenest governments find it too inconvenient to address the implication of scientific facts. Perhaps our governments are in the hip pocket of the fossil fuel industry – but that is not for science to say.

What I can say from the science is this: the plans that governments, including Norway, are adopting spell disaster for young people and future generations. And we are running out of time.

Stabilizing climate is a moral issue, a matter of intergenerational justice. Young people, and older people who support the young and the other species on the planet, must unite in demanding an effective approach that preserves our planet.

Because the executive and legislative branches of our governments are turning a deaf ear to the science, the judicial branch may provide the best opportunity for redressing the situation. Our governments have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the rights of young people and future generations. I look forward to working with young people and their supporters in developing the legal case for young people and the planet.

To the young people I say: Stand up for your rights, for your future. Demand that the government be honest, admit and face the consequences for you from their policies.

To the old people I say: we are not too old to fight. Let us gird up our loins and prepare to fight on the side of young people for protection of the world they will inherit.

I look forward to standing with the youth of the world as they demand their proper due and fight for nature and their future.

————————

Other Recent Publications by Dr. James Hansen:

2010. Obama’s Second Chance on the Predominant Moral Issue of this Century. Op-ed on Huffington Post, Apr. 5.

2010. Only a carbon tax and nuclear power can save us. Op-ed in The Australian, Mar. 11.

What makes a good UN story? We hinted at the Kevin Rudd idea earlier but we were still waiting for further developments.

Are we seeing here rumors because of infighting in Australia on the way to their National elections August 21, 2010?

Are we on the trail of rumors intended to save the Ban Ki-moon reelection to a second term?

Are we watching an Obama approach to create a new environment to save negotiations on climate?

Kevin Rudd would be an excellent choice to extricate the UN from the hole it created in the “Seal the Deal” charade when every child could have seen that the G192 is no environment to talk about Sustainable Energy options.

Australia is no good example either – but Kevin Rudd was ready to step out of his nation’s “is” and aim for a better future.

He got punished for this and perhaps is now ready for revenge by working on a global level that will then sweep with him his own country as well.

With his experience as Australia’s Prime Minister with-vision that was cut short from bringing his own country into the group of real leaders for tomorrow, he can work with President Obama and perhaps the other four leaders that hammered out the Copenhagen platform that is not dependent on all climate mongers of the UN circuit. As a fresh figure, he could perhaps sit down with the ALBA folks and take the best ideas they have and incorporate them also in a new recipe under the SUSTAINABILITY big sky of the future.

Will the UN accept him as a new Super Czar of a combined  UNCSD and UNFCCC – or let him form a new structure so these older structures will just wilt away into oblivion slowly? Who knows? But let us follow this new world hype.

The subject having slowly boiled in the PRESS has reached also www.UNelection.org – so it is time for us to try out the waters ourselves also. This then reinforced the UNelections interest in the issue as per added -
http://unelections.org/?q=node/2056

=================================================
 http://unelections.org/?q=node/2052

 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/special…

Click here to read “Kevin Rudd could be offered UN role before end of election campaign” – Herald Sun, July 29, 2010

Kevin Rudd talks with UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon / AP Source: AP

KEVIN Rudd’s new United Nations post could be announced before the end of the election in what looms as another major embarrassment for Julia Gillard.

The Herald Sun can reveal the UN body Mr Rudd is being considered for is being set up under the working title High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability.

Mr Rudd is believed to have been backed for the post by the UN’s chief climate adviser, Janos Pasztor, and is odds-on to be offered the job.

Diplomatic sources said the decision could be made within weeks, which raises the spectre of an appointment before the election.

“It’s on the cards,” a source said of a pre-election announcement.

The Herald Sun believes Mr Rudd is favoured in part because he will have direct access to resources paid for by the Australian taxpayer.

This is on the assumption that the former prime minister is re-elected to Federal Parliament on August 21, 2010.

Related Coverage

• Cabinet leakers face the axe Daily Telegraph, 6 hours ago
• Kevin Rudd signs off on nomination Adelaide Now, 1 day ago
• Why Labor fears a vengeful Kevin Rudd NEWS.com.au, 2 days ago
• Rudd ‘not fit’ to be in Labor Cabinet Perth Now, 6 days ago
• Man tackled at Gillard speech Herald Sun, 7 days ago

Climate change reform will be the centrepiece of the panel, virtually guaranteeing conflict with a Gillard government, assuming Labor is re-elected.

Sources said it would be created to look at climate change in the context of broader sustainable development, and would be part-time.

Mr Rudd has declined to say whether the appointment would be paid.

If he were to be paid, this could raise allegations he would be a part-time MP.

Mr Rudd’s spokesman directed questions to the UN, declining to say whether he already had accepted the position.

Mr Rudd has previously said he would serve a full term in Parliament and that any UN position would be part-time.

“It is a matter, of course, for the United Nations Secretary-General to clarify what roles would be played by any individual on such a panel,” Mr Rudd said on July 22.

The biggest political risk for the Government is that the UN body clashes on climate change policy backed by Ms Gillard.

Mr Rudd previously backed a 5 per cent emissions cut on 2000 levels by 2020 as well as a so-called cap-and-trade scheme, which involves setting limits on carbon emissions but allowing heavy polluters to buy permits to allow them to emit more carbon.

Mr Rudd dropped his legislation this year when it was blocked by the Coalition in the Senate and his handling of the issue was considered crucial to him being dumped as PM.

In Australia – A vote for moving forward.A model for the Obama Party.

An op-ed article that appeared last week (July 22) in The Washington Post, written by Post columnist E J Dionne, titled A Democratic Model Down Under, offers comments on the Australian general election scheduled for next month, on Aug 21, 2010.

Dionne suggests that the beleaguered (US) Democratic Party can learn a thing or two from campaign rhetoric of new Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard who took office in June after the fall of her predecessor Kevin Rudd. Dionne quotes Prime Minister Gillard delivering her Labor Party’s message to the public: “This election will revolve around a clear choice: Whether we want Australia to move forward or back.” Dionne adds that in one minute and 41 seconds of her speech, she used a variation of “move forward” six times and “go back” four times.

“Can this forward-or-back theme work for US Democratic Party?” Dionne asks. Apparently, Democratic Party is under attack as the party of more waste, more debt, and more taxes.

Dionne implies that Democratic Party may, nonetheless, prevail in the mid-term elections next November if, indeed, it hones in on the forward-or-back theme, since many believe that Republican Party is conservative and backward-looking, meaning anti-change.

BACKWARD-LOOKING NATION

Ask any ordinary person on the streets of Kathmandu why the country has been in so much mess and, very likely, seven out of 10 will place the blame squarely on our leaders: That they are a corrupt, self-serving, unprincipled, and a power-hungry bunch. Indeed, our politicians rarely have behaved like leaders – leaders who choose to sacrifice their own self-interests for the common good. Most would agree that none among Nepal’s politicians – past or present – qualifies to be a leader, measured by the level of selflessness they have shown, to promote public good. The most recent example of this is late Girija Prasad Koirala (GPK).

Everyone in the country knew about GPK’s repeated failure as prime minister, his reputation for nepotism and corruption, and his intolerance for democratic opposition of any sort. In the judgment of many, GPK, more than anyone else, is responsible for the crisis that we have today.

But, ironically, thousands lined up the Kathmandu streets – many crying openly – to pay their last respects when he died last March, regardless of his political failures. Among the past failed leaders, former prime minister, KP Bhattarai, continues to attract wide appeal and is considered worthy of reverence, despite him making a false start with democracy at a critical juncture in the country’s history in 1990. And, lastly, people have started to amend their feelings toward the former king, Gyanendra, and show up in large numbers at his gatherings, probably to express their guilt for supporting his ouster.

With such level of tolerance, forgiveness, even forgetfulness, there is then no wonder that failed leaders and failed parties have been brought back to power and assigned public responsibilities – not once but many times – in the hope that they have learned something from their past mistakes; that they would use their experience for improved performance; and that they will try harder for redeeming their battered reputation. However, in almost all of the cases, such attempts at redemption and rehabilitation have brought back deeper disappointments.

With this much of background, we can now view more clearly why Madhav Kumar Nepal and his CPN-UML party was able to get the post prime ministership and the reigns of government last year and why Ram Chandra Poudel and his Nepali Congress (NC) have a fair chance at it this year. No one had believed that Madhav Nepal or his party had the mandate for leadership. The same will be repeated if Poudel gets elected prime minister since neither him nor his party is recognized for leadership and, certainly, there is no record of any solid achievements. Indeed, NC’s public image is much more soiled than UML’s, which, at least, has a reputation for running a clean administration during their sort time in office, in 1995, and is much less prone to other public vices, like nepotism and opportunism.

NEED TO LOOK FORWARD

In the midst of all this doom and gloom pervading the nation, there seems to be little risk in trying something new – giving chance to Maoist-Madhesi alliance. There are several reasons for exercising this option and risks associated with this choice appear minimal.

The first obvious reason is that these two groups are new – and hence forward-looking – and so it would be worthwhile giving them a chance to get tested. Of course, the Maoists have had a stint at governing at which they failed. However, this failure does not disqualify them from a second chance if they are allowed back under different circumstances and, we can add, under a different mandate. A Maoist-Madhesi alliance will provide substance to their second-coming.

Second, with Maoists out of favor, the old but losing parties in the election had a chance to regroup and isolate the Maoists to form a shaky coalition to get a majority. However, there was never any hope that this coalition of losers will accomplish anything of significance or will last for a long-term and, certainly, no one believed that it can provide leadership in the drafting of a new constitution. A Maoist-Madhesi alliance will do much better.

Third, a new grouping with different actors – first Jhalanath Khanal and now Poudel – is being tried to form yet another government which, however, is proving more difficult than had been the case last year. However, even if it comes to pass, it is bound to be more shaky and short-lived than its predecessor. This is so because a NC government led by Poudel has got no firm political base, is viewed as lacking democratic convictions, and is seen being less enthusiastic for the drafting of constitution due to the reason that it remains emotionally tied to monarchy.

Fourth, and finally, continued political uncertainty and instability of government may justify seeking extreme solutions, including a presidential rule, army takeover, reinstatement of monarchy, and even inviting foreign forces to help ‘stabilize’ the situation. If that happens, peace and prosperity will be gone forever.

MADHESIS FOR THE RESCUE

In the midst of the emergence of apparently a hopeless situation, there are indications that some miracles might occur which I will not hesitate to call a divine intervention. I would characterize the second miracle to be a Maoist-Madhesi alliance, which provides a new and forward-looking alternative for the nation, similar to the choices presented for Australian and US elections noted in Dionne’s piece above.

Some progress has been made that gives the hope that events may, indeed, be unfolding in this direction, looking at the evidence of a growing sense of unity among Madhesi parties in recent weeks. Admittedly, this unity is still very shaky and can melt away at the first sign of stress. However, for the time being, let us assume that this unity is for real and will prove to be less fragile than it appears now.

The next forward-looking step, then, will be that Madhesi group aligns with Maoists in the background of informal understandings but without pre-conditions. With Maoists holding 237 seats in the Constituent Assembly (CA), and Madhesi parties’ 82 seats, a simple majority in the 601-member CA can clearly be established.

While the point about numerical legitimacy is obvious, moral authority is less so and let me explain this. Nepal has existed, from the time of the Ranas up until the democratic change in 1990, basically as an ethnic enclave of pahades, in which the other half of population, ethnic Madhesis, were excluded from government participation. After the political change in 1990, democratic reforms were made through equal representation of all population but the extent of Madhesi participation in state affairs remained basically the same, reflecting, in part, attempts by the mainstream parties – NC and UML – to safeguard their political base in Madhes and also the inability of Madhesi parties to put up a united front.

We can then say, without much exaggeration, that political disarray and economic decline in the country as we witness today is the direct consequence of a policy of exclusion – not by design but more of it reflecting the tolerance level of people who have been excluded.

A Maoist-led government, backed by unflinching and unconditional support from a united Madhesi front, will basically mean an opportunity to unite a divided nation and a segregated society. In any situation, it would be hard to conceive of political stability and economic progress ushering in a nation so divided as Nepal, for the main reason that exclusionary policies tend to obstruct the full utilization of country’s human and physical resources and it imparts a sense of despondency among the segment of population feeling excluded.

Finally, to the advantage of Maoists, Madhesi support will give credence to their claim that they would follow democratic norms. What this means is that Maoists’ alliance with Madhesi parties will force them to democratize, since Madhesi population, no matter how deprived they may be, cannot vote communists. A durable alliance then will require both sides to make difficult adjustments but in return for huge potential benefits – government stability under the alliance’s rule and an enabling environment that would foster prosperity.

sshah1983@hotmail.com

WORLD NEWS – JULY 29, 2010
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB40001424…

Climate report shows Earth has heated up over 50 years.

Which in the printed Wall Street version was rechristened – “CLIMATE STUDY CITES 2000 as WARMEST DECADE.” This appropriate to the US inward look of New York, while the above title is clear better positioned for the world at large -

By GAUTAM NAIK

A new assessment concludes that the Earth has been getting warmer over the past 50 years and the past decade was the warmest on record.

The State of the Climate 2009 report, published Wednesday as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, was compiled by 300 scientists from 48 countries and drew on measures of 10 crucial climate indicators.

Seven of the indicators were rising, including air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, sea level, ocean heat and humidity. Three indicators were declining, including Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.

“Each indicator is changing as we’d expect in a warming world,” said Peter Thorne, senior researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites, a research consortium based in College Park, Md., who was involved in compiling the report.

The report’s conclusions broadly match those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations body, which published its last set of findings in 2007. The IPCC report contained some errors, which further stoked the debate about the existence, causes and effects of global warming.

The new report incorporates data from the past few years that weren’t included in the last IPCC assessment. While the IPCC report concluded that evidence for human-caused global warming was “unequivocal” and was linked to emissions of greenhouse gases, the latest report didn’t seek to address the issue.

The report “doesn’t try to make the link” between climate change and what might be causing it, said Tom Karl, an official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration involved in the new assessment.

The report said, “Global average surface and lower-troposphere temperatures during the last three decades have been progressively warmer than all earlier decades, and the 2000s (2000-09) was the warmest decade in the instrumental record.” The troposphere is the lowest layer of the atmosphere.

The scientists reported that they were surprised to find Greenland’s glaciers were losing ice at an accelerating rate. They also concluded that 90% of planetary warming over the past 50 years has gone into the oceans. Most of it had accumulated in near-surface layers, home to phytoplankton, tiny plants crucial to virtually all life in the sea.

A new study has found that rising sea temperature may have had a harmful effect on global concentrations of phytoplankton over the past century.

—————————–

BUT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IS VERY ANEMIC ON CONTENT OF ABOVE NEWS – IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED, AS MOSTLY ALMOST – GO TO THE FINANCIAL TIMES. HERE YOU FIND FIONA HARVEY’S FULL ARTICLE – SHE  CONTRIBUTES TO THE EDITORIAL SECTION AS WELL. YOU WILL BE IN THE CLEAR ABOUT THE MACHINATIONS IN WASHINGTON AS WELL.

You will also see there the Washington rot as in the following: “Myron Ebell, of the Competitive Enterprise Institute in the US, formerly in charge of energy with the powerful CSIS, said the new report would not change people’s minds. “It’s clear that the scientific case for global warming alarmism is weak. The scientific case for [many of the claims] is unsound and we are finding out all the time how unsound it is.”

You will find that there was no doubt about the implication that it is humans who did it except in the words of that outspoken minority of industry lobbyists that hold power over Washington.

————————–
 http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/author…

NOAA finds “human fingerprints” on climate

July 28th, 2010  by Fiona Harvey

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6d1fd25c-9a69-…

——————————————————-
 http://planetark.org/wen/58965

Developing Nations See Cancun Climate Deal Tough.

Looking at Europe’s ENERGY PORTAL - http://www.energy.eu/ – we found the recent posting:

German power plant testing CO2-scrubbing algae .

Swedish energy group Vattenfall launched a major pilot project on July 22nd using algae to absorb greenhouse gas emissions from a coal-fired power plant in eastern Germany.

The two-million-euro trial run, which will continue until October 2011, in the Lausitz mining region is one of several experimental attempts in the sector using algae to slash carbon dioxide output.

“The microalgae use climate-killing CO2 to create valuable biomass,” the chairman of Vattenfall Europe Mining and Generation, Hartmuth Zeiss, said in a statement. “Moreover the new technology will bring useful know-how to the Lausitz and increase its importance as a region for energy production.”

—————–

The above does not surprise us as we wrote about it after the Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, presentation by Professor Ben Amotz of Israel, who did this kind of work, successfully, at the Reading Power plant outside Tel Aviv.

Using the search button at www.SustainabiliTank.info for Ben Amotz see the following of our postings:

under - http://www.sustainabilitank.info/?s=Ben+…

Dow Chemical and Algenol Biofuels, a start-up company, are set to announce today that they will build a demonstration plant that, if successful, would use algae to turn carbon dioxide into ethanol as a vehicle fuel or an ingredient in plastics. We wish to remind of “The Alga Dunaliella” that we wrote about in the past – as per Professor Ami Ben-Amotz of Israel.
Monday, June 29th, 2009
Posted in Brazil, California, Florida, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, Israel, Reporting from Washington DC, The US States |

Israel has some of the most advanced algae research in the world. Now the Fletcher-Lauder Fellowship at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya is offering a Post-doc on bio-sequestration of carbon dioxide from carbon-rich sources, e.g., power plants, through algae production. We described the work that was done by Prof. Amos Ben-Amotz as he presented it to the Green Chemistry meeting in Fortaleza, Brazil, and we announced also his new book release.
Tuesday, May 19th, 2009
Posted in Futurism, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, Israel, Job Offers, Massachusetts, New York, Reporting from Washington DC |

GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY REQUIRES DECREASED DEPENDENCE ON FOSSIL CARBON.
Thursday, March 27th, 2008
Posted in Africa, Brazil, European Union, Futurism, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, Islands & SIDS, Latin America, Real World’s News, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, Reporting from Washington DC, UN Commission on Sustainable Development, Uncategorized |

Two Conferences in Brazil that The UN Secretary-General Has Missed. We submit that the Meeting on “Green Chemistry” in Fortaleza, Ceara, and the Meeting on “Fair Trade and Responsible Tourism in context of Solidarity and Sustainability For The Amazonas” in Belem, Para, Would Have Taught Him More Then Visits With The Korean Scientists and the Chilean Military in Antarctica, and With The Brazilians At The Central Political Capital.
Tuesday, December 4th, 2007
Posted in Argentina, Brazil, Futurism, Germany, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, IBSA, Israel, Italy, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from UNFCCC Meetings, Reporting from Washington DC, UN Commission on Sustainable Development |

1st Brazilian Workshop on Green Chemistry, Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil, November 18-21, 2007.
Sunday, November 11th, 2007
Posted in Argentina, Brazil, Future Events, Futurism, Germany, Global Warming issues, Green is Possible, Italy, Latin America, Reporting from Washington DC

——————————————

www.energy.eu

Dexia Tower in Brussels. 150,000 LEDs displaying the EU symbol. ————————————————————-

Europe’s Energy Portal: Shedding a light on European Energy Developments Europe’s Energy Portal is a commercial organization, strongly rooted within the EU, but run independently from the European Union. The portal is ran by the undersigned, together with a small team of professionals from the energy and environmental sector. The portal was founded in 2006 and has grown into a real online beacon, a trusted environment where professionals go for their energy-related news, key statistics and energy prices. Europe’s Energy Portal business model is to provide customized energy data, statistics and surveys related to the European Union. The portal is operated from two locations, one office location in the Netherlands and one in Brussels. The Brussels office serves as a meeting point, the Dutch one as a data center. Yours truly, Michael Zwanenburg Editor-in-Chief

from: Coninck,mw H.C. de (Heleen) <deconinck@ecn.nl> subject: Call for papers: Special issue on CCS Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change”

The Journal for Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change will be publishing a Special Issue on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in 2011. The Special Issue is entitled “Five years after the IPCC Special Report on CCS: state of play”. The editors are looking for a broad range of review articles that examine and analyze the developments in a variety of CCS-related areas and/or build on the review done by the IPCC in 2005. The articles will be subjected to normal peer review.

———————–

The timeline for submitting articles is as follows:

October 30^th 2010 First submission. It is possible to send an abstract to the editors in advance for an early quick scan

November 2010 Editors send the selected papers to reviewers

March 2011 Final submission by authors – June/July 2011 Publication

The aim is to have a critical review of several topics in CCS, for instance (but not limited to):

· Overview of technical progress in the field of capture technologies in power systems and/or in specific industrial processes

· Review of storage integrity studies: Is the “fraction retained” outcome in the IPCC Special Report still suitable?

· Economics of CCS, including retrofits versus new power plants with CCS

· Review of assumptions in scenario studies: what explains high CCS, high nuclear or renewable

· Biomass and CCS: what can we expect in terms of short- and long-term feasibility?

· CCS-readiness: what does it mean in practice?

· Insights from research on public perception, community engagement and communication issues around CCS

· Knowledge sharing, capacity building and technology transfer: How realistic is CCS in emerging economies and developing countries?

· Government policy and industry business models for CCS

The deadline for the first submission of articles is October 30^th, 2010. Articles should be between 5,000 -8,000 words. For author instructions, related to electronic submission of manuscripts, can be found at https://www.editorialmanager.com/miti/. Inquiries or early abstracts can be sent to John Kessels at john.kessels@iea-coal.org, Heleen de Coninck at deconinck@ecn.nl, or Haroon Kheshgi at Haroon.S.Kheshgi@ExxonMobil.com

Also on behalf of the other guest editors John Kessels and Haroon Kheshgi, we look forward to your contributions!

Heleen de Coninck

———————————–

Energy research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), Unit Policy Studies

Group manager international energy and climate issues

Radarweg 60, 1043 NT Amsterdam, Netherlands

Phone: +31 224 564316; Fax: +31 224 568339

Website: http://www.ecn.nl/units/ps/our-experts/heleen-de-coninck/

 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/79a3115c-94eb-…

BP Executive Bob Dudley has said that the company’s oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico “ will change the industry forever.”
That is not quite how other companies see it.

There is no doubt it has long-lasting ramifications for BP and the US government, whose lax regulators are seen as having contributed to the disaster.

But around the world, from Norway to Australia and among BP’s peers, remarkably little has changed, at least on the side of prevention.

Company executives argue that the accident was preventable and that their own safety systems were robust enough to need no significant reform.

As Pete Slaiby, vice-president of Shell Alaska, told the BBC: “The Gulf of Mexico may have been a wake-up call for some, but not for Shell.”

John Watson, chairman and chief executive of Chevron, the US’s second-biggest oil company, testified before the US Congress that soon after the Deepwater Horizon disaster he had ordered a review of the company’s offshore operations. This swiftly concluded that Chevron’s “deepwater drilling and well-control practices are safe and environmentally sound”, he said.

Around the world oil companies have been giving regulators the same message.

It appears regulators have found the industry’s arguments persuasive and are – at least for now – not insisting that they do any more.

The government of the UK, which is about to approve the deepest well ever drilled in the country’s waters, said: “We have conducted an initial?[review] .?.?.?This shows our regulatory system to be robust and we are recruiting additional environmental inspectors to double our environmental inspections, of drilling rigs, to ensure compliance.”

While the US quickly ordered a deepwater drilling moratorium, others, including Australia, Greenland, Norway, Canada, Libya, China, Brazil and Angola, have not followed suit.

Australia, which had suffered its own major blow-out and spill just months before the Deepwater Horizon accident, was unmoved.

Martin Ferguson, Australia’s resources minister, said: “Shutting down the industry and putting the nation’s energy security, jobs and the economy at risk does nothing [to ensure safe oil exploration].”

In Libya, not only has there been no moratorium, but the government has allowed BP to go ahead with its deepwater drilling programme.

This caused some consternation among Italians and prompted Rome to approve a ban on drilling within five miles of its coast and 12 miles from protected marine areas. This ruling will only apply to future drillings and will barely affect the most promising areas off western Sicily, which Shell believes holds some of Europe’s most important reservoirs.

Environmentalists said Italy’s response to Macondo had been little more than a figleaf.

In Norway, where, as in Canada, public pressure was great, a moratorium was considered, but in the end the government proceeded with the vast majority of its auction of offshore exploration blocks, and a general moratorium was dismissed.

The biggest changes will come in the US, where the industry had for decades resisted any tougher rules.

The American Petroleum Institute, the industry’s main lobbyist, whose strong influence over the US regulator was seen as having indirectly contributed to the accident, is again taking a proactive role in trying to help shape the way the new regulation develops.

It argues that lawmakers must not forget that the industry is growing and is critical to every sector of the economy. “Any policy changes must bear that in mind,” the API said. “We can protect the environment without jeopardising our economic safety.”

One way the industry is demonstrating this is by announcing plans to fund a large response vessel capable of containing spilled oil.

Several oil company executives have said the major red line for the industry was the idea a second emergency relief well, like the one being drilled by BP, would need to be drilled at every deep offshore well, just in case of a blow-out.

In his testimony, Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil chief executive, said in response to that idea: “I would say you just doubled your risk.”

Another executive noted that such a measure would double a company’s cost.

But companies are resigned to the fact that they will have to submit to more rigorous and comprehensive US rules, such as presenting a safety case.

This would include thorough information of their drilling programmes and the way they intended to develop their projects, and details about how they minimise the risk of a blow-out.

This safety case is very similar to the regulation imposed in the UK in response to the explosion of the Piper Alpha natural gas platform, which killed 167 in the North Sea in July 1988. At the time, the US considered but eventually dismissed doing the same after companies heavily lobbied that such measures should remain voluntary.

———————————————————-

Above is only part of the article – the even more important part is the global map with the reactions from Canada, the US, Brazil, the UK, Norway, and Australia regarding: OIL INDUSTRY SAFETY  – THE RESPONSE TO BP’S SPILL. Some of it is outright shocking.

————

please see: http://www.ft.com/cms/b476be56-9576-11df-a2b0-00144feab49a.gif
 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/79a3115c-94eb-…

———–

Australia‘s Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, said that “Shutting down the industry and putting the nation’s energy security, jobs and the economy at risk does nothing to ensure safe oil exploration.”

On the other hand, a much more attuned Norwegian government minister – Mr. Terje Riis-Johansen, Minister of Energy, said: “It is not appropriate for me to allow drilling in any new licenses in deep-water areas until we have good knowledge of what has happened with the Deepwater Horizon.”

In the UK – The government has increased environmental inspections and has asked a new industry group to report on the UK’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills.

In Canada The National Energy Board has launched a review of Arctic safety and environmental offshore drilling requirements, to inform decisions about future applications for permits. The review will look at safety regulations and spill response.

And in Brazil, a country we had a close look at these last two days and we will report on this in www.SustainabiliTank.info, we found that contrary to our impression based on what we learned here in new York, The Financial Times found a quote from the National Oil Regulator of Brazil (ANP) the following statement – “It is important to complete a deeply technical investigation before deciding on regulatory changes … We only have a preliminary vision.” If what we heard is true, it seems that Brazil prefers not to be bothered with what happens in other locations. What does the Brazilian voter think on this? Seemingly he/her are busy bettering their lives so they are neither informed, nor interested in change.

———————————————————-

UK to hold deepwater inquiry.

BP bosses will be called in front of a new political enquiry into offshore deepwater drilling, MPs announced on Wednesday, writes Kiran Stacey.

The inquiry will be conducted by the energy and climate change select committee and headed by Conservative MP Tim Yeo. It is expected to call Tony Hayward, the BP chief executive, and will consider whether to introduce a temporary ban on deepwater drilling off the coast of Scotland.

The inquiry will look into safety procedures and accident cotingency plans. Mr Yeo said: “We need to explore what excessive risks have been taken and what is still technically too challenging.”

————————————————–

To UN Women, $100 M Offer by Qatar for HQ, But UNFPA Inks 15 Yr NYC Lease.

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 — Less than two weeks after the formation of “UN Women,” to consolidate the UN’s agencies working on the issue, one of the agencies has gone forward with a major lease of real estate in Manhattan.

The UN Population Fund, UNFPA, has just reportedly signed a 15 year lease for three floors (131,000 square feet) at 605 Third Avenue in midtown Manhattan.

Meanwhile, multiple sources tell Inner City Press that during the negotiations to form UN Women, Qatar offered $100 million if it the headquarters would be put in Qatar.

But as Inner City Press reported earlier this month, Qatar is one of only three countries which has never sent a female athlete to the Olympic Games, along with Brunei and Saudi Arabia.

So now matter how much money is offered, some ask how could the headquarters of UN Women be in Qatar?

UN’s Ban and Sheikha Mozah bint Nasser Al Missned, $100 M not shown

————————————————————————————————————————————–

A Group of 77 source complained, as to UN agency headquarters, that an effect of the European Union’s push to form a UN Environment agency would be to undermine the status of Nairobi, where the current UN Environment Program is headquartered.

But maybe if UNEP stepped out and signed a big long term lease for more Kenyan real estate…

———–

At UN, As Rudd Meets Ban for 50 Minutes, Pasztor Is Present, Job for Climate Change in Air?

UNITED NATIONS, July 14 — When Kevin Rudd, just ousted as Australia’s prime minister, met late July 14 with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, there was one attendee rarely as such meetings: Janos Pasztor, the head of the UN’s climate change unit.

This came a day after Inner City Press reported that the UN is being urged by the Obama Administration to give Rudd a climate change job.

Inconveniently, the IPCCC top post was recently awarded to Christina Figueres of Costa Rica. (Pasztor competed for the job, temporarily and partially recusing himself from his past and current job, but lost out.)

Now, while the U.S. wishes the IPCCC post were open, it appears that a new special envoy on global warming post would have to be created. One wonders what Pasztor thinks. Also present in the meeting were Ban’s chief of staff Vijay Nambiar and his deputy, but most senior advisor, Kim Won-soo.

UN’s Ban and Rudd

Prior to meeting Rudd, Ban had an audience with representatives of the Korean Red Cross. They bought a gift, which was waiting by the elevator. Moments before Rudd came in, Ban emerged from his office and began walking to his spot at the table.

Moments later, Pasztor joins

Then he stopped, remembering – he had forgotten to put on his glasses. He went back and got them. Then Rudd entered, then Pasztor. The photos were taken, and the photographers hustled out.

But Rudd did not leave until 6:20 p.m. — 50 minutes later….

Yes – we see the UN self-serving releases, and there is even a UN DPI blog that might be there to help mislead you into thinking that the UN Headquarters in New York are serious about Climate Change, but this cannot replace the availability that should be offered to a free press to question the would be actors the UN assembles on this topic. What a waste of money if these  meetings are only for show, and interested press cannot even try to find out under what concepts these leaders operate.

We were not present at the July 12-13, 2010 hootenanny – but our friend from Inner City Press was there – so we rely on his impressions and as always they are to the sharpest points:

On Climate, UN Dodges Air and Sea Tax, Ban Differs With Envoy, Rudd in Wings?

UNITED NATIONS, July 13 — The two co-chairs of the UN’s High Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, the prime ministers of Ethiopia and Norway, Tuesday vaguely summarized their Group’s ideas to the press. To Norwegian PM Jens Stoltenberg, Inner City Press asked if taxes on aviation and shipping are being discussed.

Stoltenberg replied that “We have not agreed, there is not conclusions yet, this is not the time for presenting any conclusion. But there are many different possible sources. And of course, some of the possible sources are related to international aviation, international shipping. whether that is going to be included in the final report or not, it is too early to say… that is all I can say today.”

Inner City Press asked Ban Ki-moon about the comment by his new envoy on the issue, that a comprehensive agreement may not be reached in her lifetime. A subtext are rumblings in the U.S. State Department that they would have liked to put now deposed Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd in the post, or that the UN now create a new climate change envoy position for Rudd.

Ban and the co-chairs, answers on taxes and envoy not shown

Ban smiled and answered, as transcribed by the UN:

I speak on my behalf. I do not normally speak for a person whom I have nominated. I have not read exactly what she said, but I think that she might have been trying to explain that the process would be quite a difficult one. But just the reason that it is a difficult one does not give us any reason to be disappointed or deterred. We have a strong commitment to reach a globally binding agreement as soon as possible and I am sure that we can achieve that goal. As I said, the more we delay, the cost of inaction will be far,  far greater than the cost of action today.

That is what I have been repeatedly saying and emphasizing. Therefore this High-level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing is a very good start and a very good initiative to make the comprehensive process of negotiation move. This is a very important element, aspect of complementing, reinforcing the negotiation process. And you have our commitment. You see the commitment of these distinguished Prime Ministers and world leaders.

——-

The last question allowed was directed to Mr. Ban, and concerned “occupied Kashmir.” Ban declined to answer it. Inner City Press would have wanted to ask Ethiopia’s Meles Zenawi for this view of the bombings in Kampala. But he was gone.

—————————————-

The official UN release of today that goes at the UN as media – see how it does not have a hint of content in it! – please:

BAN WARNS OF COSTS OF INACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today warned of the risks posed by inaction on climate change, as the high-level group he set up earlier this year to mobilize financing to help developing countries combat global warming reported that they have made progress on the issue.

“The more we delay, the more we will pay – in lost opportunities, resources and lives,” Mr. Ban told reporters today.

The Copenhagen Accord reached at last December’s UN conference in the Danish capital aims to jump-start immediate action on climate change and guide negotiations on long-term action, scaling up support for developing nations for mitigation and adaptation to reach 100 billion dollars per year by 2020, in addition to 30 billion dollars until 2012.

The Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, established in February, is seeking to identify “economically sound” and “politically viable” sources of longer-term financing, Mr. Ban said today.

“Climate financing is an investment in a safer, cleaner, more prosperous future for us all,” he said, stressing that “delivering on these pledges is essential.”

The Secretary-General attended last evening’s session of the body’s two-day meeting in New York, which he characterized as “very stimulating.”

The Group is expected to submit its final report to Mr. Ban before the next conference of parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Cancun, Mexico, later this year.

Its co-chairs, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Norwegian Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, told journalists that discussions are moving forward.

Mr. Zenawi voiced confidence that the Group will be able to submit a “very robust” report to the Secretary-General by the end of October.

For his part, Mr. Stoltenberg, who replaced former United Kingdom leader Gordon Brown last month as co-chair, noted that there are numerous sources of resources for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

“So the problem is not the number of possible sources of financing,” he said, adding that the Group’s main task is translating these potential resources into reality.

The New York gathering, which wraps up today, is the body’s second meeting.  {it was established February 12, 2010} It met in London in March {under the chairmanship of Mr. Gordon Brown whom the committee has lost now} , and is scheduled to hold its next meeting in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. Its 21 principals include philanthropist George Soros, French Minister of the Economy, Industry and Employment Christine Lagarde, and prominent British academic Nicholas Stern.

—————————————–

THE QUESTION BEFORE THE MEETING WAS HOW TO FIND ANOTHER $100 Billion by the year 2020 for Climate Change activities in developing countries. When the meeting ended it seemed that all what was announced was that they found another member for the committee – Mr.Supachai Panitchpakdi, Secretary-General of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), joins the other members of the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:31 AM
Bottom-UP- Approach
BY GEORGE SAEMANE FROM HONIARA
 http://www.solomontimes.com/letter.aspx?…

Thank you Dr. Tara for your analytical and thought provoking article that painted the true picture of the last four years.

I pledge no addition or edition of your opinion but simply to ask those who are intending to contest the next election not to hide behind politic rhetoric to confuse the voters to vote for you.

Please give us a clear definition of how our villages are going to included in your plan and do not cover it with pictures of utopia because we know things will get tougher.

We want people who can distinguish between their entitlements and public money.

Marginalization of the villages in meaningful development of villages is an old issue, we have hoped to instill change in the previous elections but failed.

Most new MPs who we banked on were caught unprepared by, gold, glory and you name it.

In this election the loudest voice calling for change are the existing politicians and they are doing this by forming Political Parties left, right and center. Is this not a political ploy to divid us to vote them in, only to find that they throw their different colors and wear the same coats we see in the last house?

Old times we know your works and some a below satisfactory, you have nothing to prove cause your history has already proven who you are and what you are capable of doing.

New Kids on the Block, please if you are going to represent us then go in and do not be lured by power,money and entertainment. We want our villages to have good water supply, sanitation, improved housing, road systems and skills to run our canteens, grow our cocoa, coconut plantations etc. We want to be players in the economic activities in this nation.

We believe you have enough money to achieve the above in the next 12 years if our friend in need and indeed Taiwan continues t help us

Please do not confuse us in the name of dialogue by linking us with the Arab league, they have enough internal problems. Please do not allow us to bear part of their problem. History has shown over and over again that money is linked to human resource.

Old Timers there is still time for you to change your attitudes to deserve our votes. There is room for improvements

New candidates you must be a changed person to induce change . For we can only offer what we have.

Let us forget about “Bottom up Approach”, Rural Advancement” and Rural Development to talk more about Village Development, after all Solomon Islands is made up of villages.

God Bless our villages and Solomon Islands.

————————————

Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:21 PM
Green Party Charter
BY PAUL DRAKE FROM NEW ZEALAND
 http://www.solomontimes.com/letter.aspx?…

Dear Editor; a couple of weeks ago I wrote to the Solomon Times suggesting that a Solomon Island Green Party be formed.

I have had quite a few enquiries for the Green Party (NZ) constitution from Solomon Islanders in Brisbane, Wellington Taiwan and Japan and I hope they take the initiative and form a SIGP by the next election.

I have read a very good letter from Travis Kalione advising voters to steer clear of candidates making promises. I agree promises are cheap!

Those standing for parliament, however should state very clearly what they stand for; eg. Labour or business etc.
“A man who does not stand for something.
Will fall for anything”
G.K. Chesterton.

This is the Aotearoa New Zealand Charter:

The charter is the founding document of the Green Party of Aotearoa , New Zealand.

The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi [The Treaty of Waitangi] as the founding document of Aotearoa NZ; recognises Maori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa NZ; and commits to the following four principles.
[Tangata Whenua; means the 1st people of the land]

Ecological Wisdom:
The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are a part of the natural world.
This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.

Social Responsibility:
Unlimited material growth is impossible; therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resourses, both locally and globally.

Appropriate Decision Making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.

Non Violence:
Non violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.

The above is the Greens philosophy in a nut shell, the constitution is an elaboration of the above.

The Charter is simply a declaration of what a party or individual stands for.

The above document can be used as a good yard stick to measure the other parties in the coming election.

Any more inquiries are welcome you can e-mail me at ekard at slingshot.co.nz

God bless

Paul Drake

————————

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:20 AM
SI Independence Celebrated in Adelaide, South Australia
BY APOLLOS KALIALAHA IN ADELAIDE

The highlights on the occasion were the Warriors welcome performed by the community’s men and the community’s Children singing the two National Anthems of Solomon Islands and Australia.

The Solomon Islands Community in Adelaide, South Australia, has celebrated the Solomon Islands 32nd Independence Day on the 10th July, 2010.

It was a real Pacific Island atmosphere, as those took part and attended included friends from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, North Solomons, Tuvalu and Tongan communities. Others were friends, in-laws and Ex-RAMSI officers.

The two special guests on the occasion were the South Australian Lieutenant Governor Mr Hieu Van Le and the Solomon Islands High Commissioner to Australia His Excellency Mr. Beraki Gino. The Governor in his speech spoke highly of the effort that the Solomon Islands community has put together to register their community in the Multicultural Community of South Australia.

In his capacity as Chairman of South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission, the Governor has pledged his support for the Solomon Islands Community just as any newly formed community in South Australia. Solomon Islands High Commission to Australia His Excellency Mr. Beraki Gino has congratulated the group and thanked them for inviting him to this historical event.

“Because this is the first official event the community has hosted since becoming a community last year, it was indeed an honor to be part of the celebration,” he said.

As guest of honor he cut the Solomon Islands birthday cake, kindly donated by a PNG family who are very close to the SI community. The High Commissioner hosted a breakfast with the Solomon Islands community before catching his flight back to Canberra the next day.

The highlights on the occasion were the Warriors welcome performed by the community’s men and the community’s Children singing the two National Anthems of Solomon Islands and Australia. Food for the night was an Island dinner menu, something that really impressed most of the guests.

President of the Solomon Islands Wantok Association of South Australia, Apollos Kalialaha thanked the Solomon Islands community and guests for their attendance.

The interesting points here are:

- There are 17 countries that total 80% emissions of CO2.

- The Basic Countries (Brazil, South Africa, India China) believe they are among the poor countries that need technology to store carbon dioxide emissions underground – that technology, seemingly they think so, was developed by Canada, Australia or the United States which they define as the rich countries. “We want a common position on technology transfer through partnerships in which poor countries are given access to technology and that they can get help with applying it as well,” a senior Indian government official said.

- Developing Nations, as defined by above Poor Nations, want new technology and billions of dollars in aid to help them move away from fossil fuels, as part of a deal at Cancun.

But it seems they think there is probably no problem with future technologies, but it is the sharing of the existing technologies that involves looking at issues of intellectual property rights (IPR),” said a New Delhi based independent climate change expert.

- From above we wonder if Minister Ramesh of India thinks the CCS technology is already available, and has to be shared equitably now, while indeed true new technologies will be developed by  development front-runners, like the BASIC, so they have no worries of technology transfer in these future days. The financial issue is thus standing only for the technologies dealing with old energy systems – the CO2 emitting technologies – and the concept of storing the CO2 intrigues the Minister. There is no problem, seemingly, as reported, in Mr. Ramesh eyes with the novel technologies like the renewables.

We wonder if what is said in the posting we picked up is indeed what Minister Ramesh said?

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

India Climate Meet Ahead Of Mexico To Push Tech Deal

New Aussie PM Called On to Tackle Climate Change.
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

Stephen de Tarczynski

MELBOURNE, June 29 (IPS/TerraViva) – Australia’s newly appointed prime minister, Julia Gillard, has hardly warmed her seat, yet she has already been urged to take action on climate change. “We call on Prime Minister-elect Gillard to make good on her party’s promise to take the threat posed by climate change seriously,” said Dr Linda Selvey, chief executive officer of Greenpeace Australia Pacific, last week after Gillard replaced Kevin Rudd as Australia’s prime minister.

Gilliard, who was sworn in Australia’s 27th prime minister on Jun. 24, is the first woman to hold this country’s highest political office. The parliamentary members of the governing Australian Labor Party (ALP) last week lost confidence in Rudd’s ability to lead the ALP to consecutive election wins after a disastrous few months and elevated 48-year-old Gillard, Rudd’s former deputy, to the top job.

Despite riding high in opinion polls conducted in the first two years of his term, Rudd’s popularity had shrunk considerably in recent months. While part of this slide can be attributed to policy blunders, including the failure to counter the conservative Opposition’s claims that the Rudd government was soft on border security and the recent battle with mining companies over increased taxation,

Rudd’s perceived inability to match action with his own rhetoric on climate change was a decisive factor in his downfall.

Rudd, who famously dubbed climate change as “the great moral challenge of our generation,” led the ALP to victory in the 2007 election partly as a result of perceptions that he had better policies on climate change and the environment than the then incumbent John Howard.

But while Rudd was widely applauded for immediately taking steps to ratify the Kyoto Protocol – under which countries committed to reductions in greenhouse gases (GhG) and which Howard had refused to back – his government was heavily criticised when it announced in December 2008 that its target for 2020 was just a five to 15 percent reduction in GhG emissions on 2000 levels.

This was even less than the cut of between 10 and 25 percent that had earlier been recommended by Prof Ross Garnaut, the Rudd government’s chief climate change advisor, and which had also been slammed.

But things went from bad to worse for Rudd, who had been banking on an emissions trading scheme (ETS) to deliver the 2020 reduction target.

Also known as a cap-and-trade system, an ETS puts a price on carbon emissions to encourage major polluters to reduce their emissions.

The ETS legislation failed on three occasions to make it through parliament, with the Opposition and the minor Australian Greens Party both against the scheme, albeit for quite different reasons.

The Opposition was divided over climate change policies while the Greens regarded the ETS as too weak to be effective.

This led Rudd to delay the ETS, which he did in April, declaring that his government would not seek to implement the scheme again until after the current Kyoto commitment period concludes at the end of 2012.

“By the end of that period the governments around the world will be required to make clear their commitments for the post-2012 period. And that will provide, therefore, the Australian Government with a better position to assess the level of global action on climate change prior to the implementation of [an ETS],” said Rudd at the time.

For a prime minister who promoted himself as a genuine leader and who, last November, slammed suggestions that Australia should wait until after the Copenhagen climate conference before acting to reduce its GhG emissions as “absolute political cowardice” and a “failure of leadership,” such weak policies undermined his own image and added to growing disquiet among voters.

“The electorate felt betrayed by Kevin Rudd when he walked away from such a fundamental commitment. It is clear the government vastly underestimated the desire in the community for real action on climate change,” said Selvey.

That desire does seem genuine. According to a poll conducted in March and released earlier this month by the Lowy Institute, a Sydney-based think tank, 72 percent of respondents wanted Australia, among the world’s biggest carbon polluters per capita, to take action to reduce its GhG emissions even without a post-Kyoto global agreement in place.

And that is what the new prime minister, aiming to get a mandate on action from an election likely to be held within months, is now being implored to do.

“I congratulate Ms Gillard and urge her to lead an Australian shift from a pollution-dependent economy to a clean economy and a healthy environment,” said Don Henry, CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, a non-governmental community-based organisation.

Others, including representatives from the Investor Group on Climate Change, which represents investors concerned with the impact of global warming, and the Climate Institute, an independent research organisation, have also called on her to act.

For her part, Gillard has labelled climate change as a top priority of her government in a nationally broadcast media conference last week, along with refugees and reaching an agreement on the mining tax.

“If elected as prime minister [at the next election], I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad,” said Gillard, who has also raised the possibility of introducing a carbon tax to promote renewable energy sources to reduce GhG emissions if no broad-based support for an ETS exists.

Whatever policies she makes on climate change, failure to match her words with action is likely to be as politically fatal to Gillard as it was to Rudd.

———————-

A Rudd-erless Australia

Free Ride for Oil and Coal Industry May Be Over.
Stephen Leahy, back in Germany reporting on the Toronto G20 meeting.
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

BERLIN, Jun 29 (IPS) – Every day, governments give away an estimated two billion dollars of taxpayer money to the fossil fuel industry. This unmatched largesse to a highly profitable sector by countries verging on bankruptcy or unable to feed large numbers of their own people is “complete madness”, according to many experts.

In Toronto Sunday, at the conclusion of G20 summit, countries agreed the madness must be constrained if not stopped. “I was impressed. I think the commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies has finally arrived,” said Mark Halle, director of trade and investment at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) European office in Geneva.

“With countries committed to cutting their deficits, it is hard to ignore giving billions of real money away to the fossil fuel industry or to keep fuel prices low,” Halle said in an interview. The two-billion-dollars-a-day public subsidy for carbon- based fuels is a very conservative estimate based on the extensive research conducted by the IISD’s Global Subsidies Initiative, said Halle. Not only do such huge subsidies undermine policies on energy efficiency, they make it impossible for alternative energy sources to compete, he said.

“We can’t make the transition to low-carbon economies nor can the energy playing field be leveled without the elimination of fossil fuels. And time for that has finally come,” he said.

Others are less optimistic given the G8 and G20 track record for broken promises.

“It (the G20 commitment) fell short of vision and courage that is expected from global leaders in the light of the disastrous oil spill” in the Gulf of Mexico, said Darek Urbaniak of Friends of the Earth Europe. Urbaniak noted that BP, the company responsible for the spill, receives British and EU public subsidies.

Countries such as Canada and Australia sought to weaken the G20 commitment by making commitments voluntary, he said, but the U.S. stepped up and pushed for a stronger agreement. However, do-nothing clauses remain part of the agreement. It says that countries agree to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” but each country decides what those are. Some countries like Japan, Australia, Italy and others have already said they don’t have any.

“Australia wants to protect its coal mining sector …Canada wants to keep on going with its own subsidies to the tar sands – an environmental and climate disaster in the league of the BP oil spill only in slow motion,” Urbaniak told IPS.

“Our research shows that in the last two years Canada was spending as much on oil and gas subsidies as on climate programmes,” said Albert Koehl of Ecojustice, a Canadian environmental NGO.

“Taxpayers won’t be amused to find out that government spending on climate change is being nullified by spending on oil and gas subsidies,” Koehl told IPS.

He notes that Canada is now investing new billions of dollars into developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology for the fossil fuel sector and primarily the enormous Alberta tar sands operations. “CCS a new way of massively subsidising the oil and gas industry, especially the tar sands,” he said.

Most industrialised countries subsidise oil, coal and natural gas production to reduce the cost of finding and producing oil for oil companies. Countries in the developing world subsidise the cost of buying fuel to the public. Experts agree that both forms of subsidies encourage consumption of fossil fuels and thus increase the price of oil.

U.S. President Barack Obama put these subsidies on the chopping block at the previous G20 summit in Pittsburgh last September. The Obama administration is looking for ways to cut its ballooning deficit and thinks taking three or four billion away from fossil fuel companies is achievable, said Halle.

In addition to the G20, six or seven non-members have formed a “Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform” group to follow the same commitments. And the G20 did agree to have some plans for action in place for their next meeting in November this year.

There are an awful lot things that could be done with that annual expenditure of 700 to 800 billion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies and countries are really beginning to think about that, Halle said. “The momentum for change is building but it still needs to grow.”

From the reporting by IPS/TerraViva.   http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…
The final communiques of the G8 and G20 did little to assuage the central grievances that were expressed before the events in Huntsville and Toronto, during the ‘People’s Summit’ held by activists Jun. 18-20, in Toronto, or in the many peaceful demonstrations held prior to and during the summits.

The major issues being protested – lack of commitment regarding climate change and clean energy, the mounting concerns regarding the development of the Albertan tar sands, ongoing wars and foreign occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the imposition of fiscal austerity measures on member states despite continuing fallout from the global economic crisis which began in 2008 – were not resolved.

And perhaps the core concern – that a select, if somewhat broadened, group of elites are making decisions that concern all peoples around the globe largely in secret – appeared to be flaunted by members of the corporate elite, dubbed the ‘B20′ (Business 20), who were on hand.

During the summit, several dozen of the globe’s most powerful CEOs were given exclusive, off-the-record meetings with the G20′s finance ministers and Prime Minister Harper.

The G20 includes the “world’s most industrialised nations” (which also comprise the G8): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Britain and the United States.

Its other members are Australia, Mexico, Turkey and South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, plus the 27-member European Union.

In concert with the eventual announcement by the G20 that they would seek to halve deficits by 2013 (with the exception of Japan), one business leader projected, “Stimulus is winding down and the private sector is going to have to come in and pick up the slack.”

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty praised the corporate leaders, saying “The advice we get from you is invaluable in terms of our deliberations and the deliberations of our leaders.”

Offering an indication of the B20′s influence, South Korean Finance Minister Jeung-Hyun Yoon told Toronto’s Globe and Mail, “I sincerely hope the business summit can serve as a platform for public-private collaboration and the starting point of the new normal in the global economic architecture.”

As the effects of the latest policy pronouncements begin to be felt, many fear that Toronto will become known also as the staging ground for the security model that will be deployed to protect this new architecture. {The B2o that is!}

I am starting herewith to report about the Richard Attias new New York Forum about which we have already four articles, or mentions, in the last three weeks. the Forum opened today and is very promising indeed, as we expected – so – please do not take this first article from the Forum itself as a negative to this excellent enterprise. Please, one has to start somewhere, and in the nature of journalism as understood by Mr. Rupert Murdoch, the billionaire Chairman and CEO of the News Corporation, the owners of the Fox Chanel among other properties, is that you go for the sensationalism and start with writing about the worse first. So Mr. Murdoch, please see that I am a good learner and I will start by writing about you first.

Dear reader, please note that we do not throw out the baby with the dirty water – we merely throw out here he dirty water first.

Also please note that 500 Executives registered for the two days meeting – 60% from the US and 40% from abroad. Also present 120 people from the media – from many countries.

—————————-

The 2010 New York Forum had two excellent introductory presentations by Mr. Richard Attias – one to the Media and the other to the Meeting’s Opening Plenary.

His two presentations were reinforced in the event for the Press by Mr. Richard I. Lesser, Chairman, North and South America, The Boston Consulting Group, and by the organizer of the Program, Mr. Lance Knobel who also led the following workshop (albeit – it was not the word they used).

INNOVATION LABORATORY ON REBUILDING TRUST!

OUR SPECIFIC EXAMPLE WAS  – REBUILDING TRUST IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS – really, can you think of a more up-to-date subject theses days? Low and behold – we came up with many solutions, and the one our table dealt with made specially sense to me. But here I will leave you in suspense for a future posting.

How can you succeed engaging large numbers of people to rebuild trust in financial institutions by using a design thinking-based innovation methodology? The Design and innovation firm IDEO (obviously of Palo Alto)  led this interactive workshop to explore the issue of movement building and fundamental change in our financial institutions. Participants were introduced to the innovation practice of design thinking and then took part in activities focused on finding inspiration from real people rather than demographics or statistics.

Participants learned through a guided experiences on translating observations and insights into relevant ideas and design solutions to be able to use this methodology in their own challenges, beyond the specific case that the session covered.

This was facilitated by Doug Solomon, CTO, IDEO,  and Introduced by Lance Knobel, Director of the Program, The New York Forum.

—————————-

After the Introductory remarks by Richard Attias, we finally reach the subject of this posting:

Opening plenary titled -  “REINVENTION: THE CORPORATE IMPERATIVE.”

It said in the program: “Corporate and business leaders have always had to be agile and restless, rethinking their business models for survival as markets and technologies change. But the pace and pressures for change seem greater than ever. How do great leaders navigate through the uncertain terrain of today’s world? What are the key challenges that they face?”

The Moderator was Maria Bartiromo who is Anchor of the Business Program on CNBC.

From her original team she has lost Mort Zuckerman, Chairman and CEO, Boston Properties, and Publisher, New York Daily News, who for reasons unknown to me at this time was a no-show and he was replaced by: Mr. Philippe Camus, Chairman, Alcatel-Lucent, a global telecommunications corporation, headquartered in Paris.

We consider the above change very unfortunate, as it left Mr. Murdoch without any counter-balance on the program, and I am sorry to say that Maria Bartiromo did not stand up to his pressure. This program turned out rather about a discussion about business gripes and the raison d’etre of the event – REINVENTION – was forgotten in the process. But please do not despair. It was the excesses of Mr. Murdoch that eventually turned the event into a success, and it turns out that we had something to do with this.

The Other three members of the panel were:

Cathleen Black, President, Hearst Magazines
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, News Corporation
Jerry Speyer, Chairman and CEO, Tishman Speyer

and as I am writing this late at night, please forgive me for focusing only on Mr. Murdoch.

————————-

So, my notes tell me that Rupert Murdoch addressed at least the following points:

1. Brazil, India are doing well, Europe is doing badly except Germany, in the Us we will have to grow in the next year at 1.5 trillion debt – this must change!

2. We must have less government and less taxation. Otherwise business will take off to Hong Kong and with them the jobs.
We will see a lot of change to the bad. At mid-term elections things could change. Today we have 20 million out of job. You can change this by having mass formation of small businesses.

3. We need innovation. We educate people and they leave. it is ridiculous to send people away.

4. In the country education is a disgrace. We turn out people illiterate in Spanish and English. You see the single mothers.
The teachers union did unbelievable things.

5. He is skeptic of Climate Change – it is caused by the activities of the sun – we cannot do it by ourselves.

6. A billion people in China moving away from farms and building a coal plant each day. We can talk of G2 as much as we want but we cannot do it alone. Oil and gas will be here for a long time and we will have clean gas.

7.  Alaska – two pipelines through Canada. We did not buy Alaska to save the moose.

————————-

I accept that a meeting like this should provide all points of view – but there is a limit to what a civilized stomach can take, and the comment about the moose did it for me – so I asked at the Q&A session directly from Mr. Rupert Murdoch something like:

Considering that you mentioned that the US did not buy Alaska for the moose, but as this meeting here is intended at the end to provide a missive to the G-20 in Toronto for the end of this week, what would be your advice to the G-20?

I got some more diatribe but no direct answer to my question. This caused me to ask a very short follow-up: “What do you understand by ‘clean gas’?” I got some more diatribe.

———————–

When the meeting broke, several people came over to congratulate me – this included a green investment gentleman from Senegal and an interviewer that taped me for the New York Observer. Then at coffee time and dinner some 50-60 people congratulated me and said they felt exactly like me. I ran out of cards in the process.

There were only two people with whom I spoke that were not happy with my question. There was the US representative of a French newspaper who thought that I should have addressed my question to the moderator and not to Mr. Murdoch, as he thought it took away the possibility from the others to address my question. (this is not really correct because Mr. Speyer did actually enter the question. The other was a Deputy Ambassador to the UN.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

APEC to pursue low-carbon technologies: Nuke power to be promoted as low-emission energy source;
new plant construction urged.
FUKUI (Kyodo) Energy ministers from Pacific Rim economies agreed Saturday to embark on a project to create low-carbon model cities using energy-efficient technologies and urged the promotion of nuclear power as an environmentally friendly energy source.

The one-day meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in the city of Fukui was hosted by Japan, this year’s APEC chair. At the meeting, which focused on energy security and other matters, participants also concurred that fossil fuels will continue to play a key role in the region, which includes such emerging economies as China, and attached importance to enhancing preparedness for oil supply disruption such as by collaborating with the International Energy Agency over energy response workshops and exercises.

The model cities would likely feature a “smart grid” advanced power transmission network or buildings with facilities for renewable energy generation.

Smart grid, which uses information technology, is an efficient power transmission network that is expected to encourage the use of renewable energy such as solar and wind, because it can give stability to the output of electricity supplied by the fluctuating power sources.

Meanwhile, the declaration stipulated that the deployment of renewable energy, nuclear energy, and power generation involving carbon capture and storage technology should be “promoted,” calling these three “low emission” power sources.

Noting that a growing number of interested economies are using nuclear power to diversify their energy mix and limit carbon emissions, the declaration also referred to the need to assess the emissions reduction potential of nuclear power in APEC.

Toward new nuclear power plant construction, the declaration also said “solid financial frameworks, as well as cooperation among member economies and with relevant multilateral organizations” could be of help.

It is the first time for APEC to clearly stipulate the promotion of building new nuclear power plants, according to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

White House is feeling weight of controversies surrounding oil spill.

Washington DC, Friday, June 4, 2010

At virtually every turn lately, the White House cannot shake the appearance that it is hamstrung and a step behind. From a major crisis such as the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico to smaller and seemingly avoidable controversies over internal Democratic Party politics, President Obama and his team are on the defensive.

The question many Republicans and even some Democratic allies of the administration are asking is whether the collective weight of all these problems will diminish the president’s ability to get his agenda through Congress, or further weaken his party before the November midterm elections.

That all this has happened to a White House staffed by the team that so successfully navigated the 2008 presidential campaign is a source of surprise and consternation for Democrats. The missteps have also become easy ammunition for Republicans seeking to capitalize on what may be self-inflicted wounds.

Defenders of the administration argue that there was nothing the White House could have done early on to stop the oil that has been gushing from the well in the gulf.

————

Then Comes the information: “President Obama has once again postponed his trip to Indonesia and Australia, telephoning the leaders of the two countries late Thursday night,” the White House said.

It is the second time the trip has been canceled. It was originally planned for March but was put off because the president wanted to be in Washington for a critical health-care vote in Congress.

Now, the president needs to stay in Washington to oversee the worsening environmental crisis from the oil spill off the Gulf Coast, making a seven-day venture oversees impractical and politically problematic.

Obama had been scheduled to leave June 13 and stay abroad for a week, spending time in Indonesia, Guam and Australia. There was no indication in the statement about when he might try again.

“President Obama spoke tonight with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia, and with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia,” press secretary Robert Gibbs said in a statement sent out just before midnight. “President Obama expressed his deep regret that he has to postpone his trip to Asia that was scheduled for later this month. The President looked forward to rescheduling so that he can visit both countries soon.”

The statement continued: “President Obama underscored his commitment to our close alliance with Australia and our deepening partnership with Indonesia. He plans to hold full bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Rudd and President Yudhoyono on the margins of the G-20 meeting in Canada” in late June.

————-

But we think that not going on that trip these days is a major mistake. We believe that there is a tremendous opportunity that the President is missing and we wrote about it in our posting:  http://www.sustainabilitank.info/categor…

An oil drilling accident offshore Brunei in 1979 caused a mud volcano which took nearly 30 years and 20 relief wells to stop. The Sidoarjo, East Java, Indonesia, PT Lapindo Bratas gas exploration resulted in an on land mud volcano, May 29, 2006, when it wiped out four villages. It is still an ongoing disaster. Louisiana and Washington DC beware: The real model against which the BP Deepwater blowout should be compared are THE MUD VOLCANOES and the time frame is very serious. Why not establish a School for Government and Industry LEARNING responsibility in Sidoajo, Indonesia, an area suggested for TOURISM by President Yudhoyono ?

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 26th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

President Obama could have made it his point to visit the Sidoajo MUD VOLCANO and explain the perils of drilling for oil.

In Sidoajo, on ground, not under 5,000 feet of water, there is to be seen a still active blow-out of gas that has wiped out four villages. He could have spoken from there to the people of the United States and explain the perils of geoengineering in search of oil. Indonesia would have cooperated – President Yudhoyono wants to turn the place as a site for educational eco-tourism.

There are also other reasons for the originally planned trip. There are important questions about the US leadership in international institutions like the UN and on climate at the UNFCCC. There is an aspiring UN Secretary-General in Australia – Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – and much interest in Climate in both countries. There is also interest in Guam at a time the US might have to reconsider its military installations in the region, but the opportunity to address the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, while standing next to that Mud Volcano, was like heaven sent in order to extricate himself from the Washington Furies.

—————–

The following shows how mindless Republican legislators can be – at this stage, without exhonorating Obama from having failed to clean up Washington from the Republican remnants in the bureaucracy, we are clearly pointing fingers at that anti-Americanism Republican style.

see from the following:

“For the past several weeks, much of the debate in the capital has centered on whether the President and his team reacted quickly enough to the threat of the oil gushing from the bottom of the ocean floor.”

And what are they saying? Had the alarm bells sounded earlier, could anyone have done anything?

Is it not true that years of submission to oil industry dictates over Washington have rendered the country helpless? Is there anything short of “Drill Baby Drill!” that propels the Republican onslaught on Obama these days? The idea is to be allowed to drill in shallow water and on land in order to avoid similar spills in the future – this is nothing short of holding the revolver at whatever heads there are still in existence in that town.

As President Obama heads to the Gulf Friday for his third oil-spill visit, his most ardent critics back in Washington will be stirring up trouble.

June 1, 2010 from The  UNelections Monitor.

Issue 142 – June 1 – Candidates for UNSG in 2011?

 http://www.unelections.org/?q=node/1915

Mercer is a leading global provider of consulting, outsourcing and investment services. Mercer works with clients to solve their most complex benefit and human capital issues, designing and helping manage health, retirement and other benefits. It is a leader in benefit outsourcing. Mercer’s investment services include investment consulting and investment management. Mercer’s 18,000 employees are based in more than 40 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., which lists its stock (ticker symbol: MMC) on the New York, Chicago and London stock exchanges. For more information, visit www.mercer.com

Mercer’s Quality of Living index list was revised and now covers 221 cities compared to 215 in 2009, which means direct trend comparison will not be possible until 2011. The new selection includes prominent capital and other major cities from across the world currently available in Mercer’s database, and better reflects where companies are sending their expatriate employees in the current business environment.

Slagin Parakatil, Senior Researcher at Mercer, commented: “As the world economy becomes more globalised, cities beyond the traditional financial centres are emerging as attractive places in which to expand or establish a business. Cities in many emerging markets, such as in the Middle East or Asia, have seen a significant influx of foreign companies and their expatriate employees in recent years.”

“To ensure their expatriates are compensated appropriately and an adequate hardship allowance is included in their benefits package, companies seek a clear picture of the quality of living in these cities. We have reviewed our index to reflect these developments and it now better represents the cities that most interest our clients,” Mr Parakatil said.

————

THIS YEAR, FOR THE FIRST TIME, MERCER ESTABLISHED ALSO AN ECO-CITY CATEGORY IN ITS RANKINGS.

Eco-City Ranking 2010 includes the following criteria: Water availability, water potability, waste removal, sewage, air pollution and traffic congestion. As this list is only a partial list from Mercer’s more general lists of criteria, but they still retain New York City as the base figure with 100 as guide-line, obviously these figures are different then in their general listings.

In the more general list - Vienna retains the top spot as the city with the world’s best quality of living, according to the Mercer 2010 Quality of Living Survey. Zurich and Geneva follow in second and third position, respectively, while Vancouver and Auckland remain joint fourth in the rankings. Also there Cities are ranked against New York as the base city, with an index score of 100 – but that figure obviously means a different 100. In the US, the highest ranking entry is Honolulu at position 31, followed by San Francisco at position 32.  In the UK, London ranks at 39, while Birmingham  at 55 and Glasgow at 57. Singapore at 28 is the top-scoring Asian city, followed by Tokyo at 40.

Mercer conducts the general ranking to help governments and multi-national companies compensate employees fairly when placing them on international assignments. The rankings are based on a point-scoring index, which sees Vienna score 108.6 and Baghdad 14.7.

Top Top 52 Eco-Cities ranked:

Base City: New York, US (=100)

Mercer is a leading global provider of consulting, outsourcing and investment services. Mercer works with clients to solve their most complex benefit and human capital issues, designing and helping manage health, retirement and other benefits. It is a leader in benefit outsourcing. Mercer’s investment services include investment consulting and investment management. Mercer’s 18,000 employees are based in more than 40 countries. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., which lists its stock (ticker symbol: MMC) on the New York, Chicago and London stock exchanges. For more information, visit www.mercer.com