Uri Avnery
03.07.10

A Broomstick Can Shoot.

A VICTORY is a victory. A big victory is better than a small one, but a small victory is better than a defeat.

This week we won.

Immediately after the Turkel Commission was set up to investigate the flotilla incident, Gush Shalom filed a petition to the Supreme Court of Justice against its appointment. We demanded its replacement by a full-fledged State Commission of Inquiry. The court hearing was fixed for last Wednesday. But on Tuesday afternoon, the Attorney General’s office called our lawyer, Gabi Lasky: the Prime Minister had decided at the last moment to increase the powers of the commission, and the government was about to confirm the change. Therefore, the Attorney General asked us to agree to a postponement of the hearing for ten days.

Not a single Israeli newspaper had published a word about our application – something unthinkable if it had been the initiative of a right-wing organization. But after the change, it became impossible to ignore it anymore: almost all papers pointed out that our application had played an important role in Netanyahu’s decision.

Jacob Turkel and his friend, Jacob Neeman, the Minister of Justice who appointed him, had come to the conclusion that they would be defeated in court. That’s why Turkel demanded an enlargement of the number of the commission members as well as its powers.

At the beginning, the commission had not been accorded any legal standing at all. Netanyahu just asked three nice people to find out if the government’s actions were consistent with international law, nothing more. Now, it seems, it will be given the legal standing of a “Government Commission of Inquiry”, but definitely not of a “State Commission of Inquiry”. There is a huge difference between the two.

————

THE INSTITUTION called a “State Commission of Inquiry” is uniquely Israeli. It is based on a special law, which all of us can be proud of.

It has an interesting historical background. In the early 60s, the country was riven by controversy about the Lavon Affair, concerning a number of terrorist attacks carried out by an Israeli spy-ring in Egypt. The operation miscarried, the members of the ring were caught, two were hanged, and the question arose: Who Had Given The Order? The Minister of Defense, Pinhas Lavon, and the chief of army intelligence, Binyamin Gibli, blamed each other. (Later I asked Yitzhak Rabin about it and he told me: “When you are dealing with two pathological liars, how can you know?”)

David Ben-Gurion passionately demanded a “Judicial Commission of Inquiry”. It became almost an obsession with him. But at the time, Israeli law did not know such a creature. Emotion flared, the government fell, and the lawyer of the Labor Party, Jacob Shimshon Shapira, accused Ben-Gurion of fascism.

It seems that Shapira felt remorse for this accusation, and so, when he became Minister of Justice soon after, he worked out an exemplary bill for the appointment of a “State Commission of Inquiry”, which would resemble a regular court. He proposed that such a commission would have the power to summon witnesses, have them testify under oath (with the usual penalties for perjury), cross-examine them, subpoena documents, etc. Also, that the commission would warn in advance any persons whose interests could be harmed by its findings and accord them the right to be represented by a lawyer.

As a member of the Knesset at the time, I submitted two amendments that seemed important to me. The proposed law did provide that the Supreme Justice would appoint the members of the commission, but left it to the government to decide upon the setting up of a commission and its terms of reference. I argued that this would open the door to political manipulations, and proposed to confer upon the Supreme Court also the power to set up a commission and set its terms of reference. My amendments were voted down. The present affair shows how necessary they were.

The law provides an alternative – the appointment of a “Government Commission of Inquiry”, which enjoys a far lower standing. It differs from a “state” commission in one extremely important aspect: its members are not appointed by the Chief Justice, but by the government itself.

That is, of course, a huge difference. Anyone with an elementary grasp of politics understands that he who appoints the members of a commission strongly influences its conclusions in advance. If a settler from Qiryat-Arba is appointed to head a commission about the legality of the settlements, its conclusion may not be quite the same as those of a commission chaired by a member of Peace Now.

That has been proven in the past. After the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Prime Minister Menachem Begin initially refused to appoint a State Commission of Inquiry. However, under the intense pressure of Israeli public opinion he was compelled to do so, and the commission removed Ariel Sharon from the Ministry of Defense. Ehud Olmert remembered this and drew the conclusion: after Lebanon War II he obstinately refused the set up a “State Commission” and agreed merely to a “Government Commission”, whose members he appointed himself. Not surprisingly, he got away almost unscathed.

THE APPOINTMENT of the Turkel commission was greeted by the Israeli public with unveiled cynicism. The same media which had almost unanimously supported the attack on the flotilla, were now united in their attack on poor Turkel and his commission. They joked about the advanced age of its members, one of whom can move only with the assistance of a Filipino helper. All commentators agree that the commission was not set up to clarify the affair, but only to help President Barack Obama to obstruct the appointment of an international inquiry commission.

All agreed that this is a ridiculous commission without teeth, that its composition is pathetic and the terms of reference marginal. It seems that Judge Turkel himself felt ashamed. After accepting the appointment on Netanyahu’s terms, this week he threatened to resign if his powers were not extended. Netanyahu gave in.

Jacob Turkel, 75, is a decent person, born in the country, son of immigrants from Austria (Turkel, actually Türkel, is a German name meaning “little Turk” – rather ironic for a person charged with investigating the attack on a Turkish ship). He is religious, and his record as a judge discloses a rightist orientation. For example: he decided that the criminal behavior of the extreme rightist Moshe Feiglin was not “dishonorable”, thus enabling him to run for election. He refused to condemn Rabbi Ido Alba for incitement, after the rabbi had pronounced that killing non-Jews is approved by the Jewish religion. He decided to acquit Binyamin Ze’ev Kahane, the son of Meir Kahane, from a charge of incitement. When Ehud Barak was prime minister, Turkel decided that he was not entitled to conduct peace negotiations because of approaching elections. And so on.

NETANYAHU’S DECISION to enlarge the powers of the commission, so that it will be able to summon witnesses, is far from what is needed. The commission will be unable to investigate how and by whom it was decided to impose the blockade on Gaza, how it was decided to attack the flotilla, how the operation was planned and how it was carried out. We therefore see no reason to withdraw our Supreme Court petition to disband the Turkel commission and to appoint an official State Commission of Inquiry. The more so since Turkel himself, a week before his appointment, had also called for the appointment of a State Commission of Inquiry.

The chances? Not the best. The Supreme Court can interfere in this matter only if we prove that the government’s decision is “extremely unreasonable”. And indeed, in the past, State Commissions of Inquiry have been appointed for far less important matters than this affair, which has undermined the Israeli public’s confidence in the army and the government, aroused the entire world against us and dealt a heavy blow to our relations with Turkey. If this is not a matter of “public interest”, as the law demands, what is?

A Jewish joke tells about a woman who dropped a dish of meat in the toilet bowl. When she asked the rabbi whether it was still kosher, he replied: “kosher but stinking”. The court may decide in this spirit.

Turkel and his colleagues can, of course, surprise those who appointed them and arbitrarily enlarge the scope of their inquiry. Such things have already happened in the past. As another Jewish saying goes: “If God wills, even a broomstick can shoot.” But chances are slim.

——————–

THIS AFFAIR has much wider implications than the flotilla incident. It is worthwhile to dwell on them.

Most of Israel’s critics, especially abroad, see the country as a one-dimensional monolith. As they see it, all its (Jewish) citizens are marching in lockstep behind their rightist government, consumed by a dark ideology, supporting occupation and settlements and committing war crimes. This, by the way, is a mirror image of the admirers of Israel in the world, who also see Israel as a one-dimensional monolith, with all citizens marching proudly behind their brave and determined leaders – Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Avigdor Lieberman.

The truth is far removed from both these caricatures. It is enough for a foreign visitor to stay a few weeks in Israel and come in contact with its population, to see that reality is far, far more complex. (Indeed, I dare say that anyone who has not done so cannot possibly understand what’s happening here.)

All human societies are complex and many-faceted, and Israeli society, with its unique past, is more complex than most. The flotilla affair – relatively small but very typical – shows this again.

The demand to reveal the truth about this affair is a part of the battle for Israeli democracy, for the standing of the Supreme Court, and indeed concerns the essence of the state.

Some see this struggle as a battle between two big blocs – on one side, the nationalist, religious, militaristic, anti-democratic right, and on the other, the liberal, democratic, secular, peace-loving left.

Anyone with such a picture in his head imagines something like the battle of Waterloo, when two big armies clash on the battlefield and one overcomes the other. But the struggle for Israel is more like a medieval battle, when the clash of two armies turns into a melee of thousands of duels, one to one, and can go on for a long time.

THE BATTLE for Israel is indeed composed of hundreds of thousands of small battles, which are being fought out in a thousand and one different arenas. All Israeli citizens are involved – either actively or passively, judges and professors, army officers and politicians, voters and soldiers, activists and onlookers, journalists and youth idols, laborers and tycoons, rabbis and the anti-religious, environment activists and social activists – everyone of us, by his deeds and omissions, takes part in this battle over the character of our state.

The struggle against the occupation and against the settlements is a part of this war. The war itself is for the personality of Israeli society, a society still in the making. This war is far from decided. Anyone who believes that the end is foreseeable, that this or that “must” happen, thus and not otherwise, is mistaken. A defeat in one battle, and even in a series of battles, will not be decisive, because there will be more battles in the days to come. When millions of people are involved – men and women, young and old, Jews and Arabs, Westerners and Orientals, orthodox and secular, rich and poor, old-timers and new immigrants, all the vast spectrum of Israeli society – nothing is certain in advance.

The controversy over the Turkel commission, as well as the fight for freeing Gilad Shalit and all the other struggles taking place in Israel at this moment , must be seen in this light – as small fragments of a big, long and continuous struggle , in which our acts of commission and omission will decide the future of our state.

This, after all, was the aim of the entire historic exercise of creating Israel: to take our fate in our own hands and be responsible for the consequences.

permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1278174122/

www.unece.org/oes/disc_papers/climat_change.html

—–

UNECE climate change activities^[1]

Table of Contents:

Introduction
Conventions
Vehicle regulations
Energy efficiency in production
Energy-efficient housing
Sustainable forestry
Sustainable biomass
Other related UNECE areas of work

Introduction

Climate change is a human-induced process of global warming, largely resulting from the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane and fluorocarbons.[2] Countries are under increasing pressure to curb their emissions of these gases and to enhance carbon sinks in a drive to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, combating the threats of human-induced global warming requires more than mitigation; it is equally important to reduce society’s vulnerability to climate change through adaptation, as established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, launched in 2005. Adaptation addresses the impacts of climate change, including climate variability and weather extremes.[3]

The United Nations Secretary-General has put climate change at the top of the United Nations agenda, ensuring that the “United Nations system will continue … to bring to bear the collective strength of all its entities as an integral part of the international community’s response to climate change.”[4] The five regional commissions have assumed an active role in coordinating United Nations support for action on climate change at the regional level through the regional coordination mechanisms mandated by the Economic and Social Council in its resolution 1998/46 (annex III).[5] The five commissions are seen as conveners to support global, regional and national action on climate change, while coordinating their workplans and implementation efforts with other organizations that have significant mandates in their respective areas.[6]

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) is a key driving force in combating climate change in the pan-European region and beyond. The UNECE region comprises 56 member States, spanning the whole European continent, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and also including Israel, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America. The region has a crucial role in contributing to the local and regional success of UNFCCC, as was noted by UNECE member States at the “Sixth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe” (Belgrade, 10–12 October 2007).[7] UNECE has spearheaded the region’s efforts to achieve the targets of United Nations Millennium Development Goal 7, especially to integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes and to reverse the losses of environmental resources.

Top

Conventions

Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

The 1979 UNECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), and its protocols aim to cut emissions of air pollutants, inter alia, sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs). Such pollutants can either directly influence global warming, by affecting the cooling or absorptive characteristics of the atmosphere, or indirectly influence it through, for example, ozone formation. Recent studies have shown important synergies in addressing air pollution control and climate change mitigation and have highlighted the economic and environmental co-benefits that are possible by tackling these issues in an integrated way.

The Convention has 51 Parties and eight protocols, which are all in force. The most recent of these, the 1999 Gothenburg Protocol, is currently under revision. It targets the environmental effects of acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone through emission cuts for SO2, NOx, NMVOCs and ammonia. Such cuts are known to mitigate global warming.

A recent major conference and workshop entitled “Air Pollution and Climate Change: Developing a Framework for Integrated Co-benefit Strategies” was held in September 2008 in Stockholm under the auspices of the Convention and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and in consultation with the UNFCCC secretariat. It brought together policymakers and scientists from all United Nations regions to consider ways to develop and implement integrated programmes for decreasing emissions of both air pollutants and GHGs. The conclusions stressed the importance of using integrated strategies. Of special note was the possible “buying of time” in GHG mitigation through cuts in such air pollutants as black carbon and ozone, and air pollutants with a strong radiative forcing effect, which might be cut more readily than CO2 and achieve some GHG mitigation in the short term. The conference agreed there was a need to strengthen air pollution abatement efforts as well as climate change mitigation to achieve better health and environmental protection. It also noted the significant cost savings of using integrated approaches. The conclusions and recommendations of the workshop will be considered by the Convention’s Executive Body (Meeting of the Parties) in December 2008.

The Convention is using different models and methods to analyse environmental effects and to calculate the necessary emission abatement and related costs. In this way, cost-effective pollution control strategies can achieve the desired environmental targets with the least overall expenditure. Recent use of the Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies (GAINS) integrated assessment model, developed by the Convention’s Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling, has explored synergies and trade-offs between emissions of air pollutants and GHGs, for current and projected energy use. The model includes both end-of-pipe controls and non-technical measures, such as behavioural changes in traffic or economic instruments.

The Convention’s scientific bodies are also incorporating climate change issues into their programmes of work. The European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP), which monitors and models air quality, is involved in reporting and estimating emissions. Reporting requirements of the Parties have been harmonized with those of UNFCCC. EMEP is also responsible for the integrated assessment modelling work described above. The international programmes of the Working Group on Effects monitor and model environmental and human health effects of air pollution. Increasingly, these need to take account of the links to observed or predicted changes in climatic conditions. They also provide long-term monitoring of data that can identify changes that might be associated with a changing climate.

Discussions in the Convention’s bodies have drawn attention to the strong links between air pollutant and GHG emissions and have highlighted specific issues where integration of strategies is needed. For example, the current emphasis on renewable energy is leading to increased use of wood as a fuel. However, unless appropriate boiler technology is used, this can also lead to increased air pollution.

Water

The intrinsic relation of the hydrological cycle – and thus water availability, quality, and services – to climate change makes adaptation critical for water management and the water sector in general. The UNECE Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes (Water Convention) is an important legal framework for the development of adaptation strategies, in particular in the transboundary context.

At their fourth meeting in Bonn, Germany, in 2006, the Parties to the Water Convention took a decisive step to supporting the development of adaptation strategies by agreeing to elaborate a guidance document on water and adaptation to climate change. A draft has now been prepared by the Task Forces on Water and Climate and on Extreme Weather Events, both under the Convention’s Protocol on Water and Health. This marks the first attempt under any convention to flesh out a climate change adaptation strategy in the water sector with a particular emphasis on transboundary issues. Based on the concept of integrated water resources management, the Guidance will “provide advice on how to assess impacts of climate change on water quantity and quality, how to perform risk assessment, including health risk assessment, how to gauge vulnerability, and how to design and implement appropriate adaptation measures” [ibid. p. 8]. The Guidance is expected to be formally adopted in November 2009 at the next meeting of the Parties.

One important step in the Guidance’s preparation was a workshop on climate change adaptation in the water sector organized under the Water Convention and the Protocol on Water and Health (Amsterdam, 1–2 July 2008). The workshop, which allowed for an exchange of experience in the region, an assessment of information needs for adaptation strategies and a discussion of the benefits of and mechanisms for transboundary cooperation, touched upon the institutional, policy, legal, scientific and financial aspects of adaptation in the water sector and included cross-cutting issues such as education. The workshop highlighted current challenges such as still limited transboundary cooperation, the focus on short-term rather than long-term measures, and the need to consider climate change together with other global drivers of change, e.g. the energy and food crises and changes in production and consumption patterns.

The Protocol on Water and Health, the first legally binding instrument aimed to achieve the sustainable management of water resources and the reduction of water-related disease, is also highly relevant to climate change adaptation. It establishes joint or coordinated surveillance and early-warning systems, contingency plans and response capacities, as well as mutual assistance to respond to outbreaks or incidents of water-related disease, especially those arising from extreme weather events. The Protocol’s Ad Hoc Project Facilitation Mechanism is a funding tool for implementation of the Protocol at the national level; its provisions on safe drinking water and sanitation are also of relevance to climate change.

Top

Access to information, public participation and justice

The UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) constitutes the only legally binding instrument so far to implement principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which provides for the participation of citizens in environmental issues by giving them appropriate access to the information concerning the environment held by public authorities, including access to judicial or administrative proceedings, redress and remedy. Access to scientifically based information and public participation in decision-making on environmental issues – as provided by the Convention – are widely recognized as an important foundation for climate change mitigation efforts. UNFCCC, for example, underlined the importance of these principles at its thirteenth session, encouraging Parties to facilitate access to data and information and to promote public participation in addressing climate change and its effects and in developing adequate responses.[8] Environmental information can help to raise awareness about climate change issues and to strengthen synergies between mitigation and adaptation needs. Public participation in this process ensures that social values and trade-offs are represented in political decisions on climate-related issues.

UNECE is a co-organizer of the international conference, “The Role of Information in an Age of Climate Change” (Aarhus, Denmark, 13–14 November 2008). The event, marking the Aarhus Convention’s tenth anniversary, brings together leading scientists, policymakers, government authorities, non-governmental organizations, and representatives of the private sector to promote public access to information and public participation in addressing climate change.

The Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTR), adopted in May 2003, is the first legally binding international instrument on PRTRs. PRTRs assist governments in collecting information on the emission of GHGs and toxic or hazardous substances from industrial facilities and other sources. By making this information available to decision makers and the wider public, PRTRs contribute to enhancing companies’ environmental performance, regional mitigation efforts and the fight against global warming and climate change.

Top

Vehicle regulations

Transport is a significant and growing contributor to global climate change. According to some estimates, it is responsible for 13 per cent of all anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and for almost one quarter of the world’s total CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion.[9]

In May 2008 in Leipzig, Germany, UNECE took part in the OECD International Transport Forum Ministerial Session, “The Challenge of Climate Change”, the first global meeting of transport ministers that focused on energy and climate change challenges relevant to the transport sector. Climate change mitigation and adaptation activities in the transport sector focus on different means of CO2 abatement: (a) innovative engine technologies to increase fuel efficiency; (b) use of sustainable biofuels; (c) improved transport infrastructure, including inter-modal transport and logistics to avoid road congestion; (d) dissemination of consumer information on eco-driving; and (e) implementation of legal instruments. In their key messages, transport ministers urged UNECE World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29) to “accelerate the work to develop common methodologies, test cycles and measurement methods for [light] vehicles” [ibid. p. 5], including CO2 emissions. For over 50 years, the World Forum has served as a platform for developing harmonized global regulations for vehicle construction, thus increasing their environmental performance and safety.

The World Forum agreed that a possible strategy for the automotive sector to contribute to the abatement of emissions was to pursue: (a) improved energy efficiency and the use of sustainable biofuels as a short-term objective (2015); (b) the development and introduction into the market of plug-in hybrid vehicles as a mid-term objective (2015–2025); and (c) the development and introduction into the market of electric vehicles as a long-term objective (2025–2040). This strategy would shift the automotive sector from the use of fossil energy to the use of hydrogen and electric energy. To be effective, this strategy needs to rely on the sustainable production of electricity and hydrogen, a crucial policy issue identified for future discussions on global warming and the reduction of CO2 emissions.

The World Forum previously adopted amendments to UNECE regulations to limit the maximum admissible level of vehicle emissions for various gaseous pollutants (e.g. carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, NOx) and particulate matter. These have resulted in a substantial abatement of the emissions limits for new private cars and commercial vehicles. Moreover, UNECE Regulations were amended to include electric and hybrid vehicles as well as vehicles with engines fuelled with liquefied petroleum gas or compressed natural gas. At the present time, the World Forum is considering a number of energy efficiency measures, such as the development of a common methodology and measurement method to evaluate environmentally friendly vehicles, hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles, the use of other alternative energy sources such as biofuels including biogas, the installation in vehicles of engine management systems (e.g. the stop-and-go function), intelligent transport systems, tyre-pressure monitoring systems and the development of tyres with low rolling resistance. Once a consensus is reached, many of these measures are likely to be added to the UNECE regulations, which will help increase vehicles’ energy efficiency.

As concerns fuel-quality standards, in 2007 the World Forum demonstrated the close link between the market fuel quality and the emissions of pollutants from motor vehicles.  It recognized that further reduction of emissions required that cleaner fuel be available to consumers.  The lack of harmonized fuel quality standards was seen to hamper the development of the new vehicle technologies. Supported by UNEP and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, the World Forum is committed to developing a necessary standard on market fuel quality, thus enabling vehicles to use fuels that minimize vehicle emission levels.

The Transport Health and Environment Pan-European Programme (THE PEP), a joint project of UNECE and the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, was initiated to help achieve more sustainable transport patterns and a better reflection of environmental and health concerns in transport policy. In particular, THE PEP also promotes sustainable urban transport, including alternative modes of transport, in the region.

Top

Energy efficiency in production

As energy is a major market in the UNECE region, which contains 40 per cent of the world’s natural gas reserves and 60 per cent of its coal reserves, a number of UNECE activities promote a sustainable energy development strategy, a key to the region’s climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts. The combustion of fossil fuels, the mainstay of the region’s electricity generation, is also a major source of GHG emissions. The sustainable energy projects of UNECE aim to facilitate the transition to a more sustainable and secure energy future by optimizing operating efficiencies and conservation, including through energy restructuring and legal, regulatory or energy pricing reforms. UNECE projects also encourage the introduction of renewable energy sources and the use of natural gas until cleaner energy sources are developed and commercially available, as well as the greening of the coal-to-energy chain.

For the period 2006–2009, the UNECE Energy Efficiency 21 (EE21) programme is working to promote regional cooperation to enhance countries’ energy efficiency and to reduce their GHG emissions, thus helping them meet their international treaty obligations under UNFCCC and the UNECE conventions. Energy efficiency is achieved by focusing on more efficient production, conservation and use of all energy sources in order to minimize GHG emissions.

Within the overall EE21 programme, UNECE manages the Financing Energy Efficiency Investments for Climate Change Mitigation project, with a budget of approximately US$ 7.5 million, financed by the Global Environment Fund, Fonds Français pour l’Environnement Mondial and the European Business Congress. This project is currently establishing a privately managed equity fund with private and public sector partners. The fund, which will benefit from both public and private sources, will target energy efficiency and renewable investment projects in 12 countries in Central Asia and Eastern and South-Eastern Europe.

Another project within the EE21 programme is RENEUER, a regional activity supported by the United States Agency for International Development, the United States Department of Energy, France and other bilateral donors. RENEUER promotes sustainable development in the region by overcoming regional barriers and creating favourable conditions for the introduction of advanced technologies for the efficient use of local energy resources.

Outreach activities to other regional commissions in the context of energy efficiency for climate change mitigation are being organized under the Global Energy Efficiency 21 (GEE21) project. This project, to be launched in December 2008 in Poznan, Poland, will develop a systematic exchange of information on capacity-building, policy reform and investment project financing to promote cost-effective energy efficiency improvements that will reduce air pollution, including GHGs.

The work of two expert groups under the Committee on Sustainable Energy relates to climate change mitigation. The Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Coal Mine Methane (CMM) promote the recovery and use of methane gas from coal mines to minimize GHG emissions. In February 2008 in Szczyrk, Poland, a UNECE-supported workshop assessed prospects for CMM recovery and use, noting that “Global potential for CMM projects to contribute to climate change mitigation and take advantage of the carbon markets is very strong because a reduction of one ton of methane yields reductions of 18 to 23 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent”.[10] However, economic feasibility of such projects typically requires a clear regulatory and legal framework, reasonable access to markets and relatively stable prices.

The Ad Hoc Group of Experts on Cleaner Electricity Production from Coal and Other Fossil Fuels held its first meeting in November 2007. Its programme of work includes reviewing the prospects for cleaner electricity production from fossil fuels and measures or incentives to promote investment in cleaner electricity production. The Group also assesses the regulatory needs for promoting investment in cleaner electricity production from fossil fuels, appraises the comparative advantages of investments in new capacities and analyses issues related to carbon capture and storage technologies, especially in the context of emerging economies in the UNECE region.[11]

Top

Energy-efficient housing

Due to both its high GHG emissions and its large potential for energy-saving measures, the housing sector plays a critical role in climate change mitigation. IPCC estimates that the global potential to reduce emissions at roughly 29 per cent for the residential and commercial sectors.[12] The energy-saving potential in this sector is also considerable: UNEP estimates that in Europe, buildings account for roughly 40 to 45 per cent of energy consumption, emitting significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2). Residential buildings account for the lion’s share of these emissions.[13]

Energy-efficient buildings can contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation by reducing buildings’ energy consumption as well as by making them more resistant to severe weather events. Improving energy efficiency is especially important in the UNECE region, where projected increased housing construction and homeownership are likely to be accompanied by higher electricity consumption and thus growing emissions. UNECE has a programme geared to achieving maximal energy efficiency in the region’s housing, which will allow countries to share experience and good practice in reducing energy consumption in the residential sector, both vis-à-vis existing housing stock and new residential housing construction. This is expected to especially improve energy performance in parts of the region where progress is hampered by low innovation capacity and by a lack of knowledge about technical options to improve the thermal efficiency of existing buildings, and by outdated building codes that prevent countries from embracing the latest energy-efficient construction techniques. The programme will also include a wide-ranging regional assessment – featuring financing mechanisms, case studies, workshops and seminars for policymakers – and will benefit from close collaboration with above-mentioned EE21 project.

To date, UNECE has published country profiles on the housing sectors of Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia Lithuania, Poland, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation and Serbia and Montenegro. In 2009, two workshops (in Sofia and Vienna) will address the issue of energy efficiency in housing. A group of interested experts will assist the host countries in shaping the programme of the events and will provide the necessary expertise. In September 2008, the Committee on Housing and Land Management addressed energy efficiency in housing in the region, focusing on the legislative framework and incentives.[14]

Top

Sustainable forestry

Forests and wood are integrally linked to climate change and have an important role to play in mitigation and adaptation. Forests sequester carbon from the atmosphere when they grow, thereby offsetting a significant part of GHG emissions. According to the forthcoming UNECE Annual Report, the annual increase of carbon in EU-27 forests is equivalent to 8.6 per cent of GHG emissions in the European Union (EU). In Europe, forests sequester approximately 140 million tons of carbon a year. Wood products are a store of carbon, keeping it from release to the atmosphere. Forests store more than 80 per cent of terrestrial aboveground carbon and more than 70 per cent of soil organic carbon. They are also the source of wood energy that can substitute fossil energy, thereby reducing GHG emissions.[15] Wood can also be a substitute for non-renewable construction materials such as plastics, steel or concrete.

The UNECE Timber Committee has an active role in monitoring these trends and in promoting sustainable forest management. It collects basic data on forest resource assessment (e.g. carbon sequestration and storage in forests) and the production of and trade in forest products (e.g. harvested wood products, substitution of other materials). It contributes to policy monitoring by reporting on qualitative indicators of sustainable forest management and by publishing a chapter in the Forest Products Annual Market Review. It is currently developing a database on forest sector policies and institutions. In September 2008, UNECE hosted a workshop on “Harvested Wood Products in the Context of Climate Change Policies” to discuss different approaches to account for carbon stored in wood products and their economic, social and ecological impacts. It will also participate in the plenary session on Forest and Climate Change during European Forest Week (Rome, 21–24 October 2008). Finally, the UNECE Timber Committee provided an analytical contribution to the European Forest Sector Outlook Study in 2005 and has authored various papers on wood availability and the market for wood.

Top

Sustainable biomass

Since 1998, UNECE has been directing a major cross-sectoral project for enterprises in the biomass sector in the region. One of the central tasks of climate change mitigation is to replace fossil fuels with alternative energy. The project aims to strengthen sustainable biomass supply from selected countries in the UNECE region to energy producers in the EU, with a focus on agro- and wood residues, whose use is an important alternative to the use of (food) crops for fuel. The project also seeks to improve the logistics chain of biomass trade from producer to the end-user through improved inland transportation, port and trade logistics, and customs cooperation with respect to imports and exports of biomass. Two further aims of the project are facilitating the exchange of good practice with the private sector and exploring cross-sectoral approaches that take into account environment, energy, trade and transport issues.

Top

Other related UNECE areas of work

The “Environment for Europe” ministerial process

The “Environment for Europe” process provides a pan-European political framework for the discussion of key policy issues, development of programmes and launching of initiatives to improve the region’s environment and harmonize environmental policies. At the Sixth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe” (Belgrade, 10–12 October 2007), environment ministers explicitly recognized the urgent need to address climate change in the UNECE region. The Conference saw the launch of the Belgrade Initiative[16], a subregional effort in South-Eastern Europe to support subregional implementation of the UNFCCC through a Climate Change Framework Action Plan and a virtual climate change-related centre in Belgrade designed to help raise awareness and build capacity.

UNECE Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development

The UNECE Strategy of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), adopted in 2005 by ministers and other officials from education and environment ministries across the UNECE region, endeavours to integrate key themes of sustainable development into all education systems. It constitutes the regional pillar of implementation of the United Nations Decade of ESD. At the joint session on ESD held during the Sixth Ministerial Conference “Environment for Europe”, environment and education ministers referred to the problems posed by climate change as a “leading example of where ESD could be applied to daily life, as climate change affects everyone and ESD offers an essential way to shape knowledge and attitudes, and hence could help us to address these problems” [17]

Modifying transport policies based on traffic-based information about carbon dioxide emissions

In order to evaluate the implementation of new national or regional measures to reduce their contributions to the global warming, Governments must analyse different possible strategies, especially those that address the total energy consumption of the transport sector. To make the right policy decisions and to optimize their strategies to attain CO2 reduction targets, an assessment and analysis tool is needed that integrates the most recent developments in transportation. This tool should be transparent so as to ensure that decisions overly swayed by special-interest groups. Such an information tool is currently under consideration. It is based on a uniform methodology for evaluating CO2 emissions in the land transport sector, and incorporates climate-relevant indicators as well as new transportation trends.

Environmental Performance Reviews

The UNECE Environmental Performance Reviews (EPRs), based on the OECD/DAC peer review process, aim to improve individual and collective environmental management. Since 1996, Central, South-East and Eastern European as well as Central Asian countries have been reviewed by UNECE, in addition to a few countries in transition that were reviewed in cooperation with OECD (Bulgaria, Belarus, Poland and the Russian Federation). A second round of EPRs have already been carried out for Belarus (2005), Bulgaria (2000), Estonia (2001), Republic of Moldova (2005), Ukraine (2006), Montenegro and Serbia and (2007) and Kazakhstan (2008), and are in process for Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.

By disseminating relevant information, they contribute to enhancing public access to information about the environment and environmental issues and thus to more informed decision-making, relevant to the climate change debate. In future, they can provide a comprehensive analysis of instruments used in the context of regional climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, a means to share good practice and highlight gaps in this area, and a way to offer important policy recommendations.

Strategic environment assessment

The UNECE Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context (Espoo Convention) provides a framework for considering transboundary environmental impacts in national decision-making processes.

The Convention’s Protocol on Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA), not yet in force, will ensure that Parties integrate consideration of the environment into their plans and programmes at a very early planning stage. SEA can be used to introduce climate change considerations into development planning. This is in line with the conclusions reached at the high-level event “The Future in Our Hands”, convened by the Secretary-General in September 2007, as well as the recommendation of IPCC[18] that climate change mitigation and adaptation be integrated into an overarching sustainable development strategy. The IPCC also concluded that consideration of climate change impacts in development planning, as might be provided by SEA, is important for boosting adaptive capacity, e.g. by including adaptation measures in land-use planning and infrastructure design or by reducing vulnerability through existing disaster risk reduction strategies.[19]

Statistics related to climate change

The global official statistics community still only engages in an ad hoc way with the issues of climate change. UNECE is reviewing the possibility of setting up a joint task force (subject to the approval of the Bureau of the Conference of European Statisticians) to explore statistical activities related to the UNFCCC guidelines on the compilation of emission inventories. The task force will also take into account the recommendations that are expected to be developed at a forthcoming conference on statistics of climate change in the Republic of Korea. In June 2008, the meeting of the United Nations Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA) recommended that statistics on emissions should become part of the regular production and dissemination process of official statistics at the national level. In this context, national statistical offices should gradually take on the responsibility for regularly compiling emission statistics and contributing to the review of the guidelines to assembling emission registers.

This is expected to contribute to a better understanding of how official statistics can contribute to the understanding, measurement and monitoring of the different aspects of climate change as well as to bring together all current activities in a coherent framework.

Innovation and financing

UNECE has organized workshops and seminars with a view to enhancing the understanding of the process of technology diffusion, identifying possible barriers to take-up, and providing training and technical assistance to the region’s Governments on their innovation policies. This includes a financing dimension, in particular regarding early-stage financing of innovative enterprises. During the International Conference Investing in Innovation, which took place in Geneva in April 2008, a session on how environmental challenges can be addressed through innovation brought together policy makers and specialized financial intermediaries to discuss emerging trends in the allocation of risk capital for eco-investing and the type of policies required to encourage the mobilization of private financing in this area.

Efforts to mitigate or adapt to climate change are significantly boosted by the diffusion of existing technologies but also by the introduction of new ones. Given the scale and systemic nature of the necessary shift towards low carbon technologies, there is a clear link between the challenges posed by climate change mitigation and innovation policies.  In future, work on innovation and its related financing and intellectual property aspects could help to inform policies in relation to climate change.

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!}

Russia seeks assurances from Britain over BP.

By Kim Sengupta, Diplomatic Correspondent

Wednesday, 23 June 2010
 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/…

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev will seek a guarantee from David Cameron, the Prime Minister, this week that the BP oil disaster will not damage the Russian economy.

The Russian ambassador to the UK, Yuri Fedotov, yesterday revealed that officials in Moscow are in talks with the embattled oil giant, which extracts 25 per cent of its oil from Russia, on whether it has plans to cut back in the face of massive losses over the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

The planned talks at the G8 summit in Canada come as the BP board considers large-scale restructuring to prepare for a multi-billion dollar payout for clean up operations and compensation. BP is expected to consider selling $10bn (£6.7bn) worth of assets including North Sea operations, as well as a 1.4 per cent stake in Rosneft, the largest oil company in Russia, worth around $1bn.

It is unlikely that BP will sell its joint venture with the private TNK consortium, which contributes 10 per cent of its profits, not least because the company wants to diversify out of the US over concerns it faces long term unpopularity there. BP boss Tony Hayward, who has faced withering criticism in the US, was conspicuously absent from a gathering of global oil industry leaders in St Petersburg last weekend.

The Russian government and business community were under the impression he was busy handling the Gulf crisis only to discover that he was watching a yacht race around the Isle of Wight.

Mr Fedotov, said: “We want to see how it will work and how this situation will affect the overall strategy of BP and how it may affect these joint ventures in Russia. We want to have some guarantees it will continue to work.”

Asked about Mr Hayward’s visits to Russia, the ambassador said “We hope to see him again when he does not have other distractions.”

Other issues to be covered in the meeting include wanted fugitives, easing visa restrictions and improving trade ties. The UK has sought the extradition of a former KGB official, Andrei Lugovoi, over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, a fellow ex-agent, in London four years ago.

Moscow says Britain has refused to return more than 40 wanted people.

Mr Fedotov said Mr Cameron and Mr Medvedev would have a “meaningful meeting” with serious discussions about developing ties, and stressed it was not just a “courtesy call”.

“We believe that [the meeting] could be a natural opportunity to open a new page in our bilateral relations,” he said.

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.

The UN may even do good things once in a while – but then its Department of Public Information hides them from the world at large by not opening its doors to the interested media. Those they invite are  those that are not interested in publicizing suggestions that can work when the world is called to disengage from its addiction to oil.

The following is a positive in the UNDP cap but when we asked to be invited to participate in the following Press Conference we did not even get the honor of a reply. So much about the UN – but we promise nevertheless to honor our readers by covering the issues even if the UN DPI prefers we did not exist. As we are busy today with the New York Forum, we will approach Mr. Olav Kjorven at a later date in order to cover at length the case of Nepal and other work under his leadership.
We told him in the past that his words will not get world distribution if presented only via the UN DPI chanel.

Now we post the information we received so our readers can have the appropriate links right away.

—————————

UNDP SAYS — Clean energy access in Nepal possible model for acceleration of progress towards MDGs:
Early investment in capacity development crucial to success.

As the 2010 MDG Summit approaches, UNDP’s on-the-ground experience in providing access to clean energy indicates a promising way of stepping-up progress towards achieving the MDGs. Currently, almost half of humanity —3 billion people— are energy poor. They live without access to modern energy for lighting, cooking, heating and mechanical power. For 250,000 people in remote rural communities in Nepal, this has changed.

What: Briefing at the UN DPI Briefing Room for which special DPI accreditation is required – on an effective energy programme that can help alleviate poverty and improve lives of poor communities around the world.

Who:               Olav Kjorven, UNDP Director of Policy and UN Assistant Secretary-General

H.E. Mr. Gyan Chandra Acharya, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Nepal Mission to the UN

Kiran Man Singh, Project Manager, Rural Energy Development Programme

When: Tuesday, 22 June, 15.00 – 15.45

Where:            Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium

Through a pioneering partnership between UNDP and the Government of Nepal, the installation of micro-hydro plants has given them access to clean energy, creating jobs and incomes, opportunities for women and girls and improved school enrollment, among other benefits. Fundamental to this success has been the early investment in capacity development —in other words, helping people in the national government and in the communities themselves develop the knowledge, skills, institutions and regulatory environment needed for the emergence of both local demand for energy services and a local supply.

Nepal is now expanding the programme to bring energy to tens of millions of people. Kenya and other countries are interested in applying the same strategy. The approach could help accelerate progress towards the MDG’s and achieve the universal access to modern energy services by 2030, as proposed by the Secretary-General’s Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change.

*** *** ****

Hard copies of the report “Capacity development for scaling up decentralized energy access programmes” will be made available at the briefing, and will also be available later today at http://www.undp.org/energy.

Media queries: Please contact Charles Dickson of UNDP’s Environment and Energy Group at charles.dickson@undp.org or 212-906-6041.

After sifting through hundreds of e-mails lately, I’ve noticed a common theme: What’s next?
Today, we’re looking further down the road.

And trust me, dear reader, says Keith Kohl, It’s a little more complicated than simply saying that onshore plays will be more attractive than the deepwater fields. Even my four-year-old niece knows that much…

What most people don’t realize, however, is just how bad things are going to get.

A brewing oil crisis

One thing we can always count on to exacerbate a situation is a politician who needs a second term. Having said that, I have no doubt in my mind that President Obama will extend the current drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.

That’s a given.

The level of outrage at BP, much of it justified, will send Obama into an apologetic, sheepish state of politics. As you can guess, appeasing the public’s ire involves a deepwater drilling ban for years to come.

In fact, countries around the world are eager to hop on the moratorium bandwagon.

According to the International Energy Agency, an extended global moratorium on new offshore drilling areas could cut the world’s offshore production by as much as 900,000 barrels per day. It would take less than five years to happen.

In the Gulf of Mexico, up to 300,000 barrels of oil per day could be lost if new projects are delayed. At the very least, we can count on that lost oil from the Gulf of Mexico.

Unfortunately, it’s not just the deepwater oil that we’re losing each year.

———–

Past the peak

We know that U.S. oil production isn’t teetering on the brink of collapse — it is collapsing.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise to us.

If it does, then you might be new around here.

——-

Last year, only six states managed to increase their crude oil production: West Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Utah, Oklahoma, and North Dakota.

That’s it.

I know what you’re thinking… That’s not so bad, right?

At least six states were able to produce more oil.

Let’s put this into perspective.

With the exception of North Dakota, remember that we aren’t exactly talking about the most prominent oil producers. The combined production increase from the five others amount to less than 14,000 barrels per day.

That’s it.

In fact those states (again, sans North Dakota) that managed to increase oil production together produce less than one-third of the amount Texas does.

If the mediocre producers are able to increase production, we can expect our larger producers to pull out the big guns and improve oil production, can’t we?

Things get even worse when you look at our top oil-producing states: Texas, California and Alaska. Together, they make up 43% of our total oil production.

Not too shabby, you say?

During the last twenty years, both Texas and California managed to increase year-over-year oil production twice. Alaska only did it once.

You can see the bad news for yourself here.

As oil prices surged to $147 per barrel, Texas was the only one of the big three to increase production. And even then, it was only by a mere 2%.

One state, destined to rule them all

I’ll admit I left North Dakota out of the picture above… And that’s because my outlook for North Dakota is in a league of its own.

Although the top three oil producing states have a dismal track record, North Dakota has been able to increase its oil production for six straight years. As you are well aware, its success lies solely from the Bakken formation.

But if you want an idea of how important the Bakken is, remember that the formation makes up nearly 60% of the state’s oil production. By the end of the decade, between 500,000 and 600,000 barrels of oil could be pumping out of Bakken wells.

The fact is that the Bakken has become oil’s game-changer.

Of course, even that won’t save us from peak oil… We’ll eventually have to get our oil fix from more sources.

Oh, Canada!

This should be a no-brainer.

Take away the potential production from deepwater prospects, add peak oil into the mix, and we’re in for a tight ride for our oil addiction.

Our options?

Well, we can count out Mexico… If Chavez keeps up his antics, we can definitely forget about Venezuela’s ability to develop their heavy oil assets.

We can even cross Russia off our list, too. Unless Russia doesn’t change its laws, exploration will be restrained and Russian oil and gas production could begin declining by 2012. Exploration has dropped more than 65% this year. The problem is that the new fields are signed to the state — not the company that made the discovery.

Can you really blame them for not pursuing new fields?

It’s a good thing we have an energy powerhouse for a neighbor.

Right now, investors have an unprecedented buying opportunity. And believe me, it’s not limited to just one field or formation. The entire country is rushing to develop its energy sources. It has become a win-win situation for my readers.

P.S. Next week, I’m going to shed some light on an oil patch that is starting to turn heads in Canada. Geologists are even referring to this area as “the next Bakken.” Now, I understand a few of you don’t like to sit around, twiddling thumbs as other investors get the jump on an opportunity.

———————————————–

Is it possible that out of this crisis will be born a movement that calls for disengagement from oil by doing the right thing – tax the use of oil and invest the money in growing NEGA-BARRELS? That is in alternate ways that save energy and lead to renewable energy for the remaining needs of energy?

I am writing this having just come back from the WOMEN’S NETWORK FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE (WNSF)  -  “The Business of Climate Change, Part II: Incentives & Solutions.”
And you can bet on it – it just is not looking for more oil.

On that meeting on a separate posting.

FROM:            THE NEW YORK FORUM

CONTACT: Rubenstein Communications

Tom Chiodo (212) 843-8289 / tchiodo@rubenstein.com

Iva Benson (212) 843-8271 / ibenson@rubenstein.com

——————————————————————————————————-

The New York Forum is a call for action by the business community to reinvigorate the economy and to find new confidence and credibility. It has been designed to bring together the key actors – leading CEOs, policy makers, thought leaders – at a critical moment to deal with the continuing economic crises.

———————-

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg
TO KEYNOTE THE NEW YORK FORUM.

***

ANNUAL GATHERING FOR DEVELOPING NEW BUSINESS MODELS AND CREATING JOBS, CREATED BY RICHARD ATTIAS

***

www.ny-forum.com

New York, NY – (June 16, 2010) –   The New York Forum, to be held on June 22 and 23 in New York City, today announced that Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will deliver opening remarks at this year’s conference. Mayor Bloomberg joins Rupert Murdoch, CEO, News Corporation; James Tisch, CEO, Loews Corporation; Andrew Ross Sorkin, the New York Times; Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Chairman and Publisher, The New York Times Company; Vikram Pandit, CEO, Citigroup; Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS Americas; Cathie Black, President, Hearst Magazines; Christine Lagarde, French Minister of Economic Affairs, Industry and Employment; and many more for this first-of-its-kind gathering aimed at addressing the future of the global economy, including focusing on strategies to spur job creation and develop new business models.

“We are pleased to announce Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s participation in the first annual New York Forum. New York is the economic capital of the world and there is no other more fitting than Mayor Bloomberg to keynote this important gathering of global leaders,” said Richard Attias, the founder of the New York Forum.

The first annual New York Forum will bring together hundreds of international business leaders, entrepreneurs, sovereign fund managers, regulatory officials and academics for a series of results-oriented discussions, debates and dialogues, with a mission that is both bold and urgent: to reinvent business models, to stimulate job creation and restore faith in the international economy. At The New York Forum, high-profile CEOs, investors, and policy makers will lead plenary sessions, and participants will participate in smaller targeted task forces, led by the Boston Consulting Group.  In a post-crisis world, The New York Forum recognizes the necessity to bring key leaders together in a collaborative environment to brainstorm viable solutions and identify opportunities to effect change across disciplines.

Strategic partners of The New York Forum include The New York Times, The Partnership for New York City and The Boston Consulting Group. Attali and Associates, under the direction of Jacques Attali, French economist, founding president of EBRD and President of Planet Finance, is a programming partner. The Center on Capitalism and Society is partnering on parts of the program content.

For more information about The New York Forum, visit www.ny-forum.com.

——————–
 http://www.ny-forum.com/agenda/

Final Agenda:

DAY 1 TUESDAY, JUNE 22

2:00 – 4:00pm
REGISTRATION

4:00 – 6:00pm

INNOVATION LABORATORY ON REBUILDING TRUST
How can you succeed engaging large numbers of people to rebuild trust in financial institutions by using a design thinking-based innovation methodology? Design and innovation firm IDEO will lead this interactive workshop to explore the issue of movement building and fundamental change in our financial institutions. Participants will be introduced to the innovation practice of design thinking and take part in activities focused on finding inspiration from real people rather than demographics or statistics. Participants will learn through a guided workshop experiences an approach to translating observations and insights into relevant ideas and design solutions, and should be able to use this methodology in their own challenges, beyond the specific case that the session will cover.

Facilitated by Doug Solomon, CTO, IDEO
Introduced by Lance Knobel, Director of the Program, The New York Forum

———————-

6:30 – 7:45pm
WELCOME

Richard Attias, Founder, The New York Forum, and Executive Chairman, The Experience

Opening plenary: REINVENTION: THE CORPORATE IMPERATIVE
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?

Cathleen Black, President, Hearst Magazines
Rupert Murdoch, Chairman and CEO, News Corporation
Jerry Speyer, Chairman and CEO, Tishman Speyer
Mort Zuckerman, Chairman and CEO, Boston Properties, and Publisher, New York Daily News
Moderator: Maria Bartiromo, Anchor, CNBC

8:00pm
OPENING NETWORKING RECEPTION
New York Grand Hyatt Hotel

———————–

DAY 2 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23

8:00 – 8:20am
CONVERSATION WITH THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City
Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. , Chairman, The New York Times Company, and Publisher, The New York Times

———————-

8:20 – 9:30am
Plenary: WHAT NEXT FOR CAPITALISM AND THE US ECONOMY’S DYNAMISM?
The worst of the finance-induced recession seems to be over. But there is widening anticipation of jobless growth. How are the engines of innovation performing in the US and abroad? Plenary conceived by the Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University.

CALL FOR ACTION: What can we do and what will we do to generate both economic and job growth?

Glenn Hubbard, Dean, Columbia Business School, and Member, Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University
Vikram Pandit , CEO, Citigroup
Edmund Phelps , Nobel Prize in Economics, 2006, and Director, Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University
Richard Robb , CEO, Christofferson Robb, and Member, Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University
Leo Tilman , President, L.M. Tillman & Company, and Member, Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University
Moderator: Maria Bartiromo, Anchor, CNBC

———————

10:00 – 11:15am
Interactive sessions in parallel: CHANGING THE RULES

CAN WE RESTORE CONFIDENCE IN WALL STREET?
Both Main Street and Washington seem to have lost trust in Wall Street. What can we do to restore confidence in a fundamental part of our economic system? Do current norms of behavior need to change? What regulations, either national or international, might be needed? How should institutions respond?

Deborah Bailey, Director, Governance, Regulatory & Risk Strategies, Deloitte & Touche, and former Deputy Director, Banking Supervision and Regulation, Federal Reserve
Amar Bhide, Visiting Scholar, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, and Member, Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University
Thierry Breton, CEO, Atos Origin and former Minister of Finance, France
Deven Sharma, President, Standard & Poors
Robert Wolf, CEO, UBS America, and Member, President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Moderator: Matthew Bishop, US Business Editor, The Economist

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE CORPORATION
It’s clear that different regulatory and taxation approaches will be taken in responding to climate change around the world. What might varying methods of pricing carbon mean for corporations and investors? Is there any policy approach around which consensus might be found?

James Connaughton, Executive Vice-President, Public and Environmental Policy,
Constellation Energy, and former Chairman, White House Council on Environmental Quality
Stuart Eizenstat , Partner, Covington & Burling, and former chief US negotiator, Kyoto Protocol
Daniel Esty , Professor of Law and the Environment, Yale University
Theodore Roosevelt IV , Managing Director, Barclays Capital
Mark Tercek , President and CEO, The Nature Conservancy
Tracy Wolstencroft , Global Head of Environmental Markets, Goldman Sachs
Moderator: Simon Longstaff, Executive Director, St James Ethics Centre

THE NATURE OF INNOVATION
Innovation demands stretching boundaries, taking risks. But most organizations – and societies – are designed to reduce risks and quarantine failures. Is there such a thing as successful failure? What are other key characteristics of innovative organizations?

Philippe Camus, Chairman, Alcatel-Lucent, and Co-Managing Partner, Lagardère Group
Chris Dixon, Co-Founder and CEO, Hunch, and Founder Partner, Founders Collective
Shelly Lazarus, Chairman, Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide
Daniel Lubetzky, CEO, Kind Snacks
Jonathan Miller, Chairman & CEO, Digital Media Group and Chief Digital Officer, News Corp.
Avner Ronen, CEO, Boxee
Vivek Wadhwa, Harvard Law School and Duke University
Moderator: Quentin Hardy, National Editor, Forbes

——————

11:30am – 12:15pm
Plenary: AFTER THE OIL SPILL
The attempt to close off the disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico looks likely to drag through the summer. But what does the spill and its aftermath mean for energy policy, our economic situation and the interaction between government and the private sector?

Marc Lipschultz, Global Head, Energy and Infrastructure, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co
Dov Seidman , Author on Business Values and CEO, LRN
James Tisch , CEO, Loews Corporation
Moderator: JuJu Chang, News Anchor, Good Morning America

——————–

12:30-2:45pm
Taskforces: FACING TODAY’S REALITIES Intensive workshops led by The Boston Consulting Group.

The New York Forum Taskforces are small, highly interactive forums that span sectors and geographies, with the purpose of focused discussion among leaders. These workshops, limited to 50 participants each, will use the diverse perspectives of participants to explore the tangible challenges and opportunities associated with specific trends in the current environment. Our intent is to have the taskforces focus quickly on advancing current thinking and move to specific actions that can be taken or considered.

Facilitated by Partners of The Boston Consulting Group, Taskforce sessions will be extremely productive. Each Taskforce session will tackle a specific topic, such as growth, shifts in technology and talent, and new strategies for financing and partnerships in the current business and economic environment. The insights and action plans from these discussions will be woven together and presented in plenary, and carried forward in the Forum’s report to the G20 Summit.

THE FIVE TASKFORCES ARE:

1. DRIVING EXTRAORDINARY GROWTH IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES
Led by Kermit King, Leader, Americas Strategy Practice, BCG
Discussion leaders: Craig Dubow, Chairman and CEO, Gannett Company
David Kirchhoff, President and CEO, Weight Watchers International

2. BUILD RESILIENCE OR ATTEMPT CLAIRVOYANCE: RETHINKING RISK MANAGEMENT
Led by Duncan Martin, Partner, BCG London
Discussion leaders: Robert Kella, Chief Risk Officer, Qantas
Simon Levin, Moffett Professor of Biology, Princeton University
William Rudin, Vice-Chairman and CEO, Rudin Management Company
Leo Tilman, President, L.M. Tilman & Company

3. THE NEW TALENT: DEVELOPING, RETAINING, AND EMPOWERING PEOPLE FOR A COMPLEX WORLD
Led by Michel Frédeau, Senior Partner, BCG Paris and Chair, BCG People
Team and Roselinde Torres, Partner, BCG New York and Global Topic Leader, Leadership
Discussion leaders: Yves de Chaisemartin, Chairman and CEO, Altran
Keith Ferrazzi, CEO, Ferrazzi Greenlight
Kaye Foster-Cheek, former VP, Human Resources, and Executive Committee Member, Johnson & Johnson
Yasmin Namini, SVP, Marketing and Circulation, The New York Times

4. COMPETING IN THE EMERGING-MARKET DRIVEN WORLD: NEW IMPERATIVES FOR BUSINESS
Led by David Michael, Global Leader, Global Advantage Practice, BCG
Discussion leaders: François Barrault, Chairman, FDB Partners
Don Devine, CEO, American Standard Brands
Franck Moison, COO, Colgate-Palmolive
David Wachtel, SVP, Marketing & Communications, Endeavor

5. CHANGING THE GAME: REINVENTING BUSINESS MODELS FOR RADICALLY ENHANCED ADVANTAGE
Led by Mike Deimler, Global Leader, Strategy Practice, BCG
Discussion leaders: Jane Friedman, CEO, Open Road Media
Jack Hidary, Entrepreneur and Founder, Hidary Foundation
Meyer Hoffmann, COO, Mikimoto
Raja Rajamannar, SVP and Chief Innovation & Marketing Officer, Humana
Gary Shainberg, VP, Technology & Innovation, BT

3:15 – 4:30pm
Interactive sessions in parallel: FORGING A NEW PATH

WHAT DOES THE RISE OF ASIA MEAN FOR WESTERN ECONOMIES AND COMPANIES?
The most remarkable global shift in the last decade is the steady growth and increasing economic power in China, India and other parts of Asia. Have we moved decisively into the Asian century or is it more a question of a new balance that companies need to find? Is there a risk that Asian growth is the next bubble to pop?

Jacques Attali, CEO, PlanetFinance
Charles-Edouard Bouée, Senior Partner, Head of Asia, Roland Berger Strategy Consultants
S. D. Shibulal, Co-Founder & COO, Infosys, India
Desmond Shum, CEO, Airport City Developments, China
James Wolfensohn, Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, and former President, World Bank
Moderator: Michael Oreskes, Senior Managing Editor, Associated Press

THE END OF INFLUENCE: FOLLOW THE MONEY
A key driver in our transition to a very different-looking world economic order is that the money in the world system lies with Asian exporters, oil producers, and, particularly, their sovereign wealth funds. What does this new balance of power mean in terms of cultural and ideological influence in the coming decades?

Ambassador Ford Fraker, Senior Advisor & Chairman, Middle East and North Africa, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
Fahd Hamidaddin, Director, Saudi Arabian General Investment Authority
He Sujuan, Chief Representative, China Petroleum & Chemical Corporation (Sinopec)
Andrew Ross Sorkin, Financial Columnist, The New York Times
Moderator: Steve Clemons, Senior Fellow, New America Foundation

THE DISRUPTIVE CORPORATION:
FINDING NEW MODELS FOR INNOVATION AND GROWTH
Joseph Schumpeter’s notion of creative destruction has become a business cliché, but some industries really do need root-and-branch rethinking. Are there ways to think about new models that prove particularly effective? Where and how do successful new approaches emerge?

Lisa Gansky, Founder, oFoto; Author, The Mesh: Why the Future of Business is Sharing
Jack Hidary, Entrepreneur and Founder, Hidary Foundation
Glenn Kelman, CEO, Redfin
Richard Lesser, Chairman, Americas, The Boston Consulting Group
Dev Patnaik, CEO, Jump Associates
Martin Varsavsky, CEO, Fon
Moderator: John Gapper, Chief Business Commentator, Financial Times

——————–

5:00 – 6:30pm
Closing plenary: HOPE: REBUILDING CONFIDENCE AND CREDIBILITY
Today’s leaders face the dual challenge of navigating their organizations through uncertain, stormy conditions and instilling in their stakeholders and wider community a sense of hope and direction for the future.

CALL FOR ACTION: What are the key outcomes for the G-20 emerging from The New York Forum? How do we confirm the vital role business leaders will play to rebuild confidence and credibility? What is the proper relationship between business and political leaders?

Results of The New York Forum: Lance Knobel, Director of the Program, The New York Forum

Carlos Slim Helú, Chairman, Carlos Slim Foundation, and Chairman, Telmex Foundation, in conversation with Maria Bartiromo, Anchor, CNBC

Roundtable
Christine Lagarde , Minister of Economic Affairs, Industry and Employment, France
Luis Alberto Moreno , President, Inter-American Development Bank
Edmund Phelps , Nobel Prize in Economics, 2006, and Director, Center on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University
Carlos Slim Helú , Chairman, Carlos Slim Foundation, and Chairman, Telmex Foundation

Moderator: Maria Bartiromo, Anchor, CNBC

CLOSING REMARKS

Special address:Elie Wiesel, Professor, Boston University, and Nobel Peace Prize, 1986
Richard Attias , Founder, The New York Forum, and Executive Chairman, The Experience

7:15pm
CLOSING RECEPTION AND CULTURAL EVENING
The TimesCenter
The Diva of Opera: Jessye Norman
Jazz from New Orleans
The Sound of Soul: Billy Paul, Grammy-winning soul musician

Investing in Wind, Solar and Algae Biofuels:

3 Ways To Play Today’s Hottest Cleantech Sectors

June 20th, 2010

The renewable energy market is finally getting its due.

In fact, global governments have dedicated over $200 billion in stimulus dollars to the industry.

Curiously, just a few years ago the green energy sector was questioned at every turn. Now it’s looked to as one of the saviors of the global economy. . . and a key building block of its future.

The Green Chip Stocks has been there every step of the way.

Green Chip Stocks Editor Jeff Siegel, featured on CNBC’s Green Week

You see, as the cleantech market grows, the technologies it encompasses are growing exceedingly difficult to track and report on. To help you navigate through the mounting piles of information—and misinformation—we’ve compiled a report that covers three of the biggest investment opportunities in renewable energy.

It outlines the forecast growth of three of renewable energy’s main sectors: wind, solar and algae-based biofuels, how much energy they’ll produce, and which companies will likely benefit.

It’s a must-read for anyone interested in taking profits from what’s shaping up to be the century’s hottest industry.

Green Chip Stocks e-letter, a twice-weekly free advisory on the fast-moving profits in the alternative and renewable energy sector, written by alternative energy experts Jeff Siegel and Nick Hodge.

———

By Jeff Siegel

Thursday, June 10th, 2010

With only five years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called on world leaders to attend a summit in New York on 20-22 September to accelerate progress towards the MDGs.

Coming amid mixed progress and new crises that threaten the global effort to halve extreme poverty, “the summit will be a crucially important opportunity to redouble our efforts to meet the Goals,” he said, referring to the targets adopted at the UN Millennium Summit of 2000, aimed at slashing poverty, hunger, disease, maternal and child deaths and other ills by a 2015 deadline.

“Our world possesses the knowledge and the resources to achieve the MDGs” the Secretary-General stated in his report in preparation for the September summit. “Our challenge today is to agree on an action agenda to achieve the MDGs.”

“We must not fail the billions who look to the international community to fulfill the promise of the Millennium Declaration for a better world. Let us meet in September to keep the promise.”
– UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon.

As a warm up to the above – a series of report launches, official events and press briefings are taking place at the UN in New York over the June 17 – 29 period. This besides the Global Compact June 24-25, 2010 Summit.

Despite the official statements, the UN does this at the present time with special urgency because of the G-20 meeting in Toronto.

As we wrote earlier – the UN Secretary-General by being the head of the G-192 which is all of the UN States, has no seat at the G-20, and it is this push for the Millennium Development Goals (the MDGs) that is supposed to give him the justification to ask for a moment in Toronto. We rather believe that if anything is to come out from Toronto, it better be as a result of commitment by those present as we know already that the Full 192 are non-productive and the September meeting is the right time and place to let everyone speak as usually.

————

G20 Toronto Summit – June 26-27, 2010
 http://www.toronto.ca/G20/index.htm

The City of Toronto is proud to be the host city for the G20 Summit and welcomes the world to our great city.
The theme for the G20 Toronto Summit is “Recovery and New Beginnings”.

The G20 was established in 1999 in the wake of the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Leaders from the G20 countries meet regularly to discuss key issues in the global economy.

Toronto’s tourism, business and banking, culture, diversity and environmental leadership will be in the world spotlight and lasting international business relationships will be developed.

Read the most recent notice to residents that is appearing now in local newspapers.

Read more about what to expect during the G20 Summit (Our Toronto publication, Summer 2010)

Read the message to residents from the federal government and the City of Toronto. (Our Toronto publication, Spring 2010)

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.

This makes sense. eliminate the subsidies from fossil fuels and there will be no need to subsidize some of the alternatives that up to now could not compete because of those pesky subsidies to oil and coal.

========

OECD Tells G20 Fossil Fuel Subsidies Should End.

Weekend June 4th amNew York reported about the thousands of mourners that carried the nine coffins in Istanbul. The youngest killed was 19-year old Troy, New York State, Turkish-American high-school student Farkan Dogan. His father praised him for “dying in a just cause – God is great.”

On Sunday June 6th Fareed Zakaria on CNN/GPS preached WORDS – NOT GUNS and was not shy to state that Turkey is also playing a new and dangerous game before interviewing An important Turkish Ambassador – perhaps the real mastermind of The Newest Turkey. He is the personal advisor to the Prime Minister of Turkey.

Fareed said: Once an ally of Europe it is (Turkey) now playing games that are enemy more then friend, but Fareed was trying to understand the Turkish position and expressed also that during the Bush Administration, Turkey was treated heavy-handedly and expected to be an ally in Iraq. The Turks bulked. That is how friend became enemy.

Fareed looked at the “Quartet – US, UN, EU, Russia – and with Tony Blair in charge said that the best effort is to work with the Palestinians in order to prepare them for Statehood. Israel ifs fully responsible for the security of its citizens and has full right to protect them but is also to see that life is not made impossible in Gaza. In the end, it is up to Senator Mitchell to navigate for the evolution of a two-State hope.

The question about the blockade is semantics Fareed and Blair concluded – Israel has the duty to protect itself against weapons and arms that come into Gaza but rural life must return to Gaza. There are objects and materials needed to rebuild agriculture that should be allowed in.

The Palestinians can see that there are good things that happen in the West Bank, but Gaza is left out. People in Gaza have to understand that there is a better way then what Hamas is offering them now.

Tony Blair – on TV – refused to answer a value question saying that he knows Israel values the relations with Turkey.

There is a chance we get to a better way for a bottom up approach in Gaza, as in Palestine Blair said, once you get an alignment between the achievements on the ground and the hopes – there may then be a way for Peace. The Turkish Foreign Minister went to Jeddah for the Islamic Conference to discuss Gaza. As we wrote already, we know that Jordan with Saudi money may try to figure the incentive, the first time, that is after 60 years, for the people in Gaza to cooperate in a more peaceful way.

Ambassador Ahmet Davutgglu, came on the program and started by claiming a comparison to the piracy of the coast of Somalia, and asking what are we to do? Fareed did not take this bait and if I were that Turkish Minister I would have walked off – but he did not. He reacted saying that this is not between Turkey and Israel but between Israel and the World and Israel does not want an international inquiry. The man looked like a snake-oil salesman and we envision that as main strategist of the new Erdogan geopolitics, he actually knows very well what he is after – no simple bumbler here.

{Ambassador Ahmet Davutoglu, the chief foreign policy advisor to Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, visited Washington, March 17-21, 2009, to discuss critical developments in the Middle East before President Obama’s visit to Turkey on April 6-7, 2009. During his visit Davutoglu stated that “The U.S. and Turkey is at the historical moment that both countries have similar views at almost all issues.” Davutoglu underlined that Turkey is becoming a strategic location for regional energy infrastructure and further suggested “from now on, everyone sees the strategic importance of Turkey that increases as the days pass” (Anadolu Ajansi, March 19)  http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cach… tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34754 }

“Israel is standing up for one soldier that was captured by Hamas, what did they expect from us after killing nine of our people?”

Fareed reminded him that one student had also American citizenship and that the US could make a request regarding its citizen. To which the Ambassador said that Turkey has contacts with the US on this matter. Also, there is a Human Rights Council in Geneva that should take this up but Israel just said they will not cooperate. Did our citizens violate Israeli territory? No! There was even a Nobel Prize Winner on the boat he further said – the list of the passengers can prove they were not terrorists.

For decades Israel and Turkey were allies – i myself mediated between Olmert and Syria. What happened he said was the change in Israel politics.  Are you having problems with Prime Minister Netanyahu asked Fareed? His answer came that last Thursday he was supposed to meet with P.M. Netanyahu on negotiations with Syria, but on Monday this happened and they attacked the convoy. This can go on in circles – why then did Turkey organize the flotilla’s leading ship?

Fareed asked to the point: There are many people that believe you, as the architect for moving Turkey away from Western Policy? To that he gave a long list of Turkey’s work with the West – Syria, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Balkans, etc. only two weeks ago we had a Peace Conference in Istanbul he said. We are not trouble makers at all – he sad.

Following the interview – Fareed Zakaria had also two Jewish opponents – it was Republican Elliot Abrams versus Democrat Peter Beinart – but whatever policy differences they may have with each other, nobody was saying anything positive about Turkey’s recent activity though the door to future more positive intervention is left open.

Abrams, with a long track record on Middle East negotiations, under several US Presidents, made it clear that there is no International community that Israel can trust in the post-”Zionism is Racism” UN vote. In the light of this there is no way Israel can rely on the UN. Beinart said that he is not going to defend the Turkish action, but 90% of the water in Gaza is not drinkable – and to this both sides can agree that something must be done -HURRAY!

————

Having reported on the above, let me add that we get mail regarding our effort at honesty in this debate. The most interesting came from Russia and had Russian text, though I would guess it originated with Russian speakers living now in Israel.

Please have a look at the video, and without prejudging what the Turks could actually achieve, we can nevertheless wipe out the last few weeks when thinking of their credibility. We will get back to this point in next posting.

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

THIS IS A VIDEO WE RECOMMEND YOU WATCH!

We Con the World (LatmaTV production) -

We Con the World (LatmaTV production)

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

Russia Wants Global Fund After Gulf Oil Spill

We found it out at a meeting on ethics at the UN. While among the G-20 there are 7 European States, the presence of the EU is intended to bring in the remaining 20 States – so the EU can speak directly for those 20 States. This might be a case of political overkill, and if the EU representative were to speak out differently then the German, French, British delegates, this would be a further setback for the effort to create a world leadership group. Whatever, we see there in the room therefore 40 countries and it includes among the group all truly relevant actors, and more – extending the group from the five – G-2 + IBSA -  to those our website includes in the second row Canada, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Turkey, as well as  the Europeans, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, and Australia. (We thought that a neat 15 would have been even better – a G-3, IBSA, our seven, Australia, and Saudi Arabia would have been just right.)

Sure, above list excludes 150 UN member States – nobody from AOSIS, ALBA, the usual front spokesmen in the name of G-77, and most others who in economic terms are mostly in the receiving line, but when it comes to discussions at the UN they rather harm any attempt at coming up with an effective resolution. Sure, we think that the fate of the SIDS must be dealt with, and the effects of climate change center stage, but this will be better done in Toronto by the large economies who truthfully are also the largest losers in a world that is out of control – just look at the face of US in these days of the Gulf Deepwater oil-geyser.

Please see our previous posting: http://www.sustainabilitank.info/2010/03/27/climate-change-negotiations-will-move-beyond-the-un-we-believe-it-will-be-a-network-of-bilaterals-but-un-connected-earth-institute-of-columbia-university-in-its-excellent-state-of-the-planet-2010/

——-

Having said what we just said, we find it to be a move forward if attempt is to be made to reach new global financial, economic, environmental, energy and political policy-balances outside the UN system. The G-20 composition is a wide and varied enough platform to be able to reach out for multilateral solutions without stepping into the UN quagmires. In these conditions, this UN Secretary-General is really nothing more then a well traveled ornament. We complained earlier that the unattained EU is an impediment, and we would have rather hoped for a G-3 situation and a more effective, even smaller, set-up.

Richard Attias (born 1959 in Morocc) – he is a  global events producer. As chairman of PublicisLive Attias was the producer of the World Economic Forum in Davos for over fifteen years. His personal history and the history of the organizations he was involved with are plainly fascinating and we write this longer posting because we feel that he is embarking now upon even a greater voyage with his new NEW YORK FORUM, then in his previous activities.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a Geneva-based non-profit foundation best known for its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, which brings together top business leaders, international political leaders, selected intellectuals and journalists to discuss the most pressing issues facing the world, including health and the environment. Beside meetings, the WEF produces a series of research reports, and engages its members in sector specific initiatives. WEF also organizes the “Annual Meeting of the New Champions” in China, and a series of regional meetings throughout the year. In 2008 those regional meetings included meetings on Europe and Central Asia, East Asia, the Russia CEO Roundtable, Africa, the Middle East, and the World Economic Forum on Latin America. In 2008 it launched the “Summit on the Global Agenda” in Dubai.

The WEF was founded in 1971 by Klaus Martin Schwab, a German-born business professor at the University of Geneva. Originally named the European Management Forum, it changed its name to the World Economic Forum in 1987 and sought to broaden its vision further to include providing a platform for resolving international conflicts.

In the summer of 1971 Schwab invited 444 executives from Western European firms to the first European Management Symposium held in the Davos Congress Centre, under the patronage of the European Commission and European industrial associations, where Schwab sought to introduce European firms to US management practices. He then founded the WEF as a non-profit organization based in Cologny, Geneva, and drew European business leaders to Davos for their annual meetings each January.

Schwab developed the “stakeholder” management approach which based corporate success on managers taking account of all interests: not merely shareholders, clients and customers, but employees and the communities within which the firm is situated, and governments. Events in 1973 including the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate mechanism, and the Arab-Israeli War, saw the annual meeting expand its focus from management to economic and social issues, and political leaders were invited for the first time to Davos in January 1974.

As the years went by, political leaders began to use Davos as a neutral platform to resolve their differences. The Davos Declaration was signed in 1988 by Greece and Turkey, helping them turn back from the brink of war. In 1992 South African President F. W. de Klerk met with Nelson Mandela and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi at the Annual Meeting, their first joint appearance outside South Africa. At the 1994 Annual Meeting, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat reached a draft agreement on Gaza and Jericho. In 2008 Bill Gates gave a keynote speech on Creative Capitalism, a form of capitalism that works both to generate profits and solve the world’s inequities, using market forces to better address the needs of the poor.

Frederik de Klerk and Nelson Mandela shake hands at the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum held in Davos in January 1992.

———————-

For The New York Forum

Contact:         Rubenstein Communications, Inc.

Iva Benson (212) 843-8271,  ibenson at rubenstein.com

Thomas Chiodo (212) 843-8289,  tchiodo at rubenstein.com

——————–

  Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in Africa, Arabized Africa, Archives, Art Performance reviews, Austria and Central Europe, Canada, China, Egypt, El Salvador, Future Events, Futurism, Greece, India, Israel, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Maghreb, Malaysia, Myanmar/Burma, New York, Obama Styling, Policy Lessons from Mad Cow Disease, Real World's News, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York, Reporting from Washington DC, Scandinavia, South Africa

Discuss this article

FRANZ FISCHLER: ZU WENIG UND ZU VIEL ZU ESSEN. PARADOXIEN DER INTERNATIONALEN LANDWIRTSCHAFTSPOLITIK

Sehr geehrte Damen, sehr geehrte Herren,

im Rahmen der Reihe Food & Politics (Kurator: Michael Freund) laden wir  Sie sehr herzlich zur folgenden Veranstaltung am kommenden

Montag,  31. Mai 2010, 19.00 Uhr, ein:

FRANZ FISCHLER
Präsident des Ökosozialen Forums (seit 2005), 1989 bis 1994 österreichischer Land- und Forstwirtschaftsminister, 1995 bis 2004 EU-Landwirtschaftskommissar.

ZU WENIG UND ZU VIEL ZU ESSEN
PARADOXIEN DER INTERNATIONALEN LANDWIRTSCHAFTSPOLITIK.

How to feed the world?

Es ist eine traurige Tatsache, dass entgegen den Millenniumszielen der FAO die Zahl der Hungernden bis 2015 nicht halbiert sein wird. Im Gegenteil, es leben jetzt mehr als eine Milliarde Menschen unter ständigem Hunger. Die vordringlichste Frage bleibt, wie man damit umgehen kann und soll. Es geht in einem neuen FAO-Gipfel um global food security. Was spielt da mit? Wie und wo soll Nahrung produziert, wie soll sie verteilt werden? Damit zusammenhängend wird nun in der EU diskutiert, wie sinnvoll es ist, mit Milliardenunterstützung eine Landwirtschaft zu subventionieren, die unter anderem dem globalen „Süden“ die eigene Produktion und erst recht den Export erschwert: Braucht die EU überhaupt eine Landwirtschaft? Und brauchen die Mitgliedsstaaten eine gemeinsame Agrarpolitik?

Franz Fischler ist mit den bisher genannten Themen seit langem vertraut. Zugleich befasst er sich mit den gegenteiligen Ausflüssen des Komplexes Ernährung: dass nämlich in unseren Breitengraden immer mehr und immer ungesünder gegessen wird. Wie eine von ihm geleitete Arbeitsgemeinschaft feststellte, reicht es nicht, Ernährungsfragen nur von der Seite landwirtschaftlicher Interessen, d.h. von der Angebotsseite zu erörtern. Hier sollten Forschung, Erziehung ab dem frühesten Schulalter und Aufklärung mit Kampagnencharakter eine Rolle spielen. Das Phänomen der Übersättigung und des falschen Essens ist nur die Kehrseite einer generell ungenügenden Beschäftigung mit Ernährung und Politik. Fischler beleuchtet in seinem Vortrag den Zusammenhang zwischen regionalen Initiativen und internationalen Entwicklungen.

Begrüßung: Franz Vranitzky,

Ehrenpräsident des Bruno Kreisky Forums, ehem. österreichischer Bundeskanzler

Einleitung und Moderation: Michael Freund,

Leiter des Media Communications Department an der Webster University Vienna,

Redakteur der Tageszeitung Der Standard.

Anmeldungen unter:

Bruno Kreisky Forum für internationalen Dialog | Armbrustergasse 15 | 1190 Wien

Tel.: 3188260/20 | Fax: 318 82 60/10 | e-mail: einladung.kreiskyforum@kreisky.org

Melitta Campostrini
Bruno Kreisky Forum
for International Dialogue
Armbrustergasse 15
A-1190 Vienna
tel.: ++43 1 3188260/11
fax: ++43 1 3188260/10
e-mail: kreiskyforum@kreisky.org

www.kreisky-forum.org

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

OECD – The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is often seen as an exclusive club of rich countries. It is basically made up of Western and central European countries, Anglo-Saxon countries, Japan, and a very small number of newly industrialized countries limited just to Korea, Mexico, and Turkey – as recognized also in the structure of www.SustainabiliTank.info Home-page.

The list of OECD countries ten days ago included the Twenty countries that originally signed the Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on 14 December 1960.

Since then eleven countries have become members of the Organization. The last to be accepted before last Monday was the Slovak Republic that ratified acceptance December 14, 2000,

The Member countries of the Organization before last Monday, and the dates on which they deposited their instruments of ratification are:
AUSTRALIA: 7 June 1971
AUSTRIA: 29 September 1961
BELGIUM: 13 September 1961
CANADA: 10 April 1961
CHILE: 7 May 2010
CZECH REPUBLIC: 21 December 1995
DENMARK: 30 May 1961
FINLAND: 28 January 1969
FRANCE: 7 August 1961
GERMANY: 27 September 1961
GREECE: 27 September 1961
HUNGARY: 7 May 1996
ICELAND: 5 June 1961
IRELAND: 17 August 1961
ITALY: 29 March 1962
JAPAN: 28 April 1964
KOREA: 12 December 1996
LUXEMBOURG: 7 December 1961
MEXICO: 18 May 1994
NETHERLANDS: 13 November 1961
NEW ZEALAND: 29 May 1973
NORWAY: 4 July 1961
POLAND: 22 November 1996
PORTUGAL: 4 August 1961
SLOVAK REPUBLIC: 14 December 2000
SPAIN: 3 August 1961
SWEDEN: 28 September 1961
SWITZERLAND: 28 September 1961
TURKEY: 2 August 1961
UNITED KINGDOM: 2 May 1961
UNITED STATES: 12 April 1961

The preamble to the document that created December 14, 2010 the OECD organization says:

PARIS 14th December 1960

THE GOVERNMENTS of the Republic of Austria, the Kingdom of Belgium, Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Kingdom of Greece, the Republic of Iceland, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Portuguese Republic, Spain, the Kingdom of Sweden, the Swiss Confederation, the Turkish Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America;

CONSIDERING that economic strength and prosperity are essential for the attainment of the purposes of the United Nations, the preservation of individual liberty and the increase of general well-being;

BELIEVING that they can further these aims most effectively by strengthening the tradition of co-operation which has evolved among them;

RECOGNISING that the economic recovery and progress of Europe to which their participation in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation has made a major contribution, have opened new perspectives for strengthening that tradition and applying it to new tasks and broader objectives;

CONVINCED that broader co-operation will make a vital contribution to peaceful and harmonious relations among the peoples of the world;

RECOGNISING the increasing interdependence of their economies;

DETERMINED by consultation and co-operation to use more effectively their capacities and potentialities so as to promote the highest sustainable growth of their economies and improve the economic and social well-being of their peoples;

BELIEVING that the economically more advanced nations should co-operate in assisting to the best of their ability the countries in process of economic development;

RECOGNISING that the further expansion of world trade is one of the most important factors favouring the economic development of countries and the improvement of international economic relations; and

DETERMINED to pursue these purposes in a manner consistent with their obligations in other international organisations or institutions in which they participate or under agreements to which they are a party;

HAVE THEREFORE AGREED on the following provisions for the reconstitution of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development -

And the proactive 21 articles can be seen at:

http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1915847_1_1_1_1,00.html

————————-

On Monday, May 10, 2010, Israel, Estonia and Slovenia, by unanimous vote of the member States, were invited to join the OECD.

Israel, Estonia and Slovenia Join the OECD (UPDATE)

Israel, Slovenia and Estonia were invited to join the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of (now 34) wealthy democracies.  The OECD does a host of things, from helping to stabilize its members’ economies to serving as a focal point for assisting in the economic development of poorer countries.

The full release can be read at:  

—————————-
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2010
Shielded by U.S. Umbrella, Israel Joins Rich Man’s Club.
by Thalif Deen

UNITED NATIONS, May 16 (IPS) – With tongue firmly entrenched in his cheek, an Arab diplomat recounts an Israeli cabinet meeting interrupted by an aide rushing in with the latest statistics on the state of the economy. The crops were down, growth was low, reserves were minimal and inflation was high, he announced, portraying a rather gloomy economic picture.

Momentarily, the prime minister seemed flustered by the news – until he realized the aide was really referring to the state of the Israeli economy. Breathing a sigh of relief, he joyfully exclaimed: “Thank God, for a moment I thought you were referring to the American economy” – and went on with the business of the day, totally unfazed. The apocryphal story, doing the rounds at the United Nations, reveals the reality of Israeli life: its very existence has depended largely on the unrestrained political, economic and military support of the United States.

After more than a decade of lobbying, Israel won a key diplomatic victory Monday by gaining admission to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). But could Israel have joined the OECD without the billions of dollars in U.S. aid and outright grants, which helped propel the Jewish state into the ranks of Western industrial nations?

The Paris-based organisation, long described as an exclusive club of rich nations, also invited Estonia and Slovenia to join its privileged ranks, pushing its total membership to 34.

OECD’s current members range from Austria, Australia, Belgium, and Canada to France, Germany, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Britain and the United States.

All three new members will be inducted at a special ceremony during the annual meeting of the OECD Council, chaired by Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, in Paris on May 27.

The OECD decided to admit Israel into its ranks despite accusations of human rights violations and war crimes by a U.N. commission – specifically during the war against Gaza in December 2008.

Asked if Israel’s entry will have an impact on how the politically and economically powerful European Union (EU) responds to human rights violations in the occupied territories, Nadia Hijab, an independent analyst and a senior fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies, told IPS she wasn’t sure how it will play out with the 27 EU states.

But Hijab pointed out that from a human rights perspective, the OECD has completely ignored its own Road Map for Israel’s accession, which states that Israel has to demonstrate a commitment to pluralist democracy based on the rule of law.

Indeed, only a democracy can join the OECD, she added.

But human rights organisations have accused Israel of violating most of the basic principles of democracy, including civil and political rights, freedom of the press and fundamental rights of people under occupation.

A 17-point memo to the OECD by the worldwide Palestinian coalition BNC (the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee) listed the many ways in which Israel does not uphold the rule of law at home or abroad.

In a detailed critique published in Agence Global, Hijab points out that the EU’s planned upgrade of relations with Israel was put on hold in the wake of Israel’s Gaza attack.

She said intensive lobbying by several churches and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), including three Israeli human rights organisations, B’Tselem, HaMoked and Physicians for Human Rights, helped prevent it from being acted on.

Writing on ‘U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel’ for the U.S. Congressional Research Service (CRS) last December, Jeremy Sharp, a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs, says “Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II.” Since 1985, the United States has provided over 3.0 billion dollars in outright annual grants – with no payback obligation – to Israel. Of this, about 1.9 billion dollars have been earmarked as military aid and 1.2 billion dollars as economic aid.

Virtually all of the U.S. equipment in the Israeli military inventory has been purchased out of U.S. funds.

For many years, Sharp points out, “U.S. economic aid helped subsidise a lacklustre Israeli economy, though since the rapid expansion of Israel’s hi-tech sector in the 1990s (sparked partially by U.S.-Israeli scientific cooperation), Israel is now considered a fully industrialised nation with an economy on par with some Western European countries.”

Consequently, Israel and the United States agreed to gradually phase out economic grant aid to Tel Aviv.

According to an agreement reached under former U.S. President George W. Bush in August 2007, and to compensate for the loss of economic aid, there will be incremental annual increases in U.S. military grants to Israel, reaching 3.0 billion dollars by 2012.

The administration of President Barack Obama will dole out about 2.8 billion dollars in military grants to Israel in 2010.

And, Sharp says, U.S. military aid has “helped transform Israel’s armed forces into one of the most technologically sophisticated militaries in the world.”

Despite its admission to the OECD, Israel will continue to depend on strong political and military support from the United States. And more so at the United Nations, where Washington has continued to shield Israel from Security Council sanctions for war crimes and human rights violations.

Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and international studies and chair of the Middle Eastern Studies Programme at the University of San Francisco, told IPS there is no way that Israel could get away with its widespread and systematic violations of international law were it not effectively shielded by the U.S. veto power in the Security Council.

“Israel is not inherently worse than other countries, it’s just that their government has so few constraints upon its behaviour,” he said.

But thanks to this superpower umbrella which protects the Israelis from sanctions and other consequences of their actions, there is no deterrent preventing them from running roughshod over international legal norms, Zunes added.

This is not fundamentally different than the threat of a French veto preventing the Security Council from enforcing its resolutions regarding the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, he added.

Similarly, for decades, Britain and the United States blocked any decisive U.N. action regarding Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor.

“The failure to force Israel to end its occupation, colonisation and repression of its neighbours, therefore, is not simply the fault of a supposedly all-powerful Zionist lobby,” Zunes said.

Rather, it is yet another sad chapter in the longstanding tradition of great powers hypocritically aiding and abetting the very kinds of illegitimate policies by their allies for which they would demand strict international sanctions, he argued.

Or worse, if they were being carried out by a regime deemed less friendly to their interests, Zunes declared.

———————

Our website purports to provide a neutral platform when it comes to the Middle East. This includes a clear rejection of the world pouring in finances to the oil countries and hurting the interests of our generation and of all generations to come.

Providing funds to the oil countries has done nothing for their development and only enriched a very thin layer of royal families in underpopulated countries that in order to deflect attention from what they do to their own people created the obviously, originally UN-approved Israel bogey-man. Rather then develop the Middle East, the oil money deepened resentment of Israel and the US was poring money not just into Israel, but to all States in the region.

Egypt got more money then Israel, just in order to pay for the smile of the Sphinx – Egypt being the only Arab country that had the military potential to do mischief – so they were bought off with American money that was used up not to create an economy. There is no chance Egypt will be invited to OECD membership – they have little to offer but needs.

Israel is the only Democracy in the region – albeit not a perfect one as it is being managed under conditions of a perpetual state-of-war. Yes, there is much we criticize in Israel, but we also know that as long as the Arab leaders do not follow President Sadat’s example and come to Jerusalem – Yes – Jerusalem – not Tel-Aviv – with an outstretched hand to claim “Peace and Territory” – there is very little that can change. The Arabs will have the money and stay underdeveloped and poor – the Israelis will have the technologies and will help build the World of tomorrow. So far as our friend Thalif Deen, his article is informative as far as it describes the Arab position at the UN – it negative and uninformed when it comes to what the UN ought to be like.

Will Brazil, China, India look at what we say here and think how to move up in the world to enter OECD also – see Mexico, Korea, Turkey, Israel were able to and have much smaller economies?