links about us archives search home
SustainabiliTankSustainabilitank menu graphic
SustainabiliTank

 
 
Follow us on Twitter

Catalunya

 
Spain:

 

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 27th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Romania and Bulgaria keep low profile on Roma expulsions – 26.08.2010 -

———————————————-
The Romanian population has received the news of the beginning of the
expulsion from France of hundreds – possibly thousands – of Romanian
Gypsies with almost total indifference, bordering sometimes on outright
hostility to the return of the marginalised social group. See more at WAZ.EUobserver.

http://euobserver.com/9/30680/?rk=1

==========
Barroso and Fillon to hold Roma ‘workshop’ – 27.08.2010 -

———————————————-
Even as France in defiance of international criticism on Thursday continued
its policy of rounding up and deporting Roma, Prime Minister Francois
Fillon announced a further attempt to Europeanise the issue.

http://euobserver.com/9/30687/?rk=1

===========
Euro Zone Dialogue – Does the euro have a future?

September 23rd 2010, Berlin

Can the euro survive? The next few years may well be the toughest the euro
has ever faced. Chaired by John O’Sullivan, The Economist’s European
economics correspondent, Euro Zone Dialogue boasts an unrivalled agenda
featuring senior policymakers, leading executives and economists.

For further information visit http://www.economistconferences.com/eurozone

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on August 12th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

The launch of the UN Decade for Deserts and the Fight against Desertification (2010-2020).


Congresso des Convenciones
Fortaleza, Brazil
Monday, 16 August 2010

As programmed by the United Nations Environment Programme
out of Nairobi, Kenya, home also of the Africa regional Proram to be launched in parallel on the same day.
Monday, 16 August 2010

From Fortaleza, 12 August 2010:


On Monday, 16 August 2010, the city of Fortaleza in the dryland State of Ceará, Brazil, will host the global launch of the United Nations Decade for Deserts and the Fight against Desertification (UNDDD).
The launch will be complemented by regional launches. The launch for Africa Region will take place in Nairobi, Kenya, also on 16 August.

The global launch, in Brazil, will take place during the opening ceremony of the Second International Conference on Climate, Variability and Sustainable Development in the semi-Arid Regions (ICID 2010), taking place from 16-20 August 2010. Luc Gnacadja, Executive Secretary of UNCCD, is heading the Convention’s delegation to the launch in Brazil.

Other regional launches will take place in the following months. North America’s regional launch will take place in September, in New York City, on the occasion of the Summit on the Millennium Development Goals.


The Asian Regional launch is planned in October in Seoul, Republic of Korea. And the launch in Europe will take place in November at a place and venue to be determined.

The events mark the official start of the annual observance of the Decade declared in 2007 by the United Nations General Assembly.

A complete press kit on the event is available online at:

http://www.unep.org/downloads/UNDDD_PressKit.zip

The Decade to Combat Desertification is spearheaded by United Nations agencies. They include the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Development Programme, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and other relevant bodies of the United Nations, including the Department of Public Information of the United Nations Secretariat. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification is the focal point of this inter-agency task force.

————————————————————————————————-

For more information, including interviews with experts, contact:

Ms. Cadija Tissiani, (+55) 61 9988 9852 or 618220 3406, Email: cadija@gmail.com
Ms. Wagaki Mwangi , Tel: (+55) 85 9605 0883, Email:
wmwangi@unccd.int.
Ms. Yukie Hori, (+49) 228 815 2829, Email: yhori@unccd.int

Launch in Nairobi
Mr. Waiganjo Njoroge, (+254) 723 857270 or (+254) 20 762 5261, E-mail:
Waiganjo.njoroge@unep.org
Ms. Mia Turner, (+254) 20 762 5211 or (+254) 710 620495, E-mail:
mia.turner@unep.org
Ms. Sarah Anyoti, (+254) 20 762 2300, E-mail:
sarah.anyoti@undp.org

————————————————————————————————-

The interesting thing here is that the global program is launched out of Fortaleza, Ceara, Brazil – the city that in 1992, in preparation of the Rio Summit, was the center of a Brazilian activity that, because of Brazilian interest to deflect the full attention to its Amazon region, tried also to bring on board that Desertification is not only a Sub-Sahara African problem, but in effect a second global problem not less severe then the deforestation of the Amazonas. I was involved in the State of Ceara Brazilian effort of those days, and am glad to see Brazil again part of the arid lands focus of the needed change in human behavior in order to decrease human suffering that goes in parallel with environmental destruction.

We hope that Brazil will have enough muscle in 2010 so its efforts are not pushed aside by an African onslaught on UN money. Both – there is no money in the bank now, and secondly the need to change man-made Anthropocene is not just a – help Africa effort.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 30th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

We really do not know what happened in Lisbon. We believe the Portuguese effort was correct and could have created momentum, but as we are connected here to the UN, and had no information forth-coming – we wonder if the organizers would not have been better off without the emptiness of a UN cover?
——————————–
UN DAILY NEWS from the
UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE

20 July, 2010 =========================================================================

UN TO SPOTLIGHT MEDIA’S ROLE IN PROMOTING MIDDLE EAST PEACE

The role of the media in fostering dialogue and understanding between Israelis and Palestinians will be the focus of a two-day United Nations meeting to be held later this week in Portugal’s capital, Lisbon.

The upcoming media seminar, which starts on Thursday, will be the 17th such gathering organized by the UN Department of Public Information (DPI), and aims to sensitize public opinion on the issue of Palestine and the peace process.

With this year marking the 10th anniversary of the adoption of the landmark resolution 1325, which stresses the importance of giving women equal participation and full involvement in peace and security matters, their role in achieving peace will also be discussed.

Some 120 people from the Middle East, including both Israelis and Palestinians, and from around the world are set to attend, including Government officials, representatives of civil society organizations, academics, journalists and others.

Five panel sessions will be held during the seminar on topics such as the role of the Israeli and Palestinian media in reducing tensions, the use of new media to bring about positive change, and the part that mayors from both sides can play in advancing peace.

The participants will include Jorge Sampaio, the former Portuguese president and Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s High Representative for the Alliance of Civilizations, set up under UN auspices to promote better cross-cultural relations worldwide.

Kiyo Akasaka, Under-Secretary-General for Communications and Public Information, and Robert Serry, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, will also address the event.

——————-

UN DAILY NEWS from the
UNITED NATIONS NEWS SERVICE

21 July, 2010 =========================================================================

UN POLITICAL CHIEF UNDERSCORES NEED FOR DIRECT ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN TALKS

With efforts to move to serious negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians on achieving a two-State solution having reached a “critical juncture,” the top United Nations political official today underlined the need for direct negotiations between the two sides to begin as soon as possible.

“These talks are essential for ending the 1967 occupation, ending the conflict and resolving all core issues between the parties, including Jerusalem, borders, refugees, security settlements and water,” Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe told the Security Council today.

Six rounds of proximity talks facilitated by United States Special Envoy George Mitchell have been held since they began in May.

The goal of the diplomatic Quartet – comprising the United Nations, the US, Russia and the European Union – continues to be US-facilitated direct negotiations as soon as possible, Mr. Pascoe said, urging Israel and Palestinians to take advantage of the current opportunity to make progress.

Direct talks, he noted, could boost “confidence in the possibility of genuine progress on the core issues and on the ground, including restraint in Jerusalem, implementation of Roadmap obligations on settlements and further measures to empower the Palestinian Authority.”

Earlier this month, in a move welcomed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other officials, the Israeli Government announced it was increase the scope and quantity of materials allowed into Gaza.

Since then, new food and productive items have entered the Strip and the volume of imports into the area has risen steadily, with a 40 per cent increasing in the number of truckloads entering Gaza every week.

“While these are positive steps forward, we hope they can be enhanced to address the deplorable conditions in the Strip,” Mr. Pascoe said, calling for additional steps to be taken to allow exports and movement of people, as well as to streamline procedures for approval for projects.

He also announced at today’s meeting that agreements agreed by the Office of the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process (UNSCO) on ensuring the cargo onboard Turkish ships have been implemented.

Those ships were part of an aid flotilla intercepted by the Israeli military on 31 May, resulting in the deaths of nine civilians and the wounding of at least 30 others.

Mr. Pascoe said that arrangements are also being made to transfer material carried by a Libyan-sponsored vessel, which arrived in Egypt last week, to Gaza.

“Such convoys are not helpful to resolving the basic economic problems in Gaza and needlessly carry the potential for escalation,” he told the meeting, which heard from dozens of speakers.

During the reporting period, Palestinian militant groups fired 41 rockets and mortars into southern Israel, causing no injuries, while the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) carried out six air strikes and 21 incursions, killing four Gazans, including one alleged militant, and injuring 23 others, the Under-Secretary-General said.

Turning to Lebanon, he said that the situation in that country remains stable. The Lebanese Parliament has continued talks on draft legislation on the civil rights of Palestinian refugees.

“Consensus appears to be within reach and the United Nations would welcome this as a first step,” Mr. Pascoe said.

Paul Badji, Chairman of the UN Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, said at the meeting that serious direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians “can only be successful in an atmosphere of mutual trust and confidence in a comprehensive, just and lasting outcome.”

This, he said, requires both sides to implement their obligations under the Roadmap.

The Committee remains “alarmed” by Israel’s refusal to heed international calls to halt settlement construction in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in East Jerusalem.

Also addressing the Council today was Israeli Ambassador Gabriela Shalev, who said her country called for direct negotiations with Palestinians with “no preconditions, no delays.

“With Jerusalem and Ramallah only 10 minutes apart, direct negotiations are the only path to bridge the existing gaps,” she stressed.

Ms. Shalev emphasized the need for mutual recognition, noting that Israel’s recognition of “a Palestinian State as the nation-State of the Palestinian people must be met with an acknowledgment that Israel is the nation-State of the Jewish people.”

For his part, the Palestinian representative, Riyad Mansour, told the Council that “it seems strange that such a volatile situation persists in light of the international and regional efforts being exerted for revival of the peace process.”

Although his side has taken part in the proximity talks in good faith, “the same cannot be said for Israel,” which he said has “repeatedly challenged those talks with illegal, reckless actions.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 28th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Maradona out as coach as Argentina’s soccer coach.

AP – Argentina’s national soccer team coach Diego Armando Maradona listens to a question from the press prior … Also Brazil’s soccer team gets new coach Reuters.

By DEBORA REY, Associated Press Writer – Tue Jul 27, 2010.

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Diego Maradona was given the boot as Argentina’s soccer coach before he could resign.
His stint as coach of the Albiceleste ended far less successfully than his time as a player with the national team. The Argentine Football Association, which hired the former star in November 2008, said Tuesday that his contract will not be renewed. The decision came 3 1/2 weeks after his team, led by star Lionel Messi, was eliminated from the World Cup with a humiliating 4-0 loss to Germany in the quarterfinals.

“Diego shut himself off to any change,” executive committee member Luis Segura said on Argentine television. “Diego has all the right to do what he wants. But so does AFA.”

The federation had offered Maradona a four-year contract through the 2014 World Cup, but Maradona said he would do so only if his entire staff remained. That was unacceptable to AFA president Julio Grondona. He had asked for several assistants to be replaced, including Maradona’s close friend Alejandro Mancuso. The federation said its executive committee unanimously decided to not keep Mardona.

AFA spokesman Ernesto Cherquis Bialo called the decision “very painful” but said there was no way to solve the impasse.
“The president said that there was a significant difference between what AFA wanted to achieve and Maradona’s aspirations for the future,” Cherquis Bialo said. “There was a wide gap, and it was impossible to narrow it.” The spokesman hinted, however, there might be a role in the future for a man with an unpredictable history.

“This marks the end of a first chapter with Mr. Maradona,” Cherquis Bialo said. “The doors to this house, as always, will be open to him.”

Youth team manager Sergio Batista was appointed interim coach for the Aug. 11 exhibition at Ireland, which will be followed by a Sept. 7 home exhibition against world champion Spain. Possible permanent successors include two club coaches in Argentina: Alejandro Sabella of Estudiantes and Miguel Russo of Racing.

Asked about the full-time coach, Cherquis Bialo said: “The people who were in the meeting have no name in their imaginations. It has just been announced that the contract with the coach will not be renewed. And so, a new stage begins.”

The 49-year-old Maradona became Argentina’s coach in November 2008, replacing Alfio Basile and taking over a team he led to the 1986 World Cup title and the 1990 final.

He had little coaching experience, and his team absorbed two of the worst losses in the country’s history: a 6-1 rout at Bolivia in World Cup qualifying and the World Cup defeat to Germany.

Argentina attacked with flair in South Africa, with Messi setting up scoring strikes by Gonzalo Higuain and Carlos Tevez.

Maradona, dressed on the sideline in a gray suit, was an enthusiastic cheerleader, but that could not compensate for his team’s tactical deficiencies. The loss to Germany exposed frailties on defense and lack of midfield speed.

Messi, widely regarded as the game’s best player, left with World Cup without scoring a goal. Maradona never explained why Messi — he was left to roam the field on his own — wasn’t scoring. “Nobody ever told me where to play. So I shouldn’t have to tell Messi where to play, either,” Maradona said.

Maradona, who has fought cocaine and alcohol addiction, grew up in a Buenos Aires slum, and his escape from poverty has endeared him to many. But he has worn out his welcome in other quarters.

Maradona ruffled the government of President Cristina Fernandez, who twice invited the coach to meet with her. But cabinet chief Anibal Fernandez said Maradona failed to respond or answer the phone, forcing the president’s secretaries to leave messages.

Fernandez had been openly supportive of keeping Maradona as coach, and one legislator has proposed building a monument to honor him. Two weeks ago, the federation offered Maradona the chance to extend his contract. But Maradona put off meeting with Grondona to travel to Venezuela at the invitation of a friend — President Hugo Chavez.

Maradona’s relationship with key individuals in Argentine soccer also was tense. He barred federation leaders and businessmen with commercial ties to the organization from practices in South Africa while allowing reporters to enter.

Still, Maradona had many supporters. “I want Maradona to stay,” Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo said Tuesday in an interview on radio La Red. “We will support his decision. If he leaves we will miss him.”

Added team trainer Fernando Signorini: “I have no doubt they didn’t want him. Maradona is like a stone in the shoe of power.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 28th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Paul the Psychic Octopus Attacked by Ahmadinejad? {Oi Wey!}

David Knowles
Writer, AOL News Surge Desk
 http://www.aolnews.com/surge-desk/articl…

(July 27, 2001) — Perhaps the Iranian president picked Germany to win the World Cup?

Last week, at a national youth conference held in Tehran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took aim at Paul the “Psychic” Octopus, the seemingly clairvoyant, German-based cephalopod who accurately predicted the outcome of eight matches of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, including Spain as the overall winner.

In the midst of a fiery speech denouncing Israel, the U.S. and Iran’s other “enemies,” Ahmadinejad suddenly and surprisingly turned his vitriol on Paul, declaring the creature a symbol of “Western propaganda and superstition.”

“Those who believe in such things cannot be the leaders of the world nations towards human perfection, while the Iranian nation, with its love for the entire blessed values, is after establishing a humane world that would move towards absolute perfection,” Ahmadinejad said, according to a translation provided by the Islamic Republic News Agency.

Over the past two weeks, both Europe and the U.S. have introduced tough new sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program. The country’s national soccer team also failed to qualify for the World Cup this year.

Paul, who recently retired following his pitch-perfect prediction record, has not yet issued a response.

——————-

and we read and posted earlier that both – Spain and Russia are ready to pay good money to have the honor to host Paul the Octopus in their aquariums. Is Ahmedi-nejad envious of the offers to Paul?

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 16th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Assistant Secretary of Energy for Policy & International Affairs David Sandalow.

TOPIC:              Upcoming Clean Energy Ministerial July 19-20th

This is written on the basis of a US Department of State Press Conference  – Thursday, July 15, 2010.

————

This article follows our posting of July 14, 2010:

The Major 17 Economies were joined by Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore and the UAE at the recent Rome meeting – to be followed by a July 19-20, 2010 Washington DC Meeting on Clean Energy – all this to build a program for Cancun.  Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 14th, 2010 by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

We said at the time that the July 19 – 20, 2010  Washington DC Ministerial meeting will be a sequel – now we are convonced that is actually a different kind of meeting and I do not think that its eyes will be towards Cancun.

———–

The Department of Energy’s Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, David Sandalow, gave a background briefing and answered questions on the web regarding the importance of the upcoming Washington DC – Clean Energy Ministerial meeting. He discussed Energy Secretary Chu’s hopes on what will be accomplished.

The following countries will be represented:  Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, the European Commission, Finland, France, Germany, India, Italy, Korea, Japan, Mexico, Norway, the Russian Federation, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, the U.A.E. and the U.K.

This list excludes Indonesia from the Major Economies Forum which are 16 + The EU and then at their Rome meeting of June 30 – July 1, 2010, added on Ministers from a variety of representative smaller economies: Bangladesh, Denmark, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore, UAE.

This list includes in addition to the EU also all The Scandinavian States: Denmark, Norway, Spain and Sweden. As well it includes Belgium and Spain. It does not include Bangladesh, Barbados, Ethiopia, Singapore which were part of the meeting of June 30 – July 1, 2010 but it does include from that meeting Denmark that was a participant because of its hosting the Copenhagen meeting, and the UAE that seemingly represents the oil exporting countries.

The Washington meeting includes also Belgium because by now they have become the half year Presidents of the EU for July 1 till  December 31, 2010, and it retains Spain that held this position during the first half of 2010. To top this there is also an actual EU delegation at the table besides the temporary Presidents. We assume that this delegation is there because Malta, Cyprus and other EU delegations are not there. Place was also found for all major four Scandinavian Countries – Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden – surely nice people all of them.

I write all of this in order to say that some better way has to be found on how to treat the EU and the World, when the Obama Administration wants indeed to show that it is serious about climate change by inviting just the large emitters that total 80% of the global emissions, or, if intent to bring in also some small representation of the small countries, that do not have substantial emissions, but proportionately are going to bear a major part of the suffering, the Rome initiative of having present also Bangladesh, Barbados and Ethiopia would have been just fine – and the total figure would have been then 16 + 1 (the EU) + 3 (this for Bangladesh, Barbados, Ethiopia) and it obviously would have included as part of the 16 also Indonesia.

For more information, the link to the website is:   http://cleanenergyministerial.org/

——————-

At question time I asked from Mr. Sandalow why is Indonesia not at the meeting, and why was the symbolic, but important participation of the small number of really very small economies dropped?

The answer was that Indonesia said they are not coming because they participate at that time at a South  Asia meeting. The fact that the small economies were dropped is “because this is for the large energy markets – for 80% of the ENERGY MARKET  and not for the whole world.”  THE IDEA IS COME UP WITH ACTIONS TO PROMOTE CLEAN ENERGY, he said.

It would have been easier to accept that answer had the US also kept out the additional 6 EU States that were not among the original 16 + EU. We also would like to ask why UAE – though we think that they clearly are a better choice then Saudi Arabia – but still not exactly your ideal partner when you try to disengage from oil even though they do in effect – as holders of serious financial reserves – also participate in the financial benefits from looking for a cleaner future.

The above, because after Copenhagen we hoped for the involvement of business interests in order to create the working alternative to the Kyoto process – the interest of business in going green. For this to be effective one must have at the table mainly the real big emitters who indeed coincide with the biggest economies.

We thought that amounted to the maximum of 16 and – under EU conditions – just one more chair for the EU. Now there will be 23 chairs at the Washington table. The higher number decreasing the chance for success.

Monday, July 19, 2010 at 9am there will be an open press conference when the meeting starts.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 16th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Social Media and Information Technology in Cuba: Recommendations for the Public and Private Sectors.

Empowering the Cuban People through Technology.

When: Friday, July 16, 2010
Registration: 8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.
Presentation: 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.
Where: AS/COA
680 Park Avenue
New York, NY

In collaboration with the Cuba Study Group & The Latin America Initiative at the Brookings Institution.
Welcoming Remarks:

  • Christopher Sabatini, Senior Director of Policy, Americas Society/Council of the Americas

Presenters:

  • Carlos Saladrigas, Co-Chairman of the Board, Cuba Study Group
  • Theodore Piccone, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director, Foreign Policy, the Brookings Institution
  • Christopher Sabatini, Senior Director of Policy, Americas Society/Council of the Americas

Discussant:

  • Brett Solomon, Executive Director, AccessNow

This event is free of charge and open to the press.

Further event information
: Please contact Matthew Aho at maho@as-coa.org or 212-277-8389.
Press inquiry: Please contact Alex Andrews at aandrews@as-coa.org or 212-277-8384.

New report makes policy recommendations for expanding online and IT access in Cuba.

New York, NY, July 15, 2010—The U.S. can help improve access to information in Cuba and lay the groundwork for future long-term economic growth if it relaxes contradictory regulations governing telecommunications investment in Cuba, says a report published today by the Americas Society and Council of the Americas in collaboration with the Brookings Institution and the Cuba Study Group.

Empowering the Cuban People Through Technology: Recommendations for Private and Public Sector Leaders shows how Washington can ease restrictions on the telecom industry, improving the private sector’s ability to invest while helping Cuba close its technology gap.

“Expanding the opportunity for U.S. telecom investors and companies to provide cell phone and Internet service to the island will help ensure that Cuban citizens possess the tools to become productive economic citizens once the shackles of political and economic state control are removed,” concludes the paper, drawing on recommendations from over 50 information technology and telecommunications executives and other experts.”

Access the report online.

Press Inquiries: Contact Alex Andrews at (212) 277-8384 or aandrews@as-coa.org.

——————————————

Some of the main points from the presentations:

Before technology was a by-product of economic development, but today it is that technology is a pre-requirement for economic development.

Cuba, because years of embargo,  has one of the most embryonic technologies; we, the US, have technologies and they need it for economic development and the closing of the gap. If the Cuban regime embarks on this we see what we can do. For technology to grow there must be a basic human security.

The US economy could work with Cuba. There are products that can be produced right in the neighboring Cuba. It could become like Hong Kong is to China.

All of the above based on the case of the cellular phone in Cuba. In one year they grew last year from 43,000 to over one million. All this because there was a liberalization by the government. This followed the November 13, 2009 liberalization by the Obama Administration. US law says that what is important to the PEOPLE has been liberalized – this includes cell-phone services. Now they need more efficient energy use and phone cards. It calls for more activity from the private sector.

Most interesting was the comment from the co-chairman of the Cuba Study Group – Mr. Carlos Saladrigas who among other positions is also member of the Hispanic Advisory Board of Pepsi Co., told us that he was on the trip with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when in Krakow she spoke of Freedom and Democracy and said that this has three elements: the Government, Business & Enterprise, Civil Society. He then said that it is the Civil Society that can do it with Cuba – to bring them to deal with their own future and the catch here is technology.

——————————————

SEE ALSO FOREIGN POLICY ARTICLE BY CHRISTOPHER SABATINI:
 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20…

That is a longer article to the point.

Havana Calling

It’s time to lift the communications embargo on Cuba.

BY CHRISTOPHER SABATINI | JULY/AUGUST 2010

—————————————

The essence of all of this is:

Fidel is back. In a one hour television appearance this week, his first since intestinal surgery four years ago, the 83-year old head of the Cuban Communist party appeared neither hale nor hearty. But neither did he look like El Cid, the Spanish warrior who was so inspiring that even after death his body, strapped to a horse’s saddle, cowed the Saracen hordes.

Mr Castro’s pre-recorded show coincided with Havana’s pledge to release 52 political prisoners, a decision unlinked to reciprocal US action, although it may encourage change. Legislation in Congress, for example, seeks to end the US travel ban, while leaving the broader embargo intact.

Cuba, in fact, has two embargoes. The first Cubans call the “internal embargo”; the thicket of bureaucracy and socialist antipathy to individual enterprise that has ruined the economy. The second is the US embargo. Contrary to common perception, this is not a monolith. It is more like an onion, with multiple layers, although the last one, normalisation of relations, effectively requires regime change.

Some of those layers have already been peeled off. The US is now Cuba’s fifth-largest trade partner, due to cash sales of food and medicine. Despite the travel ban, up to 200,000 US citizens also visit Cuba every year, illegally via Mexico or on direct Miami flights on educational or cultural exchanges. The US president has scope to expand ties further, for example by allowing business travel, as happened in Vietnam prior to ending that embargo in 1994. Travel would put more money into Cuba’s economy – and most likely the regime’s pockets, too. But it would also help ease ordinary Cubans’ plight and remove a scapegoat Havana has used to excuse its many ills.

Cuba has long ceased being a dagger in the heart; it can hardly even be called a thorn in the side. Its ties with Venezuela may worry some. But this relationship is qualitatively different from Cuba’s African or Central American campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s. It remains a repressive regime, and yet, while the judgment is fine, the time is right for the US to open up more to Cuba.

Doing so is risky as it may not speed the regime’s end. But any measure that reduces the possibility of Cubans streaming across the Florida Straits in the event of a chaotic transition from the Castro regime is sensible.
Barack Obama has called the current US policy “failed”. Most dissidents agree; and, when their blood is not up, perhaps even most exiles, too.

—————————————-

Time to Bomb Cuba with dollars.

Published: July 13 2010, The Financial Times.

Fidel is back. In a one hour television appearance this week, his first since intestinal surgery four years ago, the 83-year old head of the Cuban Communist party appeared neither hale nor hearty. But neither did he look like El Cid, the Spanish warrior who was so inspiring that even after death his body, strapped to a horse’s saddle, cowed the Saracen hordes.

Mr Castro’s pre-recorded show coincided with Havana’s pledge to release 52 political prisoners, a decision unlinked to reciprocal US action, although it may encourage change. Legislation in Congress, for example, seeks to end the US travel ban, while leaving the broader embargo intact.

Cuba, in fact, has two embargoes. The first Cubans call the “internal embargo”; the thicket of bureaucracy and socialist antipathy to individual enterprise that has ruined the economy. The second is the US embargo. Contrary to common perception, this is not a monolith. It is more like an onion, with multiple layers, although the last one, normalisation of relations, effectively requires regime change.

Some of those layers have already been peeled off. The US is now Cuba’s fifth-largest trade partner, due to cash sales of food and medicine. Despite the travel ban, up to 200,000 US citizens also visit Cuba every year, illegally via Mexico or on direct Miami flights on educational or cultural exchanges. The US president has scope to expand ties further, for example by allowing business travel, as happened in Vietnam prior to ending that embargo in 1994. Travel would put more money into Cuba’s economy – and most likely the regime’s pockets, too. But it would also help ease ordinary Cubans’ plight and remove a scapegoat Havana has used to excuse its many ills.

Cuba has long ceased being a dagger in the heart; it can hardly even be called a thorn in the side. Its ties with Venezuela may worry some. But this relationship is qualitatively different from Cuba’s African or Central American campaigns of the 1970s and 1980s. It remains a repressive regime, and yet, while the judgment is fine, the time is right for the US to open up more to Cuba.

Doing so is risky as it may not speed the regime’s end. But any measure that reduces the possibility of Cubans streaming across the Florida Straits in the event of a chaotic transition from the Castro regime is sensible. Barack Obama has called the current US policy “failed”. Most dissidents agree; and, when their blood is not up, perhaps even most exiles, too.

————

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 12th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Israel says it will intercept Libyan ship to Gaza; the UN throws up hands when faced with attacks by villagers in Southern Lebanon after the UN clearly did not live up to the mandate to demilitarize the border zone.

Are we staring at the start of the third Lebanon war? How do you count those wars?  Where was the starting line? When does such a war have self justification rather then being a distraction from other matters?

Is there a split between some Shiites of Lebanon and the leaders of Iran? How more complicated can it get? Beware those who contemplate stepping into the MESS.

MESS Report / Hezbollah has regained control over southern Lebanon.

Four years after the Second Lebanon War, the Shi’ite group has managed to rebuild its military capabilities across from Israel’s northern frontier. Still, most sources say it’s not interested in another round of fighting.

By Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz, July 12, 2010.

Four years after the Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah can credit itself with yet another achievement in its campaign against Israel: southern Lebanon is once again in its hands. According to various assessments, the Shi’ite organization has rebuilt its military capabilities north of the Litani River, where it has established a network of missile launchers any army in the world would be proud to possess. Furthermore, it has repaired the infrastructure of the Shi’ite villages south of the Litani that were severely hit in the war.

Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah Lebanese Shi’ite women marching in Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah’s
Photo by: AP

The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, which was deployed to southern Lebanon in 2006 in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1701 – passed at the end of the war – was supposed to prevent such activity. In recent months, however, UNIFIL has been harassed by Shi’ite villagers in the southern part of the country who are apparently acting on Hezbollah’s orders. The international peacekeeping force, particularly its French battalion, has been repeatedly humiliated by the local population. Villagers have hurled stones and eggs at them, and have even seized soldiers’ weapons. UNIFIL’sAsarta Cuevas, this week asked the Lebanese government to protect his troops. commander, Maj. Gen. Alberto

The confrontation Hezbollah initiated with the French contingent has renewed the internal debate in Lebanon – between the Shi’ite organization and the Al-Mustaqbal camp headed by Lebanese Prime Minister Said Hariri (and thought to be under French patronage ). While Hezbollah hinted that UNIFIL’s French battalion is serving “foreign” (namely, Israeli ) interests, Hariri flew to Paris to conciliate President Nicolas Sarkozy and clarify that Lebanon is interested in keeping French troops on its soil.

‘Not a knockout blow.’

Thus, one of Israel’s chief accomplishments in the Second Lebanon War – distancing Hezbollah from its northern frontier – is slowly vanishing. The Shi’ite organization, which was dealt a severe blow in the summer of 2006, has recovered at an impressive rate in the military, civilian and political spheres.

“It was not a knockout blow, but it was sufficiently painful to force Hezbollah to grow up,” says Prof. Eyal Zisser, an expert on Syria and Lebanon, the director of Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, and the university’s dean of humanities.

“Since the war, the organization has been presenting a more controlled, a more restrained, stance,” he says. “It’s the kind of experience that makes you or breaks you. On the other hand, its scars from the war will lead it to think many times over before it tries to face off with Israel again.”

In the last Lebanese parliamentary elections, in 2009, Hezbollah’s political standing changed very little. Initially its leaders admitted defeat, but the organization actually lost only one seat when compared to the previous elections, while its Christian partner in the anti-West camp, former army chief Michel Aoun, increased his political strength and clarified that Lebanon’s Maronites support Hezbollah.

Nevertheless, the group is limited by Lebanon’s electoral system as the Shi’ites in that country are allocated a maximum of 27 parliamentary seats. Perhaps this explains why Hezbollah is steadily tightening its military foothold in Lebanon. The Lebanese army, which receives American assistance, avoids clashing with Hezbollah, which is also interested in maintaining “industrial peace” with the army.

For the moment, at least – despite the unprecedented rate at which it is arming itself – Hezbollah apparently is not looking for another round of fighting with Israel, preferring instead to focus on a gradual takeover of Lebanon. Still, it should be recalled that in early July 2006, a few days before the war broke out, the assessment in Lebanon was that Hezbollah was not interested in a confrontation with Israel.

The death of Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah

Last Sunday, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah died in Beirut at the age of 75. One of the most important Shi’ite religious figures in the Muslim world, Fadlallah was regarded as one of Hezbollah’s founders and as its spiritual leader in the 1980s. He was also one of the most fascinating Shi’ite religious leaders in the modern world. Although his religious rulings were a model for emulation for hundreds of thousands of followers, they also led to clashes with the Shi’ite religious institutions in Iran.

Born in 1935 in Najaf, Iraq, his father was a native of Lebanon. Fadlallah wrote poetry until the age of 12, when he began attending one of the city’s Shi’ite madrassas (religious schools ). In 1966 he moved to Lebanon, where he engaged in religious studies as well as social welfare work among the Shi’ite community.

Displaying a marked interest in the status of women in Muslim society, Fadlallah argued that lack of equality between husband and wife ran counter to the Koran. In addition, he held relatively progressive views on abortions, maintaining that the procedure could be performed at any stage in the pregnancy if the fetus was endangering the mother’s health.

On the topic of men doing household chores, Fadlallah wrote that the “social culture of ignorance, not Islam, is the source of the argument that a man humiliates himself if he does household chores.” He even explained that Ali, regarded by Shi’ite Muslims as the first imam, used to help his wife Fatima (the prophet Mohammed’s daughter ) with housework and that, when the prophet asked her to bake bread, Ali himself would clean the house and gather firewood.

Fadlallah also encouraged women to study Islamic religious law, to provide commentary on religious texts and to discuss such matters even with men.

While Fadlallah expressed total support for the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, he challenged the authority of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his entourage, and repeatedly warned the members of the Islamic movement to beware of charismatic leaders (specifically mentioning Khomeini in that context ) whose personalities overshadow the message they are supposed to be conveying to their public. In 1982, he began setting up a network of social service agencies in Lebanon, as an emissary of his spiritual mentor and role model, Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Abul-Qassim al-Khoei, whom he regarded as the Marja al-Taqlid (a religious authority to be followed and emulated ) – despite the fact that Hezbollah and Iran considered Khomeini to be the Marja al-Taqlid.

Face-off with Iran and Hezbollah

Following Khomeini’s death in 1989, the question of who would inherit the mantle of the Marja al-Taqlid in the Shi’ite world took on ever-increasing urgency. Fadlallah regarded Grand Ayatollah al-Khoei as his Marja al-Taqlid, as did many other people in the Shi’ite world. With al-Khoei’s death in 1993, Grand Ayatollah Golpayegani of Iran became Fadlallah’s Marja al-Taqlid. It was after Golpayegani died that the crisis between Fadlallah, Hezbollah and Iran really began to play out more openly.

Tehran proclaimed Ayatollah Sheikh Mohsen Araki, who was over 100 years old at the time, as the Shi’ite Marja al-Taqlid – a move intended to pave the way for the ascension of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (following Araki’s death ). Fadlallah, however, announced his own support for Ayatollah Sistani, who at the time resided in Najaf.

At that point, Hezbollah declared its backing for Tehran’s position and announced that its members must support Araki and must not regard anyone else as the Marja al-Taqlid. Araki died in December 1994; three months later, Iran declared Khamenei’s appointment to that senior post.

Fadlallah argued that Iran was simply trying to bolster its own political-religious position among the Muslim Shi’ites; he continued to support Sistani, and as a result was severely criticized by other Shi’ite religious leaders. His mosque was banned and, on one occasion, shots were fired at his car.

Although he later reconciled with Hezbollah leaders, Fadlallah still kept his distance from them. Refusing to recognize Iran’s leadership in the Shi’ite world, he maintained his religious autonomy and chose his own unique political path.

—————————————

  • Published July 7, 2010, HAARETZ

‘Obama warns Erdogan international Gaza flotilla probe bad for Turkey’

Following the Israeli Navy commandos’ raid in May in which nine Turkish activists were killed Turkey has demanded international probe.

United States President Barak Obama warned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that an international probe into Israel’s deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla could have negative consequences for Turkey, British Arabic-language daily al-Hayat reported Saturday.

Turkish PM Erdogan and U.S. President Obama Turkish PM Erdogan and U.S. President Obama at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 12, 2010
Photo by: AP

According to the report, Obama warned Erdogan that the international probe which Turkey has demanded could turn into a “double edged sword,” as it could lead to accusations against the passengers on board the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara ship, some of whom were members of the pro-Palestinian IHH organization.

The two leaders met in Canada on the sidelines of the G-20 summit earlier this week.

Following the Israeli Navy commandos’ raid in May in which nine Turkish activists were killed Turkey announced that it was recalling its ambassador to Israel.

Erdogan said the incident represented a complete violation of international law and called for an international probe into the military action.

Last month Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said that his government would insist on an international commission to investigate the raid saying that “If an international commission is not set up and Turkey’s rightful demands are ignored, Turkey has the right to review its relations with Israel.”

The foreign minister was responding to Israel’s announcement Monday that it was setting up its own inquiry, which will include two international observers.

The May 31 Israeli raid on the flotilla, led by a Turkish NGO, took place outside of Israel’s territorial waters.

“A commission which will conduct an inquiry into an attack staged in international waters should be international. We demand that an international commission should be formed under the supervision of the UN with participation of Turkey and Israel. We will insist on this matter,” Davutoglu said.

“We believe that Israel, as a country which attacked on a civil convoy in international waters, will not conduct an impartial inquiry,” he added.

The Israeli raid has led to a severe strain in the once-close ties between Turkey and Israel.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 12th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Spain’s World Cup win soothes separatist angst.

ANDREW RETTMAN

July 12, 2010, EUobserver.

Spain’s victory in the World Cup has put into the shade a huge pro-devolution rally in Catalonia, which took place a day earlier.

Newspapers report seeing the red and gold Spanish national flag – normally a hated symbol in the northeastern region – flying from balconies and car windows in the Catalan capital of Barcelona on Sunday (July 11, 2010), as revelers celebrated Spain’s 1-0 victory in the football championship.


World Cup revelers in Spain on Sunday night (Photo: kosmoseleevike)


 

Around 100,000 people gathered to watch the game on a giant screen in the city’s central Plaza Espana.
Viewing figures show that three out of four TV sets in the region showed the game.

Five out of the 11 players on Spain’s winning team were born in Catalonia. Another player was born in the country’s northwestern Basque territory, another region with a history of separatist problems.

The opportunity for making a political point was not lost on Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, who told press that he toasted the result with Catalan sparkling wine: “We raised a glass of cava and a few tears came to my eyes, which is unusual for me, because I know how to control my emotions.”

In the pre-match press conference, the Spanish team coach, Vicente del Bosque, made a plea for national unity.

“There are players from all over Spain here in the squad. We are united and I hope the same feeling of unity occurs back in Spain,” he said. “I hope that we’ll look at things in a less radical way and, through football, create better relations among the regions in our country.”

The sentiment could not have been more different on the streets of Barcelona just one day earlier, where between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people marched down the central boulevard behind a 250 square metre Catalan flag which said: “We are a nation. We will decide.”

The rally was led by local left-wing politician Jose Montilla. It had been organised months ago but took place just one day after a Spanish Constitutional Court ruling struck down key aspects of Catalonia’s pro-autonomy charter.

The 2006 Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia, approved in a regional referendum, granted Catalonia, Spain’s richest province, its own local government, parliament, language rights and educational system.

Friday’s court decision, which came after a legal challenge by the right-wing opposition party, the Popular Party, said that Catalonia’s claim to be a nation, with its own flag and anthem, has a symbolic value only but no legal weight because it is incompatible with the “unity and indivisibility of the Spanish nation.” It also said Spanish has to have equal status to Catalan in the region.

For his part, the Portuguese European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso stayed out of Spain’s internal debate, but could not let go unremarked the fact that all top three World Cup teams came from EU countries.

“In this championship, the European teams were ambassadors of Europe’s spirit, energy and openness,” he said in a statement emailed to press on Monday morning.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 11th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

A version of the following appeared on the Sunday Opinion page of the New York Times – and that was written definitely before the Spain – Netherlands game at the Soccer City Stadium of Cape Town. The Octopus made his predictions days earlier.

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/80813/a-big-kick-spain.html

A big kick for Spain.

By Carlos Ruiz Zafon


Like a steamy summer romance, this euphoria cannot last long, but it sure is nice while it does.

Is a country being reshaped by sports stars and a psychic octopus?


His name is Paul, he has eight legs and he flaunts a flexibility that would put to shame the ethics code of any self-respecting investment bank on Wall Street. What’s more, he’s one of the stars of the World Cup blazing on zillions of TV screens around the world. Yet Paul has never set foot on a soccer field, never kicked a ball and to this day most of his running has been devoted to chasing lobsters. Paul, you see, is an octopus.

OctoPaul is, at present, an inmate at the Oberhausen aquarium in Germany, where he has entered the VIP lounge of animal oracle lore due to the uncanny precision in his predictions on the outcome of crucial sports events. He works his magic according to a strict procedure: his caretakers introduce into his tank two boxes containing the flags of the opposing teams (and a mussel in each for him to snack on, post-decision). Then, while the world news media eagerly waits, OctoPaul, cucumber-cool and donning his trademark deep-thinking face, settles on one of them.

At it again
He deserves his own show in Vegas plus a cut of the action because, these days, the smart money is on Paul’s side, whichever he chooses. Some claim his infallibility nears that of the pope, while others, enraged by his prophecies, have complained that Paul should be served in a garlicky sauce with potatoes and parsley. Recently, Paul did it again, correctly predicting that Spain, sporting her best team in many years, would defeat the stellar German team last Wednesday.
Spain’s victory, won with a magnificent head strike from Barcelona’s Carles Puyol, set a historical mark: for the first time the Spanish team has advanced to the World Cup final. Thousands and thousands of Spanish fans in dire need of good news have taken to the streets in joy.

Good news in Spain, as in most of the western world, has proved scarce in recent times — so, yes, we’ll take any glimpse of the stocking we can get. But it’s true: what sense of unity and positive energy Spaniards have experienced in the past few months, that rare feeling of ‘getting it right’, has come almost exclusively from our athletes, from Rafa Nadal’s No 1 tennis ranking and eight Grand Slam titles to Pau Gasol’s recent triumph with the Los Angeles Lakers. Meanwhile, corruption scandals and somber economic signs and the farcical battles of everyday politics loom over perhaps too much circus and not enough bread.

I confess I was never a great soccer fan, yet in the last few days, seeing the sense of joy and passion the game is bringing to the lives of Spaniards looking to cheer for something or someone actually worth it, I’ve been following the World Cup and rooting for the team to crown what is already a job well done. Like a steamy summer romance, this euphoria cannot last long, but it sure is nice while it does. What the future will bring, maybe only Paul the Octopus knows. And by the way, Paul predicted Spain will win the final.
Which brings me to ponder if such a wise and charming creature shouldn’t be granted an amnesty and a return to the ocean. Or maybe it would be wiser to extend his contract and appoint him to higher responsibilities. Because when all the wonderful sound and fury of the World Cup has faded, it would be swell to have someone honest, decent and smart to point the way ahead. And these days, the more you look around, the more an octopus serving time in a German aquarium looks like a contender.

So, may the best win, and may that optimistic, hard-working spirit the Spanish team has displayed so far permeate other spheres of the country’s public life that could use a serious kick. Perhaps that, beyond Sunday’s chance at glory, should be the real goal. For once the game is over, all eyes must go back to the ball.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 6th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

from: Zhang, ZhongXiang <ZhangZ@eastwestcenter.org>
Tue, Jul 6, 2010
subject Copenhagen and Beyond: Reflections on China’s Stance and Responses, and others.

Invited Luncheon Speech at the International Workshop on Climate Change Polices, Presidency of Complutense University, Madrid, Spain, February 18-19, 2010.

ZhongXiang Zhang
East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

Abstract:
China had been singled out by Western politicians and media for dragging its feet on international climate negotiations at Copenhagen, the accusations previously always targeted on the U.S. To put such a criticism into perspective, this paper provides some reflections on China’s stance and reactions at Copenhagen. While China’s reactions are generally well rooted because of realities at home, some reactions could have been handled more effectively for a better image of China. The paper also addresses the reliability of China’s statistics on energy and GDP, the issue crucial to the reliability of China’s carbon intensity commitments. The paper discusses flaws in current international climate negotiations and closes with my suggestion that international climate negotiations need to focus on 2030 as the targeted date.

This paper can be downloaded at the URL:
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs//econwp111.pdf or
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1586058

—————————————-

Assessing China’s Energy Conservation and Carbon Intensity: How Will the Future Differ from the Past
In: Ross Garnaut, Jane Golley and Ligang Song (eds), China: The Next Twenty Years of Reform and Development, Brookings Institution Press.

Abstract:
As an important step towards building a “harmonious society” through “scientific development”, China has incorporated for the first time in its five-year economic plan an energy input indicator as a constraint. While it achieved a quadrupling of its GDP while cutting its energy intensity by about three quarters between 1980 and 2000, China has had limited success in achieving its own 20% energy-saving goal set for 2010 to date. Despite this great challenge at home, just prior to the Copenhagen climate summit, China pledged to cut its carbon intensity by 40-45% by 2020 relative its 2005 levels to help to reach an international climate change agreement at Copenhagen or beyond. This raises the issue of whether such a pledge is ambitious or just represents business as usual. To put China’s climate pledge into perspective, this paper examines whether this proposed carbon intensity goal for 2020 is as challenging as the energy-saving goals set in the current 11th five-year economic blueprint, to what extent it drives China’s emissions below its projected baseline levels, and whether China will fulfill its part of a coordinated global commitment to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere at the desirable level. Given that China’s pledge is in the form of carbon intensity, the paper shows that GDP figures are even more crucial to the impacts on the energy or carbon intensity than are energy consumption and emissions data by examining the revisions of China’s GDP figures and energy consumption in recent years. Moreover, the paper emphasizes that China’s proposed carbon intensity target not only needs to be seen as ambitious, but more importantly it needs to be credible. Given that China has shifted control over resources and decision making to local governments as the result of the economic reforms during the past three decades, the paper argues the need to carefully examine those objective and subjective factors that lead to the lack of local official’s cooperation on the environment, and concludes that their cooperation, and strict implementation and coordination of the policies and measures enacted are of paramount importance to meeting China’s existing energy-saving goal in 2010, its proposed carbon intensity target in 2020 and whatever climate commitments beyond 2020 that China may take.

This paper can be downloaded at the URL:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1604867

* * * *

Other papers of interest

In What Format and under What Timeframe Would China Take on Climate Commitments? A Roadmap to 2050,
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Special Issue on Reconciling Domestic Energy Needs and Global Climate Policy.

Abstract:
In what format and under what timeframe China would take on climate commitments is of significant relevance to China because it is facing great pressure both inside and outside international climate negotiations to exhibit greater ambition and is being confronted with the threats of trade measures. It is of significant global relevance as well because when China’s emissions peak is crucial to determine when global emissions would peak and because what China is going to do in what format has significant implications for the level and ambition of commitments from other countries.

In response to these concerns and to put China in a positive position, this paper maps out the roadmap for China’s specific climate commitments towards 2050. Taking many factors into consideration, the paper argues that China needs to take on absolute emissions caps around 2030. While this date is later than the timeframe that the U.S. and other industrialized countries would like to see, it would probably still be too soon from China’s perspective. However, it is hard to imagine how China could apply the brakes so sharply as to switch from rapid emissions growth to immediate emissions cuts, without passing through several intermediate phases. To that end, the paper envisions that China needs the following three transitional periods of increasing climate obligations before taking on absolute emissions caps that will lead to the global convergence of per capita emissions by 2050: First, further credible energy-conservation commitments starting 2013 and aimed at cutting China’s carbon intensity by 45-50% by 2020; second, voluntary “no lose” emission targets starting 2018; and third, binding carbon intensity targets as its international commitment starting 2023. Overall, this proposal is a balanced reflection of respecting China’s rights to grow and recognizing China’s growing responsibility for increasing greenhouse gas emissions as China is approaching the world’s largest economy.

This paper can be downloaded at the URL:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1415123


———————————–

The U.S. proposed carbon tariffs, WTO scrutiny and Chinas responses
International Economics and Economic Policy, Vol. 7, Springer, DOI: 10.1007/s10368-010-0166-8
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uvm5464w1w9n3777/?p=8dc29492327f4f6bae0ebd1827b9add5&pi=0

Abstract
This paper analyzes trade policy implications of the proposed carbon tariffs in the U.S., as well as China’s responses to it. Scrutinizing the emissions allowance requirements proposed in the U.S. congressional climate bills against WTO provisions and case laws, the paper recommends what is to be done on the side of the U.S. to minimize the potential conflicts with WTO provisions in designing its border carbon adjustment measures, and provides suggestions for China on how to deal with its advantage effectively while being targeted by such proposed measures. Given the fact that, in volume terms, energy-intensive manufacturing in China values 7 to 8 times that of India, and thus carbon tariffs have a greater impact on China than on India, the paper questions whether China should hold the same stance on this issue as India as it does now, although the two largest developing countries should continue to take a common position on other key issues in international climate change negotiations.

Working paper version can be downloaded at the URL:
http://www.eastwestcenter.org/fileadmin/stored/pdfs//econwp106.pdf or
http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/201033013564NDL2010-034.pdf

_________________________

Effective Environmental Protection in the Context of Government Decentralization

Abstract
China has shifted control over resources and decision making to local governments and enterprises as the result of the economic reforms over the past three decades. This devolution of decision-making to local levels and enterprises has placed environmental stewardship in the hands of local officials and polluting enterprises who are more concerned with economic growth and profits than the environment. Therefore, effective environmental protection needs their full cooperation. Against this background, this paper discusses a variety of tactics that China’s central government has been using to incentivize local governments, and a number of economic policies aimed to engage the private sector and promote its long-lasting, improved corporate energy-saving and environmental performance. It concludes that there is a clear need to carefully examine those objective and subjective factors that lead to the lack of local official’s cooperation on the environment, and provides some suggestions for right incentives to get their cooperation.

This paper can be downloaded at the URL:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1600451

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 3rd, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

I just watched Spain win in Johannesburg Ellis Park stadium, by 1:0 its game with Paraguay. This leaves Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Uruguay still standing,  and we dare now to make our own predictions about the  Semi-final and Final games.

July 4th and 5th there are no games.

Tuesday July 6th, in Cape Town’s new Green Point Stadium, Netherlands will play Uruguay and we predict a Netherlands win.

Wednesday July 7th in Durban’s new Moses Mabhida Stadium, Germany will play Spain and we predict a German win.

Saturday, July 10th in Nelson Mandela Bay/Port Elizabeth – The Port Elizabeth Stadium – we predict a Spain – Uruguay game and a Spain win for the third place in the 2010 World Cup.

Sunday, July 11th in the new Johannesburg’s Soccer City Stadium near Soweto, in the iconic shape of the African calabash, there will be the final game of the 2010 World Cup.

We predict that the game will be between Germany and The Netherlands – and we predict The German team wins.

Above means that the final standing, we predict, will be: Germany, The Netherlands, Spain.
An unexpected European ending of the 2010 World Cup that came about with the elimination of Brazil and Argentina in the quarter finals, and after the presence of five teams from the Latin American cone region among the 8 remaining teams when they entered the quarter-finals. Astonishing indeed.

On the European side, the early elimination of France, England and Italy was also considered by many as surprising.
 http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/destination…

A Disclaimer: The 2010 South Africa FIFA Football, though strange, but being still rather round, allows for the unexpected – so we take no responsibility for the case our predictions are duds! Do not blame us if you execute the wrong bets.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 3rd, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08d6fc3a-8600-…

we learned the following – “Argentina in Cup dilemma.”

a short article by Jude Webber from Buenos Aires that appeared in the Financial Times (in print) of July 3, 2010.

“”No one in Argentina wants the national team to fail to make the World Cup final – except, perhaps, the planners at the foreign ministry trying to get a visit to China back on track.

Cristina Fernández, the president, abruptly cancelled a trip to Beijing in January at the height of a row over the use of central bank reserves to pay off debt because she did not want to leave her estranged vice-president in charge.


The cancellation of the visit, in which she had been due to meet her counterpart Hu Jintao, went down like a tonne of bricks in Beijing and the ill-feeling was widely seen as contributing to China’s subsequent decision to tighten restrictions on imports of soya oil from Argentina, a key supplier.

Ms. Fernández apologised profusely for the faux-pas and the trip was rescheduled – but officials in this football-mad country must have momentarily taken their eyes off the ball: the visit was rearranged for mid-July.

That seriously complicates the presidential agenda: diplomatic sources expect Ms Fernández to attend the World Cup final on July 11, if Argentina make it. But that would mean she would have to race to China for a meeting now pencilled in for July 13-15, and would potentially miss being homecoming queen in Buenos Aires if Argentina triumph.

Commentators are already speculating that Ms Fernández and Néstor Kirchner, her husband, predecessor and likely presidential candidate in 2011, are dreaming of appearing on the balcony of the presidential palace beside football legend Diego Maradona, the national coach.

If Argentina win their third World Cup, a pragmatic solution is bound to be found, but Mr Kirchner knows first-hand the dangers of putting football over business: he once kept former Hewlett-Packard boss Carly Fiorina waiting because he was engrossed in conversation with Mr Maradona. The computer group reportedly returned the snub by switching key investments to Brazil.

A senior Chinese source in Argentina admits the timing is tricky and the dates “are an issue we are discussing with the foreign ministry”.”

——————

Having seen above article earlier today, that is before watching the Argentina-Germany game, played in Cape Town, on ABC in New York, I clearly thought of the political pickle the Kirchner Argentinian internal politics came up with because of some policy vision confusion. Please, you do not push around China when you want their money – just because of internal dissensions!

THE BEAUTIFUL GAME:

With Germany and Argentina saying NO TO RACISM – on South Africa’s anti-racism day -  the Argentinians in the crowd dancing to their anthem, and just about half of the Germans singing their anthem,  under the watchful eyes of Chancellor Angela Merkel, present to encourage them, the game started very fast – and the first German goal came about after less then 6 minutes.

The non-anthem singing members of the German team had names like Khedira and Boateng, but to my surprise I learned that even the Argentinians had an Ibrahim that was born in France, but clearly must have been of North Africa lineage. Whatever – this is the globalization of the football game that nevertheless is clearly anchored now in West Europe and in the Southern American cone. These games may now come up with a picture that further narrows it to one anchor – and it is Western Europe. But the last words were not said yet. What is clear nevertheless, is that Japan, China, the Koreas, or anyone else of Asia, will still have to practice for years before having an impact on the World Cup and in Europe the football field has lost some of its evenness – France, England, Italy were the early flunkies.

But this article is really about China – and not because it is great in football. They surely have the money to buy players if they wish to do so. We rather believe they will develop a speedy game and enter it with their own people – but who knows? Surely they will not be left out for long. For one thing – Argentina could help by sending to them Diego Maradona and help this as a joint start-up effort. Maradona will not be needed in South Africa beyond today either.

—————–

FT EDITOR’S CHOICE:

—————-

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 1st, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

July 1, 2001

The e-mail reads:

Today Belgium assumes its role as the President of the Council of the European Union for the twelfth time in its history. It is a moment for Flanders and Belgium to shine: the rest of Europe, and indeed the world, will be watching as our country takes partial command of the complex EU institutional machinery. This time, Belgium is part of a triumvirate, in which Spain, Belgium, and Hungary consecutively chair the Council of Ministers for six months. This trio presidency of the Council of the European Union is the first one that falls entirely under the regime of the new Lisbon Treaty. This Treaty gives Europe the necessary clout to answer today’s challenges. Flanders has made substantive contributions to the joint presidency program of Spain, Belgium and Hungary, and to the Belgian one.

Thanks to our unique state structure, which has been taken into account in the EU Treaties, either a federal or a regional minister can represent our country in the EU Council meetings, depending on the internal distribution of competences in our country. During the Belgian EU Presidency, Flanders will preside over the important policy areas of Education, Youth, Sports, Environment, and Fisheries, and play a major role in the Agriculture Council. For other important policy fields such as Culture, Energy, Social Affairs and Employment, Flemish ministers will either occupy the national Belgian seat at the Council of Ministers’ table, or assist the Belgian colleague who holds the EU Presidency.

Through this important, multi-disciplinary role, Flanders will have the opportunity to steer European discussions and policy making and draw attention to the Flemish priorities for this Presidency.

With the EU tentatively emerging from an economic downturn – and stumbling through crises like the recent euro debt threat – the Belgian presidency comes at a sensitive moment, particularly after last month’s federal elections. The big winner of these elections in the northern part of the country, the NVA and its president Bart De Wever, picked up 27 seats in parliament, making it the largest party in Flanders and Belgium. Even without a new, fully mandated federal government, our politicians and officials are more than up for the task of running an EU presidency simply because our country has such a rich tradition and expertise in EU matters.

The EU has much more influence on the daily life of Europeans than you may think: generally more than 70% of the legislation Europeans have to abide by, originates at the EU level! As our Minister-President recently highlighted with the slogan “Flanders shines in Europe, Europe shines in Flanders;” the EU Presidency is an excellent opportunity for Flanders to celebrate Europe and to bring Europe even closer to the Flemish people. We hope to achieve something similar with this introduction and to bring the European Union and the role of Flanders in the EU somewhat closer to all Flemings and the friends of Flanders in the US.

I wish you all an enjoyable Flanders Day on July 11 and relaxing summer holidays!

All the best,
Kris Dierckx
Director, Flanders House New York

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 21st, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

<temptc@rubenstein.com>
Takla Boujaoude <tboujaoude@rubenstein.com>

FROM:            Women’s Dialogue for Action / Cecilia Attias Foundation

CONTACT:     Rubenstein Commuications

Tom Chiodo (212) 843.8289 tchiodo@rubenstein.com

Iva Benson (212) 843.8271  ibenson@rubenstein.com

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

More than 100 NGO’s,

50 Public & Private Sector Executives,

20 Media Leaders

Including Cindi Leive of Glamour Magazine,

Sade Baderinwa of ABC News,

Alison Smale of the International Herald Tribune,

Gisel Khoury of Al Arabiya and

Pamela Gross of Avenue Magazine

To Participate In

Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women’s Dialogue for Action

***

Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women’s Inaugural gathering will unite NGO’s, media, civic and business leaders from around the world to define and work towards solving the most pressing issues affecting women across all five continents.

***

www.ceciliaattiasfoundation.org

New York, NY – (June 10, 2010) – The Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women’s Dialogue for Action, being held June 24 in New York City, today announced that Cindi Leive, Editor, Glamour Magazine, Dina Powell, Chairwoman, Goldman Sachs Foundation, Sila Calderon, Former Governor of Puerto Rico, Minister of State Innocence Ntap, Senegal, Zeinab Salbi, President, Women for Women International and Dr Edit Schlaffer, President, Women Without Borders will join the many other leaders who be taking part of the Round Table discussions at the inaugural Dialogue for Action.

“I am pleased that so many prominent individuals have recognized the need to immediately gather around the same table and collaborate to find solutions to the many dire issues affecting women,” said former First Lady of France and Foundation President Cecilia Attias, “We need to work now to find implementable solutions and give a voice to the millions of women who are not able to speak out on their own.”

The first annual Dialogue for Action to take place in conjunction with the New York Forum (http://www.ny-forum.com) will bring together an exceptional group of NGO leaders, experts and influencers from the private and public sectors.  This unique, interactive format provides a new platform, where action-driven discussions will focus exclusively on identifying and finding solutions to the main issues facing women per continent.

Following the Dialogue for Action, The Cécilia Attias Foundation for Women will see that dedicated initiatives are implemented where needed.  Local regional meetings will be organized as part of the follow-up in the field to assess the progress of each initiative.

The International Herald Tribune is the Official Media Sponsor of The Dialogue for Action. WANGO, The World Association of Non-Governmental Organizations is the strategic partner of the Dialogue for Action whose global network of NGOs and affiliates has become an international leader in tackling issues of serious global concern.

——————————————–

THE PROGRAM

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23
2:00 – 6:00pm
Registration
Park Avenue Room, Mezzanine Level
109 East 42nd Street at Grand Central Terminal  Tel: +1 212 883 1234

THURSDAY, JUNE 24
7:00am
Registration
Park Avenue Room, Mezzanine Level

7:15am
Welcome Coffee
Ballroom Level

ALL SESSIONS TO TAKE PLACE IN THE EMPIRE STATE BALLROOM

8:00am
Key Note Address by Cecilia Attias, Founder and President, The Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women

8:30-10:00am
AFRICA ROUND TABLE

Facilitated by Sade Baderinwa, Anchor/Reporter WABC-TV

NGOs:
· Bazaiba Masudi Eve, Senator and President of Congolese Women League for Election
· Esther Ibanga, Pastor Women on the Plateau Peace Initiative
· Molly Melching, Executive Director Tostan
· Promise Mthembu, Executive Director Her Rights Initiative

EXPERT RESPONSES:
· Letty Chiwara, Chief of the Africa Division for UNIFEM
· Innocence Ntap, Minister of Civil Service, Labor and Professional Organizations, Senegal
· Prinitha Pillay, Medical Doctor, Doctors without Borders

With the Support of:
· Fatou Sow Sarr, Professor at Dakar University

Special Closing Address by: Sophie Delaunay, Executive Director Doctors Without Borders

10:30-12:00pm
AMERICAS ROUND TABLE

Facilitated by Cindi Leive, Editor-in-Chief Glamour Magazine

NGOs:
· Sister Tesa Fitzgerald, Executive Director and Co-Founder, Hour Children
· Rosario Perez, CEO, Pro Mujer
· Sima Quraishi, Executive Director, Muslim Women Resource Center
· Dale Standifer, Executive Director, Metropolitan Center for Women and Children

EXPERT RESPONSES:
· Adrienne Germain, President of the International Women’s Health Coalition
· Pamela Gross, Editor at Large, The Hill
· Ambassador Craig Stapleton, Former Ambassador to France
· Kathryn Wylde, President and CEO of Partnership for New York City

Special Closing Address by: Mary Ellen Iskenderian, President and CEO of Women’s World Banking

12:30-2:00pm LUNCH BALLROOM I

2:30-4:00pm
ASIA AND MIDDLE EAST ROUND TABLE

Facilitated by Anita Pratap, Documentary Filmmaker, Author, Journalist
NGOs:
· Sakena Yacoobi, Executive Director, Afghan Institute of Learning
· Dr. Basmah Omair, CEO of Khadija Bint Khawilid Center for Businesswomen
· Manju Kochar, Chairman, Prasad Chikitsa
· Guy Jacobsen, Founder Redlight Children

With the Support of:
· Lucky Chherti, Founder and Program Director, Empowering Women of Nepal
· Bandana Rana, President, SAATHI

EXPERT RESPONSES:
· Chékéba Hachemi, President, Afghanistan Libre
· Dina Powell, President of the Goldman Sachs Foundation and Global Head of the Office of Corporate Engagement
· Zainab Salbi, Founder of Women for Women International
· Mu Sochua, Member of Cambodian Parliament and Human Rights Advocate

4:30-6:00pm
EUROPE ROUND TABLE

Facilitated by Alison Smale, Executive Editor, International Herald Tribune

NGOs:
· Sophie Romana, Executive Director, PlaNet Finance
· Edit Schlaffer, Chairman and Founder, Women Without Borders, SAVE – Sisters Against Violent Extremism
· May de Silva, Director, Women into Politics
· Inna Tymchyk, Board Member, Faith, Hope and Love

EXPERT RESPONSES:
· David Arkless, President, Global Corporate & Government Affairs, Manpower Inc.
· Kat Rohrer, Director/Producer, GreenKat Productions
· Fernando Villalonga, Consul General of Spain

6:00pm
Closing remarks Cecilia Attias, Founder and President, The Cecilia Attias Foundation for Women

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 20th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

EU Sees Solar Power Imported From Sahara In 5 Years

Date: 21-Jun-10
Country: ALGIERS
Author: Christian Lowe, Reuters.

EU  Sees Solar Power Imported From Sahara In 5 Years Photo: David Rouge
A caravan of camels loaded with sacks of raw salt travels across the desert near Tichit, Mauritania December 5, 2006.
Photo: David Rouge

Europe will import its first solar-generated electricity from North Africa within the next five years, European Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger said in an interview on Sunday.

The European Union is backing projects to turn the plentiful sunlight in the Sahara desert into electricity for power-hungry Europe, a scheme it hopes will help meet its target of deriving 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources in 2020.

“I think some models starting in the next 5 years will bring some hundreds of megawatts to the European market,” Oettinger told Reuters after a meeting with energy ministers from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia.

He said those initial volumes would come from small pilot projects, but the amount of electricity would go up into the thousands of megawatts as projects including the 400 billion euro ($495 billion) Desertec solar scheme come on stream.

“Desertec as a whole is a vision for the next 20 to 40 years with investment of hundreds of billions of euros,” said Oettinger. “To integrate a bigger percentage of renewables, solar and wind, needs time.”

The EU is backing the construction of new electricity cables, known as inter-connectors, under the Mediterranean Sea to carry this renewable energy from North Africa to Europe.

Some environmental groups have warned these cables could be used instead to import non-renewable electricity from coal- and gas-fired power stations in north Africa.

“This is a good question but not a question to destroy our project,” Oettinger said. “This question must be answered by a good answer and so we need ways to ensure that our import of electricity is from renewables.”

He said he believed it was technologically possible to monitor electricity imports to the EU and establish if they come from renewable sources or fossil fuels. “This question must be solved in the next years,” he said.

SOLAR SUBISIDIES

The Desertec consortium includes major firms such as Siemens, RWE and Deutsche Bank. They are expected to seek public money for the project.

Oettinger said the EU’s assistance was likely to include help coordinating stakeholders, updating regulations to allow the imported electricity to move across European borders, and financing feasibility studies.

On the prospect of EU subsidies, or the European Commission permitting state aid to firms involved in the project, he said that would become clear once the consortium has presented a detailed business plan.

Oettinger said all three energy ministers at the meeting in the Algerian capital sent a signal they were willing to build the infrastructure and common market rules needed to allow a trade in renewable electricity with Europe.

He countered concerns expressed in the past by some officials in Algeria that the project could involve Europeans exploiting north Africa’s natural resources.

“Renewables are a two-way partnership because electricity produced here is for the home market of north African countries,” he said.

“Maybe a bigger percentage of the electricity will be exported to Europe but at the same time we have to export the technology, tools, machines, experts, and so it’s a real partnership, not only a partnership by selling and by buying.”

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 10th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

06.09.2010 9:00 pm
Senate should lead on climate change or get out of the way.
Sen. Claire McCaskill

As oil continues to gush from an out-of-control well on the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, the Senate is preparing for a crucial vote on America’s energy future.
At issue is a resolution by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that would prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, is expected to play a key role in today’s vote.
She is a strong supporter of President Barack Obama, whose administration would be rebuked by the resolution.
However, Ms. McCaskill always has been moderate on climate change — recognizing its reality but urging an approach that doesn’t unnecessarily penalize Missouri industries and workers.
Ms. McCaskill was one of four Democrats who had cosponsored a separate measure that would impose a two-year “time out” before the EPA could enact rules limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, refineries and factories.

But Ms. Murkowski’s resolution goes much farther. Instead of asking for a time out, it declares EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions to be out of bounds.
That would hamstring the nation’s ability to address climate change and lock in our preference for dirty, dangerous energy sources at a time when China and other nations are making substantial investments in clean technology. Even Abu Dhabi is building what it calls the world’s largest concentrated solar power plant and the first of its kind in the Middle East.
The BP oil disaster is a timely reminder that the cost of America’s dependence on fossil fuels goes well beyond what we pay at the pump. It also includes damage to the environment from drilling and refining oil, as well as from the greenhouse gases released when it is burned.
Just last month, the National Academies of Science released a trio of authoritative reports on global warming.
“A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems,” one of the reports reads.

Ms. Murkowski and her supporters cloak their resolution in a reasonable-sounding argument. Congress, not an administrative agency like the EPA, should set the nation’s energy policy and set a strategy for mitigating climate change.
That’s true, a point we’ve previously made in this space. The trouble is that after a decade of trying, Congress has yet to come to grips with the issue. And while a small group of denialists holds the issue hostage, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide continue to rise and the climate continues to warm.
Ms. Murkowski’s resolution began its life as an amendment to another piece of legislation. The oil industry helped write it. When, in an effort to win support from moderate Democrats like Ms. McCaskill, Ms. Murkowski’s office held a briefing on her proposal last September, the meeting was led by a pair of energy industry lobbyists.
Given what’s played out in the Gulf of Mexico over the past 50 days — the disaster spawned by reckless drilling and compounded by dissembling and bungling on the part of BP — it’s hard to believe that any politician would follow the oil industry’s lead.
If the Senate is serious about addressing climate change, it only has to take up a cap-and-trade bill that already has passed in the House. Failing that, it can adopt an alternative involving a direct carbon tax.

——

Ms. McCaskill can and should play an important role in deciding the fate of Ms. Murkowski’s industry-friendly bill: She should vote against it.

Abu Dhabi to have world’s largest solar plant

Khaleej Times – Haseeb Haider – 18 hours ago

ABU DHABI — A consortium of three renewable energy companies will soon start construction on the world’s largest $600 million solar thermal power project to

Abu Dhabi to build ‘world’s largestsolar plant? – AFP
Abu Dhabi Plans to Build the World’s Largest Solar Plant? – Tonic
Abu Dhabi plans largest solar power plant? – Telegraph.co.uk
Popular ScienceFast Company
all 166 news articles »


Dh2.2 billion solar power plant for Madinat Zayed

National – Chris Stanton – 17 hours ago

ABU DHABI // One of the largest solar energy systems in the world is to be built “We shall have this future vision, the target is there, but we have to

Senate should lead on climate change or get out of the way.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch (blog) – 11 hours ago

Even Abu Dhabi is building what it calls the world’s largest concentrated solar power plant and the first of its kind in the Middle East.


PLEASE NOTE – WE PICKED UP THE ABOVE ON THE MENAFN SITE – THAT IS THE ARAB WORLD FINANCIAL NETWORK SITE. EVEN THE ARAB FINANCIAL PEOPLE LAUGH AT WASHINGTON AS THEY CAN SEE CLEARLY BEYOND PETROLEUM – SOMETHING THE PEOPLE IN THE US ARE YET INCAPABLE OR UNWILLING TO DO.

——————————

Abu Dhabi to have world’s largest solar plant.
Haseeb Haider , Khaleej Times.
10 June 2010
ABU DHABI — A consortium of three renewable energy companies will soon start construction on the world’s largest $600 million solar thermal power project to generate 100 megawatts in Madinat Zayed in Abu Dhabi’s western region.Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company, or Masdar, a renewable energy unit of government-owned Mubadala, has launched the Shams 1 project in partnership with France’s Total and Spain’s Abengoa.

At a high-profile briefing in the capital on Wednesday attended business executives and international media, Masdar Chief Executive Officer Dr Sultan Al Jaber said the flagship project is part of Abu Dhabi’s target to generate seven per cent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2020.

Abu Dhabi’s current energy generation capacity is eight gigawatts, which is forecast to grow to 20 gigawatts by the end of the decade.

The concentrated solar power plant will generate enough electricity to light 20,000 houses and offset the equivalent of 175,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, Dr Al Jaber said.

A special purpose vehicle company will own the project, with a 60 per cent majority share owned by Masdar, and the remaining 40 per cent to be equally shared by Total and Abengoa.

The new company will sell electricity to the Abu Dhabi Water and Electricity Company under an agreement which will have a component of a green tariff, enabling it to receive government compensation on the difference between average generation costs in the industry with the actual cost of generation by the project.

International renewable Energy Agency Director-General Hélène Pelosse told reporters that the cost of generating power in similar projects varies between 15-25 cents per kilowatt-hour.

The plant will be followed by another two power generating facilities — Shams 2 and 3 — according to Masdar Power Project Manager Mohamed Al Zaabi.

He said Shams-1 will run as an independent power plant and will be completed in 24 months. It will start its commercial generation in the third quarter of 2013.

Abu Dhabi Regulation and Supervision Bureau Director-General Nick Carter said that demand for electricity in the emirate grew 11 per cent in 2009, while its electricity exports rose 16 per cent. He said that the project is timely to provide the required power generation capacity.

Shams 1 would qualify for carbon credits under the United Nation’s Clean Development Mechanism. This allows developing countries to sell emissions reduction from their energy-intensive industry to help rich countries offset their own contribution to climate change.

Al Zaabi said that the plant would have 768 parabolic trough collectors, to be supplied by Abengoa.

About the mechanism, he said sunlight reflected by mirrors will heat a coolant which generates high pressure steam that drives a conventional steam turbine.

It generates solar thermal electricity, which is an efficient, reliable and clean solution.

Dr Al Jaber termed the Shams 1 project a very important milestone, which will be the first utility scale, commercial solar power project in the UAE.

He said that the project will not only open the door for renewable energy projects in the UAE, but also for technology transfer.

No scaling back

Meanwhile, Dr Al Jaber stressed that Abu Dhabi will not scale back on its Masdar City project despite a review late last year.

“We are not in any circumstances or intention going to ‘scale up’ or ‘scale back,’” he remarked to a question, regarding the fate of the Masdar City project. “The vision for Masdar City remains the same, the vision has not changed,” he added.

He said that Masdar announced its ambitious strategy in 2006, in which the Masdar City project was a very important component.

haseeb@khaleejtimes.com

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on June 5th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

Direct from Spain!

**Centerline Talent in association with Stratta Philips Productions **

Presents the New York City premier of

FESTIVAL FLAMENCO DE CÓRDOBA

WHEN: June 10, 11 and 12, 2010 PM; 8:00 PM

WHAT: “Festival Flamenco de Córdoba” comes to New York City’s The Town Hall

This spectacular three-night series features an ensemble of eleven award-winning dancers and musicians hailing from the city Córdoba, Spain. They are set to allure the audience with breathtaking performances of key flamenco styles, which include fandangos, soleá, bulerías, alegrías, taranto, guajira and seguiriya.

**Tickets are available for purchase directly at Town Hall and via Ticketmaster. (Prices Range: $60-$35)**

WHO: Critically acclaimed flamenco guitarist, Merengue de Córdoba, will lead the production.

The show features dancers Antonio Alcazar (Premio Nacional “Vicente Escudero” Award), Victoria Palacios (Premio Nacional “La Malena” Award), Desirée Rodriguez Calero “La Merenguita” (Premio Nacional “Pilar López” Award), and Maria Angeles “Coco Calero” winner of the Primer Premio De Baile Flamenco “La Estepona Flamenca”. The ensemble also includes guitarist Alberto Lucena (Premio Nacional “Manolo de Huelva” Award) and singers Carmen Garcia, Mariano Romero, and Jose Manuel Prieto (also on percussion), with supporting dancers Ester Maria Garcia and Rocío Lucena.

WHERE: The Town Hall  www.the-townhall-nyc.org, located at 123 W. 43rd St New York

Visit http://www.centerlinetalent.com/ for more info.

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 2nd, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

We had the following sit in the computer in draft form for nearly a year. We did not post it because I thought – wait – we really may not see the depth of the problem yet. I watched today  Fareed Zakaria interviewing Lloyd Blankfein, the present CEO of Goldman-Sachs, and saw the pits – this reminded me of the article.

We heard that the Bush Administration employed ten graduates of the Goldman-Sachs school of doing business while the Obama Administration employs only three. This seems progress, but we learned that Hank Paulsen and Tim Geithner call Lloyd Blankfein to find out what goes on “on the Street” – read Wall Street. There is nothing wrong when the former boss calls the one that replaced him for information – but what if the information helps guide policy in ways the old House likes it? This does not have to be an issue of corruption – it is mainly an issue of business culture. This was not just in the Bush Administration – this is TODAY.

We know that Wall Street is doing fine again – only that most everybody else does not – and some of the meanest misery was exported to others. See Europe – the German and French banks lent to Greece, Spain, Portugal etc. and never checked country policies that might have been very different from their own. Even the EURO, having been structured without common fiscal policy, gets into this hot tub. If Greece falls – so will the German banks that invested in a financially failing situation with open eyes. If Greece fails, what will happen to the EURO? Then how does this compound the German loss. The German loss will then be the US win – after all exchange rates go by who loses least. Having started the ball rolling, the US banking institutions, having already gotten support, can now watch how the Europeans start rolling into the dust. But this is not all – we listen to Mr. Blankfein and realize that more shoes will be falling – so – more institutions will lose credibility and start rolling. There is ample space in the mud – for all of them. Possibly some space in the jails too.

John Paulsen was not the only Wall Street Wizard to figure out how selling of poison bundles will do him good. He was part of that school and stood his ground today explaining that giving rope to others to hang themselves is a good bet for the salesman.What is needed is seemingly the closing of schools that teach such science and for Washington to retain only reformed graduates of such schools. Knowing crime is a positive thing only if beholden friendship to the criminals is a thing of the past.

Perhaps George Soros could be an adviser in such matters to President Obama. Paul Volcker, Joseph Stiglitz are  excellent academics in these areas also. Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman could further add a line or two.

We get now to the point that real reform is needed by all – in the US and in Europe. Will this ever happen? Will the politicians agree to seek the right track to survival that is not just a game of cannibalism? Will they allow financial reform to proceed?

—————————————————–

Arianna Huffington, June 15, 2009

Whistling Past the Economic Graveyard: The Audacity of Misplaced Hope – Banks, Economic Recovery, Financial Market, Geithner Plan, Obama Economic Recovery Plan, Public-Private Investment Program, Timothy Geithner, Toxic Assets…

Is it possible to have too much hope? To be too optimistic? Yes, if that hope keeps you from facing — and dealing with — unpleasant realities.

That seems to be what’s happening regarding the financial institutions responsible for the economic meltdown.

—–

Let’s start with the banks’ toxic assets. When Tim Geithner unveiled the Public Private Investment Program, he said that dealing with these assets was a “core” part of solving the financial crisis.

But the banks would much rather keep pretending that their toxic assets are not that toxic, and worth much more than they really are — a risky charade the relaxed mark-to-market rules allow them to continue to pull off.

So, last week, the PPIP program was apparently scrapped. Does this mean that the toxic assets are no longer a “core” part of the problem? Or that hoping they’re no longer part of the problem will somehow make them no longer part of the problem?

“Hope sustains life, but misplaced hope prolongs recessions.” So says Jim Grant, publisher of the Grant’s Interest Rate Observer newsletter, whom I interviewed last week on Squawk Box. Because of misplaced hope, Grant says, business people, homeowners — and administrations — often refuse to admit the truth and take the painful steps necessary to turn things around.

On Wednesday, President Obama will lay out the details of his administration’s plan to remake the financial regulatory system. Geithner and Larry Summers offered a sneak peak at the plan in an op-ed in today’s Washington Post, proclaiming, “we must begin today to build the foundation for a stronger and safer system.”

Among the proposals: “raising capital and liquidity requirements for all institutions”; “consolidated supervision by the Federal Reserve”; “robust reporting requirements on the issuers of asset-backed securities” including “strong oversight of ‘over the counter’ derivatives”; and providing “a stronger framework for consumer and investor protection across the board.”

The devil, of course, will be in the details. And on how much muscle Obama puts behind pushing these measures through and ensuring they become law without being watered down. Especially at a time when the latest stock market bubble has undermined the urgent push for reform, which seems to have given way to a push to move on to other things and leave that little financial kerfuffle behind us.

And investors seem anxious to do the same. Witness the “fierce rally” in the collateralized loan obligation market. CLOs are made up of sliced and diced assets (including high-risk and junk loans) — and are kissing cousins to the collateralized-debt obligations (i.e. crap) at the heart of the financial meltdown. But according to analysts at Morgan Stanley there has recently been a “remarkable change” in investor sentiment towards these securities, including an “exuberance” for the lowest grade junk being sold.

In other words, we are right back to risky business as usual. No harm, no foul. Let’s get back to the fun we were having before this whole worldwide economic collapse thing started happening.

It puts a whole other spin on the audacity of hope.

———-

Too many in Washington — and in the media continue to take the well-being of Wall Street as the proper gauge for the well-being of the rest of America. Yes, the Dow is up 33 percent since March. But another 345,000 jobs were lost in May, raising the number of the unemployed to 14.5 million, and the unemployment rate to 9.4 percent. Since the start of the recession in December 2007, unemployment has almost doubled.

What’s more, as the charts show it, over the past two decades, the top one percent of Americans has done very well in terms of wage growth. Things have not been nearly as good for everybody else.

Are the reforms going to be sufficiently fundamental to avoid a repeat of the boom and bust cycles, in which only a select few enjoy the boom and everybody else pays for the bust?

###

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on May 2nd, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz (PJ@SustainabiliTank.com)

This is a sequel that we announced in our article posted http://www.sustainabilitank.info/#14986 on the meetings at Columbia University on Friday, April 30, 2010.

This sequel  deals with the presentation, and the discussion following it, by the President of the European Parliament, Professor of Chemical Engineering Jerzy Buzek, formerly the Prime Minister of Poland (1997-2001). ( the speechhttp://www.ep-president.eu/president/view/en/press/speeches/sp-2010/sp-2010-April/speeches-2010-April-3.html )

The European Parliament was created in 1979 as an eventual development from what was started May 9, 1950 – 60 years ago – by the Robert Schuman declaration that formed the coal community. The coal and steel industries of six European, previously warring countries, united to show that after WWII a new Europe was born. This led to new peaceful International relations as a way of reconciliation and eventually to the creation of the EU.

Jerzy Buzek was born on 3 July 1940 in Smilowice, a town in south-eastern Silesia which is now in the Czech Republic, to a prominent family, which participated in Polish politics in the Second Polish Republic during the period between the two World Wars. The family was part of the Polish community in Zaolzie. Buzek’s father was an engineer. After the Second World War, his family moved to Chorzów. He is a Protestant.

In 1963 Jerzy Buzek graduated from the Mechanics-and-Energy Division of the Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice specializing in chemical engineering. He became a scientist in the Chemical Engineering Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Gliwice. Since 1997 he has been a professor of technical science. He is also an honorary doctor of the universities in Seoul and Dortmund. Mr. Buzek  told at the meeting that he went to study a hard science because in those days you could go nowhere with politics – politics were “of one color and falsified”he said, but in politics you can influence much more then in hard sciences he also said.

Solidarity was the first non-communist party controlled trade union in a Warsaw Pact country. In the 1980s it constituted a broad anti-bureaucratic social movement. The government attempted to destroy the union during the period of martial law in the early 1980s and several years of political repression, but in the end it was forced to start negotiating with the union.
The Round Table Talks between the government and the Solidarity-led opposition led to semi-free elections in 1989. By the end of August a Solidarity-led coalition government was formed and in December 1990 Walesa was elected President of Poland.

in December 1989 Tadeusz Mazowiecki was elected Prime Minister. Since 1989 Solidarity has become a more traditional trade union, and had relatively little impact on the political scene of Poland in the early 1990s. A political arm founded in 1996 as Solidarity Electoral Action (AWS) – a rather rightist or center-right party – won the parliamentary election in 1997, but lost the following 2001 election. Those were the years that Jerzy Buzek was Prime Minister 1997-2001.

In the 1980s Jerzy Buzek was an activist of the democratic anti-communist movements, including the legal (1980–1981 and since 1989) and underground (1981–1989) Solidarity trade union and political movement in communist Poland. He was an active organizer of the trade union’s regional and national underground authorities. He was also the chairman of the four national general meetings (1st, 4th, 5th and 6th) when the Solidarity movement was allowed to participate in the political process again.

Jerzy Buzek was a member of the Solidarity Electoral Action (Akcja Wyborcza Solidarnosc, AWS) and co-author of the AWS’s economic program. After the 1997 elections he was elected to the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish Parliament, and was soon appointed Prime Minister of Poland. In 1999 he became the chairman of the AWS Social Movement (Ruch Spoleczny AWS) and in 2001 he became the Chairman of the Solidarity Electoral Action coalition.

After losing the parliamentary elections in 2001, he stepped back from Polish political life (although he was elected a member of the European Parliament in 2004) and focused more on his scientific work, becoming the prorector of Akademia Polonijna in Czestochowa and professor in the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering of the Opole University of Technology in Opole.

Buzek was elected to the European Parliament (MEP) from the Silesian Voivodeship, basing his candidacy only on the popularity of his name and on direct contact with the voters. He received a record number of votes, 173,389 (22.14% of the total votes in the region). His current party affiliation is with the Platforma Obywatelska, the governing party in Poland, which is a member of the European People’s Party – rather to the right in the European Parliament.

On 7 June 2009, in the European Parliament election,  Buzek was re-elected as a Member of the European Parliament from the Silesian Voivodeship constituency. Just as in the previous election, Buzek received a record number of votes in Poland: 393,117 (over 42% of the total votes in the district).

In the 2004-2009 European Parliament, he was a member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, an alternate member of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, a member of the Delegation to the EU–Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, and an alternate delegate for the delegation for relations with the countries of Central America. He served as rapporteur on the EU’s 7th Framework Programme for Research and Development, a multi-billion euro spending programme for the years 2007-2013.

On 14 July 2009, Buzek was elected President of the European Parliament with 555 votes, becoming the first person from the former Eastern Bloc and the first former Prime Minister since Emilio Colombo to gain that position. He succeeded the German Christian Democrat MEP, Hans-Gert Pöttering. He has pledged to make human rights and the promotion of the Eastern partnership two of his priorities during his term of office, which will last two and a half years until, due to a political deal, Social Democrat MEP Martin Schulz will take over.

At the meeting at Columbia University President Buzek said that we are in a time of transition period in the EU – going from treaty to treaty and enlargement. What does this mean for Europe and the US after Lisbon ? - and he will thus read from a prepared paper that said – A STRENGTHENING EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN THE TRANSATLANTIC PARTNERSHIP.

How does the EU work? – he asked. And proceeded explaining that it is in a rising curve of power in the last 25 years. We used to have a Council guided by a rotating Presidency and now we moved further on with Lisbon. To his credit, he sounded self-deprecating when mentioning that actually there will be now several Presidents. This because Lisbon still left intact that half-year-long rotating structure.

The EU Council is a system of Collective President. Europe 2020 is the project of how to learn to organize ourselves. There is still need for progress in the EU political system.

Will ever the collection of 27 proud Independent States really agree to give up some of their sovereignty to a Central Government? Will the Council agree to be a Senate to the Parliament’s House of Representatives?  How indeed can the US find its way across the Ocean and form a bridge with a body that has Three Presidents? THAT IS THE REAL QUESTION – and progress via just a strengthened Parliament will not do.

Nevertheless, Mr. Buzek pointed out that the European Supra-National level has been strengthened by doing away with the previous requirement of unanimity that is reduced now to a qualified majority. The inter-governmental contact at head of state level still exists – but it is less.

Passing on to the issue of Foreign Policy – with problems that are today global, there is the “Baroness” – Baroness Catherine Ashton or Lady Ashton – just one person now at the EU. She is a member of the Council and the Commission bringing thus one person to the position of power and the responsibility to deal in Foreign issues – and that is the point – unless the West is united – we will not be able to defend our interests in multilateralism at G8 or G20 etc institutions.

Then he digressed by saying that Transatlantic Community is not enough anymore – we need partners all over the world for a united purpose in democracy and civilization. He quoted by name an interesting  list of countries  – that we give here in the order he said them – Russia, China, India, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, South Africa – that have to become stakeholders in the new order – they must have a sense of owner on issues like climate change. Everyone must feel that they are responsible.

Then back to the topic – on the Transatlantic economic Council – we must have a more ambitious program.

There is already freedom of flow of products, goods, capital, people in Europe – the four freedoms we have – transatlantic markets could build on these great success stories he said. The business community looks at the 800 million citizens of the Common Market in Europe. We must think of this common space of the Community.

Then came the Q & A:

Q: One big difference is that the US Congress spends 25% of the GDP but the European Parliament only 1.5% – will the Common Agriculture policy (the CAP) be decided bythe Parliament or the council?

A: The answer is not about money but on the organization. Money and budget are not important but the “community.” Two World Wars were started in Europe and we have to change. We like diversity in language – we have 23 – you have one. We say it is our strength – “Unity in Diversity.” We have buses that leave the Parliament to the regions every weekend. They come back with ideas from home. We will have a European Energy Efficiency new Policy.

The Consul-General from Austria – Ambassador Peter Brezovszky, who was Consul-General in Krakow at the time Mr. Buzek was Prime-Minster,  asked about the priorities – in democracy, on enlargement and what can the Parliament do to support parliaments in other Nations.

As Europe does not pass the budget through the Parliament such activities are more limited, but he had interaction with his meetings in Washington  (actually that was his main reason for coming to the States and I will be attaching more material on this) he had a meeting with Nancy Pelosi to develop the Transatlantic Parliamentary partnership.

There are the European Energy Community, the European External Action Service, The European Human Rights activities.

Next step in enlargement will probably involve Croatia and Iceland. He said that Iceland being located right in the middle between the US and Europe, had a hard time in deciding where they belong, but then Croatia and Turkey have problems that stem from ethnic conflicts – Croatia because of what goes on with the Serb minority and Turkey because of Cyprus. There is the Non-Visa regime and then the further potential of Bosnia-Hezegowina, Montenegro under some name, and Albania.

Mr. Buzek further evaluated European recent history in periods – the 1950-1960s as French-German reconciliation. then came the 1980-1990s as German-Polish reconciliation. Now we need not only Polish-Russian reconciliation that might have been made easier because of the dignified way Russia reacted  after the terrible  recent air accident, but also the reconciliation with further border neighbors. The real problem is what happened in Katyn 70 years ago.

Asked about an EU constitution, the President said – look  the UK is doing fine and also has no constitution.

——

These questions went on for an hour and Greece was not mentioned – this until someone observed the gap and said so!

Mr. Buzek said two words; SOLIDARITY and RESPONSIBILITY. We wish him luck and that this does the trick.

—–

As we said earlier, we found out that the reason for The EU Parliament President’s trip to the US was his opening a Washington liaison office for the Parliament with US Congress. This is the first office of the EU Parliament outside Europe. That was April 29, 2010. We have what was said there and the follow up speech at the Johns Hopkins University.

Also, the timing of this trip falls coincidentally when the EU is very much in the cross-hairs of the world economy because of the failure of Greece, the potential failure of Spain and Portugal, the danger to the EURO and what amounts – not to a strengthening of the EU, but rather to the unraveling of a system that created a common currency without having first secured a common policy. It is just inconceivable that voters in Germany can accept that their country pays tens of billions to save the people in Greece who enjoy much lower tax rates and get much better social conditions.

The same voters will not think that much of the Greek debt is actually owned by German Banks, while much of the losses of German banks came on because of a lack of regulation that did not stop them from buying low grade financial products that were inspired by the Wall Street self-enrichment gurus. Yes – we know – much of the global financial problem originated in the US, but then the EU had its own internal structure faults that created imbalances that were just as easy – foreseeable.

As Fareed Zakaria pointed out on CNN today the German voters talk of why they have to work for 45 years before being entitled to retire with a 46% pay, while a Greek worker gets 80% of his pay after only 35 years of employment. While the Greeks demonstrate now that they do not want a cut in their social conditions, the Germans by a majority of 92% say they will not let their leaders bail-out the Greeks. Is this leading to a call for the expulsion of Greece from the EU? The elimination of Greece from the EURO Club? The bailout by their own governments of German and French banks hurt by these debacles? Is it the end of the easy EU? Or are we moving into a stronger union where the member States give up some more of their independence?

All this shows that after all – the European Problematique has to do with money because they have not yet created the structure that some day may bring the EU into the China-US G2 league as a third partner to turn it into a G-3. Until then, we fear, the days of Transatlantic talk are over.

—————–

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126436512&ft=1&f=1004

Crisis In Greece Puts E.U. At Risk

May 1, 2010

Greece’s debt woes aren’t all that’s plaguing the European economy. Spain and Portugal have also seen downgrades in their credit ratings, and the response by the European Union to the crisis is being watched around the world. Host Scott Simon speaks with Jerzy Buzek, President of the European Parliament, about the financial crisis in Europe.

National Public Radio.

SCOTT SIMON, host:

We’re joined now by Jerzy Buzek, the president of the European Parliament. He’s at the European Union’s delegation to the United Nations office in New York. President Buzek, thanks very much for being with us.

Mr. JERZY BUZEK (President, European Parliament): Thank you for the invitation for this interview.

SIMON: You going to bail out Greece?

Mr. BUZEK: Yes. It will be a response as usual in the European Union. Solidarity is our main slogan in the European Union for last six years. And I’m confident that the decision will be taken during next days.

SIMON: I’ve read some opinion this week that suggests this was exactly what some people worried about with the euro, that thered economic problems in one, two or three countries and you couldn’t contain them because, of course, you had a common currency. And now you have Greece’s problems dragging in the rest of the eurozone. How do you address that concern?

Mr. BUZEK: First of all, we must say that we’re at the beginning of the process of organizing our eurozone. It’s less than 10 years yet, so it’s not so easy. On the other hand, we have very deep crisis all over the world. So, it’s nothing unusual is that also some countries from the eurozone are affected by the crisis. And I’m quite sure we can manage.

SIMON: But do you also, for example, in this case have countries with very different approaches to debt and spending? Say, between Greece and Germany.

Mr. BUZEK: Yeah, it’s also obvious because we are saying in the European Union that we, of course, base our community on solidarity. But responsibility every separate member state is also very important.

SIMON: May I ask, Mr. President, did the member states of the eurozone do a good enough job in checking out the Greek economy before they joined in 2002?

Mr. BUZEK: It must be checked maybe once again by the European Commission. I wouldn’t like to say anything about that being representative of European Parliament because it was not our responsibility. It will be not our responsibility in the future as well. But of course, as members of European Parliament, we are very, very interested in everything what is connected with the recovery from crisis, exit programs, and also about Greek’s crisis.

SIMON: So assuming a bailout for Greece, you think that that will have the effect of improving other particularly plagued economies in, let’s say, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and that means they would be less likely to have to ever request a bailout?

Mr. BUZEK: I’m optimistic because if we solve, and I’m sure we will solve the problem of Greece, it will be much easier in other countries. I know very well. I talked to Mr. Prime Minister Papandreou a few weeks ago and they prepared a very tough, difficult program for Greece. It will be not easy, but if you start working, it would be great progress in Greece economy and then will be no danger for the whole eurozone.

SIMON: Jerzy Buzek, who’s president of the European Parliament, joining us from New York. Mr. President, thanks so much.

Mr. BUZEK: Thank you much.

———————————————————————–

Press Releases

Buzek to open the European Parliament Liaison Office with US Congress
Washington DC – Thursday, April 29, 2010

On Thursday 29 April European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek will formally open the European Parliament’s new Liaison Office with the US Congress, designed to help forge closer links between European parliamentarians and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.  The Liaison Office is the first office of the European Parliament in a country outside the EU.

The office will be opened by President Buzek at midday (US, East Coast time) on Thursday.

EP President Jerzy Buzek said:

“We have many ideas for deepening our relations.  The main purpose of the office is to build a much closer partnership between the European Parliament and Congress as the European Parliament is more powerful after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

The EU and the US need to be more coherent and well informed on legislation and political activity.  If we work together in advance of legislation we can improve the outcome for citizens and business in a huge transatlantic market.

Together, we must face the challenges that confront us across the Atlantic, from climate change to energy security, from maintaining free trade to improving global governance.”

Background

EP President Buzek has been in Washington since Monday for key meetings with the US administration including Vice-President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton and Speaker Pelosi.  President Buzek and will travel to New York for meetings at the UN, including with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon which will take place on Friday 30 April.

* * *

The Director of the new European Parliament Liaison Office with the US Congress is Piotr Nowina-Konopka, Ph.D.

Tel +1 202 862 4731
Cell +1 202 431 9433

Office details:
2175 K Street, NW
Washington DC 20037, USA

 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/us/ – website of the EP – Congress Liaison Office

For further information:
Inga Rosi?ska, Spokeswoman
Mobile: +32 (0)498 981 354
Richard Freedman, Press Officer
Mobile:+32 (0) 498 98 32 39

—————————————–

Press Releases

Buzek to open the European Parliament Liaison Office with US Congress
Washington DC – Thursday, April 29, 2010
On Thursday 29 April European Parliament President Jerzy Buzek will formally open the European Parliament’s new Liaison Office with the US Congress, designed to help forge closer links between European parliamentarians and lawmakers on Capitol Hill.  The Liaison Office is the first office of the European Parliament in a country outside the EU. The office will be opened by President Buzek at midday (US, East Coast time) on Thursday.

EP President Jerzy Buzek said:

“We have many ideas for deepening our relations.  The main purpose of the office is to build a much closer partnership between the European Parliament and Congress as the European Parliament is more powerful after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

The EU and the US need to be more coherent and well informed on legislation and political activity.  If we work together in advance of legislation we can improve the outcome for citizens and business in a huge transatlantic market.

Together, we must face the challenges that confront us across the Atlantic, from climate change to energy security, from maintaining free trade to improving global governance.”

Background

EP President Buzek has been in Washington since Monday for key meetings with the US administration including Vice-President Biden, Secretary of State Clinton and Speaker Pelosi.  President Buzek and will travel to New York for meetings at the UN, including with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon which will take place on Friday 30 April.

* * *
Notes to Editors:

The Director of the new European Parliament Liaison Office with the US Congress is Piotr Nowina-Konopka, Ph.D.

Tel +1 202 862 4731
Cell +1 202 431 9433

Office details:
2175 K Street, NW
Washington DC 20037, USA

 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/us/ – website of the EP – Congress Liaison Office

* * *

For further information:
Inga Rosi?ska, Spokeswoman
Mobile: +32 (0)498 981 354
Richard Freedman, Press Officer
Mobile:+32 (0) 498 98 32 39

– — –

President Buzek on “The New European Parliament: Politics and Power in Today’s European Union” at the School of Advanced International Studies – Johns Hopkins University
Washington DC – Thursday, April 29, 2010

Dear Students,
Dear Professors,
Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I am delighted to be able to address you today. As a professor myself, I always feel at home when I come to a university. My passion has always been knowledge and passing on knowledge to the next generation, my activity in politics only came later on in life.

I grew up in a system where art was censored, where history was falsified, and where politics had only one colour. This is why I chose the hard sciences and not political science – because even the Communists had to accept that ‘one plus one equals two’.

Or at least they accepted that most of the time!

Dear Friends,

I would like to make a few remarks about the political system in the European Union, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, and what that Treaty means for both Europe and the United States.

I will keep my talk fairly short. After that, I would be delighted to take questions or comments. I would be especially interested to hear your own views on these issues.

=European Parliament=

First, let me say a word about the European Parliament, which I now have the honour to chair. The Parliament has been on a rising curve of power over the last quarter century. The Lisbon Treaty takes that power to a new level.

Already in most of the routine areas of law-making – like the single market, transport, the environment, employment, development policy, and intellectual property – the Parliament has been co-equal with the Council of Ministers for many years. It has long enjoyed a right of veto over EU law – first introduced by the Maastricht Treaty 17 years ago.

However, now with the Lisbon Treaty, we move a step further. We are co-equal with the Council in law-making on agriculture and fisheries, international trade policy, and justice and home affairs. Nearly all international agreements, including all trade agreements, now need the Parliament’s explicit approval. We have a right of veto. We have already seen the implications of that on final data transfer (SWIFT or TFTP).

In effect, like in the United States, we now have lower and an upper chamber – the European Parliament and the Council – in a single, bicameral legislature.

=EU Political System=

In parallel, things have changed on the executive side. The meetings of heads of state and government – the European Council – have been split off to become a separate, formal institution, chaired by Herman Van Rompuy. This body gives overall guidance to the Union, setting the big, long-term priorities for the Union. The European Commission remains the administration, with the special right to propose legislation.

Simply stated, the Council of Ministers is now the counterpart to the European Parliament, as Europe’s legislative and budgetary authority. The Commission and the European Council jointly form the executive.

In this system, the member states still remain very important, but the European level – the supranational level – has been strengthened and the exercise of power is shaped more than ever by the ‘Community method’.

Now qualified majority voting, not unanimity, is the norm in the Council of Ministers. Now co-decision between the Council and Parliament is the norm.

The ‘intergovernmental method’ still has its place, but in a smaller sphere – in decision-making on foreign and security policy, the financial resources of the Union, and some aspects of monetary union.

=Foreign Policy Structures=

We have also put in place new arrangements in the field of foreign policy. We have a new High Representative, also Vice President of the Commission – Baroness Cathy Ashton. She chairs the Foreign Affairs Council and is a member of the European Council: she is thus the only EU person officially in three institutions – the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Council.

The external departments of the Commission and Council will be merged into a new European External Action Service. This will give the EU a more coherent structure for developing and implementing foreign policy – and present a more united face to our partners and allies around the world.

=Transatlantic Perspectives=

Dear Friends,

So we have a new design to the political system of the European Union. The Lisbon Treaty should help Europe better coordinate its policies both internally and externally, and to develop a better way of dealing with the rest of the world.

Critical to our success is the Transatlantic Partnership.
We need each other more than ever before. Neither of us is big enough in today’s global world is achieve our goals on our own.

In this second decade of the 21st century, the relative power of both Europe and the United States – and the rest of the West – is already decreasing.

By the year 2025, OECD countries are expected produce only 40% of the world’s output, compared to well over half at the moment. Asia’s share will increase to 38%, practically on a par with that of the OECD.

The rise of China, India and other new players makes this clear to Europe. In the United States, over the last decade, you have discovered the limits of American power.

How are we to respond? Together, I believe, that we need to take the lead in building and shaping a new form of global governance. I have always liked how my friend Bob Zoellick has put it – that we need to ‘modernise multilateralism’.

The hard truth is that unless the West is united, we will lose the ability to defend and advance our interests and values. If we are united, we can help define international responses, in the G8 or WTO or elsewhere.

Of course, we will not be able to solve all major international challenges on our own. We will need to cooperate – and should want to cooperate – with a range of new partners around the world. Our interdependence can and should make us stronger.

We need to use the Euro-Atlantic partnership to change the way global governance functions. The United States and Europe should play a key leadership role in defining the principles and structures of this new multipolar and multilateral world.

In such a world, America and Europe should still serve as an axis of global stability and enlightened values. I believe we need to use this partnership to put in place the right policies and the right institutions on a world-wide scale.

We all know the difficult challenges we face today – economic insecurity, energy independence, climate change, migration, money-laundering, piracy, and of course terrorism. Common action on these fronts is essential. And in addressing these issues, we will need to find ways of bringing on board, in different ways, Russia, China, India, Brazil and the other new regional powers.

They have to become stakeholders in the new world order, or disorder – so that they can expect to have a genuine sense of ownership in the way policy is set.

The time to do this is now, whilst Europe and America are still powerful enough to make a difference. If we fail, the 21st century will be a century of insecurity and instability for all of us.

Dear Colleagues,

Our transatlantic relationship is already very strong – we have the biggest trade and investment flows in the world. We share the same values – and very many of our interests are the same.

We do have some issues on specific areas of legislation and regulation. You all know the cases – Boeing vs Airbus; Chlorinated Chicken; the REACH directive and recently SWIFT.

We can address those in the Transatlantic Economic Council, but I think we should think bigger than that. We need to set ourselves a more ambitious challenge for the 21st century.

In ten years time let us implement a genuine transatlantic single market, based on the four freedoms which already exist in Europe – the free movement of goods, services, capital and (yes) people.

I would add a fifth freedom, the free movement of knowledge across the Atlantic.

A transatlantic market could build on one of the European Union’s greatest success stories – the single market that we have building continuously for over 50 years.

Yesterday I addressed the US Chamber of Commerce and challenged the business community to put forward their ideas and proposals to achieve such a free market, to look at both sides of the Atlantic as one space of 800 million citizens.

Today I challenge you, the next generation of Americans, to think of a Euro-Atlantic community – a common space where you can live, work and study on either side of this inner sea which is the Atlantic Ocean. That may seem a dream, but our challenge is to change the context and create a new reality.

Next weekend – on 9th May – we will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the famous declaration in Paris by Robert Schuman that lead to the European Coal and Steel Community.

Jean Monnet, who wrote that declaration, once said that ‘everybody is ambitious. The question is whether he is ambitious to be or ambitious to do’.

The pooling of sovereignty over coal and steel, which at the time was the core of a nation’s industry, was an incredibly bold and ambitious project. The six countries that took part changed Europe’s face and Europe’s future.

Today, let us also be ambitious to do. Let us dream not just of a strong Transatlantic Partnership – let us create a genuine Transatlantic Community.

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

Europe unravels in a tangle of national interests.

By Philip Stephens

Published: April 29 2010

Pinn illustration

Watching the slow-motion train crash that is the Greek debt crisis invites the question as to whatever happened to European solidarity. Listening to politicians in Berlin explain that parsimonious German voters will not stomach a bail-out of their spendthrift continental cousins offers only half an answer.

There is more to the story than an angry collision between Greek profligacy and German moral superiority. Behind the proximate threat lies a more unsettling truth. The crisis is symptom as well as cause. For all its upheavals, there used to be something reassuringly ineluctable about the European Union. Now the enterprise is beginning to unravel.

Greece’s predicament, and the response of its eurozone partners, holds dangers on many levels: a sovereign default within the single currency; contagion as markets test the resilience of Portugal, Spain and Ireland; and a breakdown of the political trust and mutual support mechanisms on which the monetary union depends.

As my FT colleague Alan Beattie observed in a searing commentary earlier this week, recent events have underlined also the sheer incompetence of those charged with stewardship of the eurozone.

Given Angela Merkel’s central role, perhaps we should not have been surprised at the vacillation. Berlin’s stumbling response to the collapse of Lehman Brothers provided a template for the ineptitude that has again left the authorities playing catch-up with unforgiving markets.

Lest I am accused by my German friends of taking the side of the sinner against the sinned against, Ms Merkel has right on her side in saying that Athens must not be rewarded for disdaining its solemn obligations to its partners.

It is no use writing cheques unless Greece has a credible fiscal plan.

As Berlin should have learnt, however, there comes a point when finger-wagging becomes self-defeating. The price of righteousness turns out to be chaos; and chaos does not discriminate – as the German banks holding billions of euros of Greek sovereign debt well understand. We sometimes have to live with moral hazard.

More worrying is what all this tells us about the fundamental cohesion of the Union. Until quite recently if someone asked what the EU would look like, say, 20 years hence my reply was that its essential contours would be pretty much unchanged. Sure, my argument would have run, the guiding purpose had changed with the end of the cold war, the reunification of Germany and enlargement to central and eastern Europe. But a collection of middle-ranking powers with common borders, values and interests had sensibly concluded that they were better together than apart.

The rise of new powers – China, India, Brazil and the rest – presaged a much diminished role for Europe on the global stage. Proud nations such as France, Germany, Britain or Spain would not surrender their identities; but they would pursue their interests collectively. Maddening as it could often be, “Europe” would always be around.

That is what I used to think. Even now, I still believe the logic is compelling. Look at any problem touching the peoples of Europe – from crises in the international financial system to global warming, from terrorism and uncontrolled migration to a newly assertive Russia – and they tell the same story. Europeans must act together if they want to exert influence.

For all that, Europe no longer carries the stamp of inevitability. Quite suddenly, it has become almost as easy to foresee a future in which the Union fractures. The risk is not so much of a great rupture – though if Greece defaults the immediate shocks will be profound – but of the atrophy that flows from the absence of political leadership.

European governments still pay lip service to the logic of co-operation; they are no longer willing or able – sometimes both – to admit its implications. They know where their national, and the continent’s, strategic interests lie, but they lack the purpose to marry them.

Germany relishes instead the chance to become a “normal” country, separating what it sees as its national from the European interest. Helmut Kohl’s historical insights are forgotten in the insistence that German taxpayers should not be asked to remain the continent’s paymaster. So too are Berlin’s long-term interests in European-wide political stability and in open markets for its exports.

France struggles with the dynamics of a Union in which more Europe no longer necessarily means more France. Nicolas Sarkozy’s admirable energy is unconnected to strategic purpose. Britain, as ever, stands half on the sidelines. Italy, led by Silvio Berlusconi, has removed itself from influence.

There have been moments of stasis before. But the rules have changed. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of communism have turned an enterprise of necessity into one of choice. If the Union falls into disrepair everyone will still be the loser; but the threat no longer seems an existential one.

The EU has become a victim of one of the awkward paradoxes of globalisation. Even as it robs nation states of power, global interdependence increases the domestic pressure on national politicians to shelter voters from the insecurities of a borderless world.

The response of Europe’s politicians has been to sacrifice the strategic to the tactical. They boast that they can “reclaim” power from the EU – and promise they will not be pushed around by Brussels. This explains Ms Merkel’s Germany-first approach to the single currency; and the reluctance of other leaders to match pieties about Europe’s role in the world with anything resembling common policies.

There is nothing strange or wrong about politicians pursuing national interests. That is what they are paid for. The problem for the EU is that governments now see this as a zero-sum game.

During the era of postwar reconciliation and the cold war the coincidence of national and European interests spoke for itself. Europe’s waning influence in a world no longer owned by the west means that the convergence is as powerful as it has ever been. But without the threat of war or invasion, it is harder to identify. It requires leaders of stature to make a case to their electorates. Look around the continent and there are no such politicians in sight.

philip.stephens@ft.com

More columns at www.ft.com/philipstephens

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

Speech by Professor Jerzy Buzek,President of the European Parliament,Columbia University, New York City
New York – Friday, April 30, 2010

Dear Professors,
Dear Students,
Excellencies,
Dear Friends,

When I look back upon my life I sometimes have to remind myself of the journey we in Central and Eastern Europe took to get here.

As some of you may know my true vocation has always been that of a scientist and academic. I am an Engineer not a political scientist. The science of politics came later in life but my passion has always been knowledge and passing on knowledge to the next generation.

I grew up in a system where art was censored, where history was falsified, and politics had only one colour. I chose science, because even the Communists had to accept the iron discipline of mathematics.

One of your greatest Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, once said that “you can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time”.

The Communist regimes tried to fool all of the people all of the time, but they forgot that liberty, that justice, that human rights, that dignity and solidarity will always beat a lie.

With the entrance of ten new member states to the European Union in 2004 and Romania and Bulgaria in 2007, we have reunited our continent, but more importantly we have reconciled our continent.

Today, we live in a different European Union, one where the President of the European Parliament is from a country that not long ago would imprison me for speaking to you freely, and would probably not give me a passport to come to Columbia University!

Dear Friends,
Over a year into the new Obama administration and now that the new European Parliament, Commission and other office-holders are in place, I think that this is a good moment to reflect on our Euro-Atlantic partnership.

First, let me say a word about the European Parliament. We have been on a rising curve of power over the last quarter century. The new Lisbon Treaty takes that power to the next level.

Already, in most of the routine areas of law-making – such as transport, the environment, employment, the single market, development, intellectual property – the European Parliament has been co-equal with the Council of Ministers for many years. It has long enjoyed a right of veto over EU law.

Now, with Lisbon, we are also co-equal with the Council in agriculture, international trade, and justice and home affairs. Nearly all international agreements, including all trade agreements, now need the Parliament’s approval. We already saw the implications of that on SWIFT which the European Parliament rejected in February.

In effect, like in the United States, we now have an upper chamber and a lower chamber – the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament – in a single legislative system.

Dear Colleagues,
So now that we have an enlarged European Union with a new design to its political system, what are we to use this power in Europe – and your power in the United States – to achieve?

The Lisbon Treaty will help Europe better coordinate its policies both internally and externally – and we hope, help both of us to develop a new way of dealing with the rest of the world.

I believe that together we need a new form of global governance. We need to ‘modernise multilaterism’ – as my friend Bob Zoellick has put it. This is something I have said over the past couple of days in Washington.

In this second decade of the 21st century, the relative power of both Europe and the United States – and the rest of the West – is already decreasing. By the year 2025, OECD countries will produce only 40% of the world’s wealth, as compared to 55% in 2000. Asia’s share will increase to 38%, practically on a par with that of the OECD.

The hard truth is that unless the West is united, we will lose the ability to defend our interests and values. Even then, we will no longer be able to solve major international challenges on our own.

We need to cooperate – with each other, but also with our partners around the world. Our interdependence can and should make us stronger and should not be seen as a threat but as an opportunity.

We need to use the Euro-Atlantic partnership to change the way global governance functions. The United States and Europe can and must take a leadership role in defining the principles and structures of this new multipolar, multilateral world.

We all know the difficult challenges we face today – economic insecurity, energy independence, climate change, migration, terrorism. Common action on these fronts is essential.

And in addressing these issues, we need to find ways of bringing on board Russia, China, India, Brazil and the other new regional powers. They must have a sense of ownership since they too are stakeholders in this world’s governance.

I often use the small example of combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden. For the first time, Chinese war ships operate next to Russian, American, European and South Korean vessels. Why?

Because these pirates are a threat to the 30 000 ships which sail through this passage. Ships which are bound for Europe, and Asia.

But in such a world, America and Europe must still serve as an axis of global stability and enlightened values. We are home to the world’s most successful democracies. I believe we need to use this partnership to put in place the right policies and the right institutions on a global scale.

We represent 60% of the world’s GDP. If we have the right policies, the rest will follow. If we fail to work together the 21st century will be a century of insecurity and instability for all of us.

I believe fundamentally that the EU’s unique model of sharing sovereignty – of promoting common solidarity and common responsibility – is working well and can be a model for the rest of the world.

Dear Colleagues,
But we have to think bigger than that.

Next week is the 60th Anniversary of the Schuman Declaration, when six countries pooled sovereignty over coal and steel, making war between them virtually impossible and laying the foundation of today’s EU.

Schuman said that ‘Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity”  He was right.
.
We also need concrete achievements for our Euro-Atlantic relationship. It is time for us to think of creating a true transatlantic free market, so that the Atlantic Ocean becomes an inner sea, a mare nostrum, between America and Europe.

Our trade relations are already 95% problem free, we respect each others regulations, customs and laws. Our legislators and our executives talk and negotiate with each other non-stop.

It is time to create a space of freedom so that 800 million people can benefit from our relationship. An area based on the four freedoms we have in Europe – free movement of people, goods, services and capital.

I am convinced that this should be the next step in the evolution of our partnership. It is a dream, but it is up to you, the next generation of Europeans and Americans to make it a reality.

Thank you for your attention.
 http://www.ep-president.eu/president/vie…

###