We know that most paper nominated the American Robert Dudley to replace Tony Hayward at the helm of the sinking BP.
After all one third of the company’s oil and gas wells, refineries and other business interests are in the US, and no less then 40% of its shareholders are in the US – and you bet – the major known disaster they are part of is in the US. So, will an American at top help quiet down the anti-foreigner sentiment projected at Hayward?

But then the following article tells us that this is a case fit to push a woman to the top – if you wish – over the cliff – thus scoring points somehow in a lost situation. You see – women can advance and take over the job from failed men? Will this then hold up? Will it be a fitting American Woman of  Texas – or Alaska – may be?

Tony Hayward Out at BP; Don’t Be Surprised If They Pick a Woman to Replace Him.

http://www.fastcompany.com/1674475/tony-hayward-out-at-bp-dont-be-surprised-if-they-pick-a-woman-to-replace-him

———————————————————————————————————————

Day 96 to the Macondo Blow-out: Tony Hayward Out at BP; Don’t Be Surprised If They Pick a Woman to Replace Him.

BY Anya Kamenetz July 26, 2010.

Tony Hayward is reported to be out as the CEO of BP, with a sweet 600,000-pound pension waiting for him (that’s $928K) as a “reward” for not only presiding over the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but performing like a whiny schoolboy in the weeks and months since. “I want my life back”? Congratulations, you’ve got it.

If history is any guide, BP may well choose a woman to replace him. During the recent financial crisis and recession, women emerged as the go-to turnaround leadership candidates for institutions and nations in trouble. Carol Bartz as CEO of the embattled Yahoo. Mary Schapiro as head of the beleaguered SEC. Elin Sigfusdottir and Birna Einarsdottir, appointed to run two (out of three) of Iceland’s nationalized banks (New Landsbanki and New Glitni), after the collapse of the country’s financial system and Johanna Sigurdardottir as the nation’s interim prime minister–both the first-ever female head of state in Iceland and the first openly gay head of state anywhere. Elizabeth Warren, currently the leading candidate to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and try to make sense of the hash of consumer financial protections. Even at BP itself, before Cynthia Warner left to head biofuels startup Sapphire Energy, she was made the head of a new health, safety, and security group in BP’s refining sector in response to the 2005 Texas City disaster (unfortunately, she apparently failed to have a lasting impact on the oil company with the worst safety and environmental record in the Big Six).

Michelle Ryan and Alex Haslam, two British social psychologists, say these kind of barbed opportunities are all too commonly offered to women. They call this phenomenon “the glass cliff.”

In 2008, the S&P 500 fell 38.5%, its worst year since 1937. But the average large company run by a woman was down four points more–42.7%. Women’s average tenure as CEOs tends to be lower and stock performance worse.

Ryan and Haslam’s studies have found the reason behind this: It’s not that women are categorically worse leaders, but that they are disproportionately hired as CEOs only at firms that have been struggling for years. High-flying companies almost never appointed women to top positions. Their controlled experiments confirm that professionals in the business, legal, and academic worlds are far more likely to choose a woman for a leadership role when the enterprise’s chances are dicey.

The glass cliff is a dangerous corollary to the glass ceiling. For many complex reasons, women–along with other outsiders like minorities–tend to be handed the chance to lead only when an enterprise is already on a downward spiral. If BP decides to go this way, you heard it here first.

BARGEMUSIC REVISITED.

We posted the following two weeks ago, and said at the time that we will return to the Barge that is moored at Fulton Ferry Landing under the Brooklyn Bridge in Brooklyn, NY.

Our target was going to be “The HERE AND NOW Series in Celebration of Terry Riley’s 75th Birthday.

See also www.bargemusic.org

Our previous posting was:

UPDATED – With Climate Change and a local government that does not care, a decreasing quality of public transportation, scorched at 103 F (39.4 C), New York City has nevertheless BARGEMUSIC. The Innovative spirit of its people does not give up. Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on July 13th, 2010
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)
Posted in Art Performance reviews, Eco Friendly Tourism, Future Events, New York, Reporting From the UN Headquarters in New York ?
 Meher Baba.

The performers where THE VOXARE QUARTET that included: Emily Ondracek-Peterson and Galina Zhdanova – violins,
Erik Peterson – viola, and Adrian Daurov – cello. The spirited young performers seemed to enjoy thoroughly the event and took turns in explaining the music’s background – something that in itself enhanced the audience’s understanding and enjoyment.

Legendary American composer, Terry Riley – DigiDan, 18 Mar 2010

Terrence Mitchell Riley, born June 24, 1935, in California, is an American composer associated with the minimalist school of Western classical music. He is usually mentioned together with Steve Reich and Philip Glass. However – His most influential teacher, however, was Pandit Pran Nath (1918–1996), a master of Indian classical voice, who also taught La Monte Young and Marian Zazeela. Riley made numerous trips to India over the course of their association to study and to accompany him on tabla, tambura, and voice. Throughout the 1960s he traveled frequently around Europe as well, taking in musical influences and supporting himself by playing in piano bars, until he joined the Mills College faculty in 1971 to teach Indian classical music.
Riley was awarded an Honorary Doctorate Degree in Music at Chapman University in 2007.

The Voxare presenters took the stand that it is incorrect to call Terry Riley a minimalist and at times it seemed indeed that he simply expanded classic music by introducing new elements and being ready to experiments that when picked up later by other composers led to the revolutionary 1960s in American music.

The first piece on Friday -  “Sunrise of the Planetary Dream Collector,” was composed in 1980 for the Kronos Quartet, a result of a longtime collaboration of Mr. Riley’s and included improvisations based on North Indian raga instead of formal composition, but then we were told that at Kronos’s insistence he notated the score for “Sunrise.” Still, as Ms. Ondracek explained gaily, he wrote sections of the score on different sheets of paper so the performers could decide the order of performance. The Voxare Quartet offered a high-energy performance, vividly conveying the work’s beautiful angles. It started with something that sounded like American folklore fiddles and felt like a wakening up. The two Russian-background violinist ladies really tore into the music with gusto, followed by the cello and then the viola. I got the impression that the music was debating with itself and had a lot of internal life. Eventually we had a return to the opening notes. Was this the improvisation of Voxare?

The second piece on Friday was the 1960 String Quartet. That was pure minimalism – or I do not understand the term. It was about the San Francisco Harbor foghorns. The sound came mainly from the cello, and the whole piece, considering the Barge-location was the most appropriate thing you could imagine The barge was swaying as there was a bit of rain outside – and it was a foghorn – pure and simple.

The third piece on Friday was “The Wheel / Mythic Birds Waltz.” This piece is post-Indian period of Mr. Riley and it was a result of improvisation on a piano with Indian and Jazz references and I felt that at times moved over to sound like bells and a Bela Bartok  gypsy ending.

After Intermission, on Friday, the fourth piece was G-song that  in effect was the result of a commission he got for music for a French movie. It had sort of a melancholic feeling to it and I wonder what was that movie about.

The fifth Terry Riley piece we heard on Sunday – it was “Cortejo Funebre en el Monte Diablo” from his 1998 “Requiem for Adam” the son of David Harrington of the Kronos Quartet. Young Adam died of a heart ailment.

The music starts with bell sounds and a tape of trumpets moves in. It turns out that what we hear are electronically generated sounds – this is music of a different kind. The violins move in – then the quartet stops and the funeral proceeds. It was an all around fascinating piece.

David Harrington formed Kronos after hearing George Crumb’s Black Angels, a powerful piece about the Vietnam war; ever since he has sought to give voice to twentieth century composers all over the world. At this moment there are hundreds of pieces being commissioned by them.

The Kronos have performed pieces by Thelonious Monk, John Zorn, Philip Glass, Charles Ives, Dmitri Yanovsky, Scott Johnson, Terry Riley, and a slew of European and African composers. With a balance of fervid dedication, spirituality, and a liberal sense of humor, the Kronos Quartet have taken on the awesome responsibility of saving an entire musical universe.

They have released Howl U.S.A, a grim portrait of the dark side of America, in which the The Kronos passionately accompany the voices of J. Edgar Hoover, Harry Partch, I.F. Stone, and Allen Ginsberg.

For the past twenty years the Kronos Quartet have performed music that expresses the anxiety, tension, ferocious energy and mystic yearnings in the twentieth century.

Single-handed they have saved a genre (the string quartet) that was well on its path to extinction.

With a cover Jimi Hendrix’s Purple Haze, spiffy outfits, and hip hairdos they have widened the audience of quartet music from those who were well schooled in public classrooms about classical music, to those who barely get the Bugs Bunny “Kill the Wabbit” reference to Wagner. Baby boomers and hip college students flock to the Kronos, craving music that is truly contemporary — a bracing change from dinosaur genres like classic rock. Terry Riley loved what they were doing.

The sixth Riley piece, or the second on Sunday, was “Cadenza on a Night Plain.” This is a masterpiece of early 1994 with Upper Mid-West and Native America influences. Each section is different – a different Cadenza. Mr. Peterson, the viola player, likened his section as “March of the Old-Timers.” He said that the directions say “Stoned Enthusiasm” then “Marching to more serious matters” – “which might mean smoking reef.”

————–

The add-ons were:

The Lou Harrison’s – 1917-2003 – striking “String Quartet Set” (1979), “Variations on Walter von der Vogelweide” revealed, we were told, Mr. Harrison’s joint interest with Terry Riley in nature and old music. The score had  five-movement piece ranges from the melancholy “Plaint” to the exuberant “Estampie,” which uses the cello as a percussive instrument. The performance was excellent, with distinctive contributions from each player. It ended with Usul – or a Turkish coda.

–

Steve Reich, the opening piece on Sunday, “Different Trains” of 1988 – for String Quartet and Tape – the Tape at times being just talk and at other times further sound.

Steve Reich, born in 1936, was recently called  “our greatest living composer” (The New York Times), “America’s greatest living composer.” (The Village VOICE), “…the most original musical thinker of our time” (The New
Yorker) and “…among the great composers of the century” (The New York Times)…  http://www.stevereich.com/

The particular piece we hear on Sunday has to do with his upbringing that involved commuting by train between New York and Los Angeles as his divorced parents, both of them, shared in custody over him – so – he was having this privilege of traveling often – coast to coast by train. That was until 1942 – eventually he learned about refugees from Europe arriving to New York and going also by train to the West Coast or wherever.

The piece has three parts – America before the war – Europe during the war – America after the war.

This is not just about a Jewish boy shuttling between his two parents – but about Holocaust and its effects – the fortunate ones traveling on the same train with him – here in the US.

It is a clearly difficult concept but he came up with some appropriate music. At times it sounded to me like Robert Wilson’s shows – whoever the composer – perhaps Philip Glass? There is a repetitiveness in the background that does not allow us to forget!

The second part – in what I heard – ended in Smoke. The instrumentation called for violins being stroked by the bows backwards – the resultant sounds quite unusual.

The third part – after the war – had happier sounds.

–

THE WHO -

The piece is based  on Graceland and Pete Townshend with a concept of a commune Rock farm in Ireland had it at 90 minutes length but Maher Baba reworked it and we had delightful 7 minutes. It was a real winner.

It started with Mr. and Mrs. Peterson fiddling with gusto the viola and violin and no joke – it seemed that as they went on with more force, the barge reacted and started to sway stronger – then a huge barge showed up and we realized that this was not from heaven. The piece was a clear winner and the applause laud.
 http://www.google.com/search?client=gmai…

“Baba O’Riley” is a song by the English rock band The Who, written by Pete Townshend. – Roger Daltrey sings most of the song, with Pete Townshend singing the middle eight: “Don’t cry/don’t raise your eye/it’s only teenage wasteland”. The title of the song is derived from this combination of the song’s philosophical and musical influences: Meher Baba and Terry Riley. –

Townshend originally wrote “Baba O’Riley” for his Lifehouse project, a rock opera that was to be the follow-up to The Who’s 1969 opera, Tommy. The song was derived from a nine minute demo, which the band reconstructed. “Baba O’Riley” was going to be used in the Lifehouse project as a song sung by Ray, the Scottish farmer at the beginning of the album as he gathers his wife Sally and his two children to begin their exodus to London. When Lifehouse was scrapped, many of the songs were released on The Who’s 1971 album Who’s Next. “Baba O’Riley” became the first track on Who’s Next. The song was released as a single in several European countries, but in the United States and the United Kingdom was only released as part of the album.

Baba O’Riley Lyrics
Artist(Band):The Who

Out here in the fields
I fight for my meals
I get my back into my living.

I don’t need to fight
To prove I’m right
I don’t need to be forgiven.
yeah,yeah,yeah,yeah,yeah

Don’t cry
Don’t raise your eye
It’s only teenage wasteland

Sally, take my hand
We’ll travel south cross land
Put out the fire
And don’t look past my shoulder.

The exodus is here
The happy ones are near
Let’s get together
Before we get much older.

Teenage wasteland
It’s only teenage wasteland.
Teenage wasteland
Oh, yeah
Its only teenage wasteland
They’re all wasted!

——————————————–

A trip to the lower levels of Brooklyn Heights is always a joy not to be missed. Slowly, the area is being reclaimed from the old port slips. Next to the barge there is the Ice Cream Factory, and on the other side the Bridge Cafe. You can get a bite and sip wine in the open – be it 98 degrees Fahrenheit. Further there is the Bridge Restaurant.

If you love Pizza – the best this side of the ocean is to be had at GRIMALDI’S – old country – real Coal-Brick Oven Pizzeria “Under the Brooklyn Bridge.” But know ye all – the lines to this pizzeria are a block long and you can rent a chair for two dollars if you prefer to sit rather then stand in line. But, trust me – it is worth the effort – once in your life-time. For me it was a Pizza pie with extra cheese and fresh garlic cloves and a Peroni beer for a total of $28.

If you really do not want to undergo the above – let me suggest the Tutt Cafe – as in King Tutt - www.tuttcafe.com, at 47 Hicks St. where I got an excellent Merguez Pitza (that must be the old Egyptian spelling of the pie, and the Merguez is Moroccan lamb sausage), and my wife got a spicy Falafel Wrap (not a pocket) – all of it for $16 total.

——————————————-

Richard Termine for The New York Times

Voxare Quartet: From left, Emily Ondracek, Galina Zhdanova, Adrian Daurov and Erik Peterson playing a Bargemusic concert in Brooklyn. The East River in the background. The picture was taken at the Friday night concert. During the Saturday afternoon concert – there was some rain and the visual effect grey.

We did not post anything for a while on the Palestinian/Israeli front and now we find that the public opinion in Israel seems to move to a consensus strangely initiated by the person the Israelis mostly love to hate. Oh well, this is also progress.

———–

On Avigdor Lieberman – the man in Israel’s Foreign Ministry – Neither Yvet nor Rasputin.

Since his rise to power, Lieberman has crafted a double image, on the one hand he is a force strengthening the Likud, on the other he is virtually the only statesman with a sober, long-range view.

By Yoel Marcus of HAARETZ, Israel

July 20, 2010
 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opi…

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

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

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

—————————-

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

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

INNOVATION LABORATORY ON REBUILDING TRUST!

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

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

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

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

—————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Other three members of the panel were:

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

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

————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————————-

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

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

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

———————–

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

————

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

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

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

THIS IS A VIDEO WE RECOMMEND YOU WATCH!

We Con the World (LatmaTV production) -

We Con the World (LatmaTV production)

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

Green Energy Can Spur Ireland’s Return To Growth.
March 29, 2010, Ireland
By Barbara Lewis

Renewable energy should play a major role in spurring Ireland back to growth now the government and economy are both showing signs of stability, Ireland’s energy minister said in an interview.

Eamon Ryan kept his post as minister for communications, energy and natural resources in a cabinet reshuffle last week after intense media speculation of tensions between the governing parties, Fianna Fail and junior coalition partner the Green Party, to which Ryan belongs.

Ryan said he felt the government and the economy were on a more stable footing.

“We went through so many difficult decisions last year with regard to banking and the Lisbon Treaty (on streamlining EU institutions). That gives a certain stability and the feeling we have the ability to get over difficult issues,” he told Reuters on the sidelines of the Green Party conference in Waterford, southeastern Ireland, at the weekend.

“I’d be reasonably confident that we would start to see the economy turning slightly and that we will start to see the government get a reasonable amount of stability.”

Economists have shared the government view that growth would resume in the second half of this year, although figures last week showed the economy had shrunk more than expected late last year.

Renewable energy and the kind of innovative approach labeled the “smart economy” have a huge part to play in stimulating Ireland’s economy, Ryan said.

So far, around 12,000 new jobs in renewables and the smart economy have been created of the 120,000 targeted by the government for 2020.

The country has also set itself a goal of sourcing 40 percent of its electricity from renewables by 2020, and Ryan said this could be exceeded, allowing Ireland to switch from being 90 percent dependent on imported fossil fuel to an energy exporter.

“We can get 40 percent of renewable electricity on the system in the next 10 years,” he said. “We think we can beat that target. No problem at all. We should become a renewable energy exporter.”

Ireland’s deep financial problems should not hinder funding, he said, as the private sector had proved willing to finance “bankable” projects, especially as costs had begun to fall.

COMPETITIVE WIND

“It’s becoming competitive. It’s what’s getting funding. It’s what’s getting built,” he said of wind farms.

“The advantage we have is that we have very competitive power. The support required is substantially lower than in, say, Britain. The wind is significantly stronger. We have some of the best wind resources in the world.”

Ryan consistently emphasized the pragmatic as well as the ideological and said the experience of Greens in government elsewhere — in Finland and previously in Germany — proved “there is certainly realpolitik in the Green Party.”

Ryan, who used to run a green tourism cycling business, said he wanted to see green money-making at the heart of Dublin’s business district and cited the government initiative to set up a green International Financial Services Center (IFSC) for carbon trading and green fund management, for instance.

“There is a whole plethora of green financial activities,” he said. “It is being pursued as a government initiative under the auspices of the existing IFSC.”

From Uri Avnery

29.8.09 

                        titled: Tutu’s Prayer 

HOW MUCH did the boycott of South Africa actually contribute to the fall of the racist regime? This week I talked with Desmond Tutu about this question, which has been on my mind for a long time. 

No one is better qualified to answer this question than he. Tutu, the South African Anglican archbishop and Nobel prize laureate, was one of the leaders of the fight against apartheid and, later, the chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission which investigated the crimes of the regime. This week he visited Israel with the “Elders”, an organization of elder statesmen from all over the world set up by Nelson Mandela. 

The matter of the boycott came up again this week after an article by Dr. Neve Gordon appeared in the Los Angeles Times, calling for a world-wide boycott of Israel. He cited the example of South Africa to show how a world-wide boycott could compel Israel to put an end to the occupation, which he compared to the apartheid regime. 

I have known and respected Neve Gordon for many years. Before becoming a lecturer at Ben Gurion University in Beersheba, he organized many demonstrations against the Separation Wall in the Jerusalem area, in which I, too, took part. 

I am sorry that I cannot agree with him this time – neither about the similarity with South Africa nor about the efficacy of a boycott of Israel. 

There are several opinions about the contribution of the boycott to the success of the anti-apartheid struggle. According to one view, it was decisive. Another view claims its impact was marginal. Some believe that it was the collapse of the Soviet Union that was the decisive factor. After that, the US and its allies no longer had any reason for support the regime in South Africa, which until then had been viewed as a pillar of the world-wide struggle against Communism. 
 

“THE BOYCOTT was immensely important,” Tutu told me. “Much more than the armed struggle.”  

It should be remembered that, unlike Mandela, Tutu was an advocate of non-violent struggle. During the 28 years Mandela languished in prison, he could have walked free at any moment, if he had only agreed to sign a statement condemning “terrorism”. He refused. 

“The importance of the boycott was not only economic,” the archbishop explained, “but also moral. South Africans are, for example, crazy about sports. The boycott, which prevented their teams from competing abroad, hit them very hard. But the main thing was that it gave us the feeling that we are not alone, that the whole world is with us. That gave us the strength to continue.” 

To show the importance of the boycott he told me the following story: In 1989, the moderate white leader, Frederic Willem de Klerk, was elected President of South Africa. Upon assuming office he declared his intention to set up a multiracial regime. “I called to congratulate him, and the first thing he said was: Will you now call off the boycott?” 
 

IT SEEMS to me that Tutu’s answer emphasizes the huge difference between the South African reality at the time and ours today. 

The South African struggle was between a large majority and a small minority. Among a general population of almost 50 million, the Whites amounted to less than 10%. That means that more than 90% of the country’s inhabitants supported the boycott, in spite of the argument that it hurt them, too. 

In Israel, the situation is the very opposite. The Jews amount to more than 80% of Israel’s citizens, and constitute a majority of some 60% throughout the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. 99.9% of the Jews oppose a boycott on Israel. 

They will not feel the “the whole world is with us”, but rather that “the whole world is against us”.  

In South Africa, the world-wide boycott helped in strengthening the majority and steeling it for the struggle. The impact of a boycott on Israel would be the exact opposite: it would push the large majority into the arms of the extreme right and create a fortress mentality against the “anti-Semitic world”. (The boycott would, of course, have a different impact on the Palestinians, but that is not the aim of those who advocate it.) 

Peoples are not the same everywhere. It seems that the Blacks in South Africa are very different from the Israelis, and from the Palestinians, too. The collapse of the oppressive racist regime did not lead to a bloodbath, as could have been predicted, but on the contrary: to the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Committee. Instead of revenge, forgiveness.

Those who appeared before the commission and admitted their misdeeds were pardoned. That was in tune with Christian belief, and that was also in tune with the Jewish Biblical promise: “Whoso confesseth and forsaketh [his sins] shall have mercy.” (Proverbs 28:13)  

I told the bishop that I admire not only the leaders who chose this path but also the people who accepted it. 
 

ONE OF the profound differences between the two conflicts concerns the Holocaust. 

Centuries of pogroms have imprinted on the consciousness of the Jews the conviction that the whole world is out to get them. This belief was reinforced a hundredfold by the Holocaust.

Every Jewish Israeli child learns in school that “the entire world was silent” when the six million were murdered. This belief is anchored in the deepest recesses of the Jewish soul. Even when it is dormant, it is easy to arouse it. 

(That is the conviction which made it possible for Avigdor Lieberman, last week, to accuse the entire Swedish nation of cooperating with the Nazis, because of one idiotic article in a Swedish tabloid.) 

It may well be that the Jewish conviction that “the whole world is against us” is irrational. But in the life of nations, as indeed in the life of individuals, it is irrational to ignore the irrational. 

The Holocaust will have a decisive impact on any call for a boycott of Israel. The leaders of the racist regime in South Africa openly sympathized with the Nazis and were even interned for this in World War II. Apartheid was based on the same racist theories as inspired Adolf Hitler. It was easy to get the civilized world to boycott such a disgusting regime. The Israelis, on the other hand, are seen as the victims of Nazism. The call for a boycott will remind many people around the world of the Nazi slogan “Kauft nicht bei Juden!” – don’t buy from Jews. 

That does not apply to every kind of boycott. Some 11 years ago, the Gush Shalom movement, in which I am active, called for a boycott of the product of the settlements. Its intention was to separate the settlers from the Israeli public, and to show that there are two kinds of Israelis. The boycott was designed to strengthen those Israelis who oppose the occupation, without becoming anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic. Since then, the European Union has been working hard to close the gates of the EU to the products of the settlers, and almost nobody has accused it of anti-Semitism. 
 

ONE OF the main battlefields in our fight for peace is Israeli public opinion. Most Israelis believe nowadays that peace is desirable but impossible (because of the Arabs, of course.) We must convince them not that peace would be good for Israel, but that it is realistically achievable.  

When the archbishop asked what we, the Israeli peace activists, are hoping for, I told him: We hope for Barack Obama to publish a comprehensive and detailed peace plan and to use the full persuasive power of the United States to convince the parties to accept it. We hope that the entire world will rally behind this endeavor. And we hope that this will help to set the Israeli peace movement back on its feet and convince our public that it is both possible and worthwhile to follow the path of peace with Palestine. 

No one who entertains this hope can support the call for boycotting Israel. Those who call for a boycott act out of despair. And that is the root of the matter. 

Neve Gordon and his partners in this effort have despaired of the Israelis. They have reached the conclusion that there is no chance of changing Israeli public opinion. According to them, no salvation will come from within. One must ignore the Israeli public and concentrate on mobilizing the world against the State of Israel. (Some of them believe anyhow that the State of Israel should be dismantled and replaced by a bi-national state.) 

I do not share either view – neither the despair of the Israeli people, to which I belong, nor the hope that the world will stand up and compel Israel to change its ways against its will. For this to happen, the boycott must gather world-wide momentum, the US must join it, the Israeli economy must collapse and the morale of the Israeli public must break. 

How long will this take? Twenty Years? Fifty years? Forever? 
 

I AM afraid that this is an example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy. 

True, the Israeli occupation and the South African apartheid system have certain similar characteristics. In the West Bank, there are roads “for Israelis only”. But the Israeli policy is not based on race theories, but on a national conflict. A small but significant example: in South Africa, a white man and a black woman (or the other way round) could not marry, and sexual relations between them were a crime. In Israel there is no such prohibition. On the other hand, an Arab Israeli citizen who marries an Arab woman from the occupied territories (or the other way round) cannot bring his or her spouse to Israel. The reason: safeguarding the Jewish majority in Israel. Both cases are reprehensible, but basically different. 

In South Africa there was total agreement between the two sides about the unity of the country. The struggle was about the regime. Both Whites and Blacks considered themselves South Africans and were determined to keep the country intact. The Whites did not want partition, and indeed could not want it, because their economy was based on the labor of the Blacks. 

In this country, Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have nothing in common – not a common national feeling, not a common religion, not a common culture and not a common language. The vast majority of the Israelis want a Jewish (or Hebrew) state. The vast majority of the Palestinians want a Palestinian (or Islamic) state. Israel is not dependent on Palestinian workers – on the contrary, it drives the Palestinians out of the working place. Because of this, there is now a world-wide consensus that the solution lies in the creation of the Palestinian state next to Israel.     

In short: the two conflicts are fundamentally different. Therefore, the methods of struggle, too, must necessarily be different. 
 

BACK TO the archbishop, an attractive person whom it is impossible not to like on sight. He told me that he prays frequently, and that his favorite prayer goes like this (I quote from memory): 

“Dear God, when I am wrong, please make me willing to see my mistake. And when I am right – please make me tolerable to live with.” 
 

————–

To the above excellent review, and clear rejection of the idea that an international boycott will achieve anything beyond making it more difficult to obtain eventually a solution in the Arab-Israeli conflict, I would like to add that among the group of ELDERS that came to Israel was also the Former President of Ireland  (1990-1997) Mary Robinson,  who said according to reports in the media, that if Israel misses the opportunity to reach out for a two-states solution, the alternative is then a one-state solution, and this alternative will hurt the future of Israel much more.

Even though many Israelis do not regard her as a friend of Israel, this because of positions she took as the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights (1997-2002), nevertheless, her comments here must be taken seriously by Israelis with the country’s real self interest at heart. 

The following are the top 28 finalists in the Official 2009 New 7 Wonders of Nature competition – nominated from among hundreds of sites around the world that have been proposed.

Dutch Put Anti-Immigration Party in EU Parliament.

By Jurjen van de Pol, June 5, 2009, Bloomberg.

        Dutch voters gave the Freedom Party of Geert Wilders, the lawmaker who made a film linking the Koran to violence, its first seats in the European Parliament, preliminary results showed.

Wilders’ party received 17 percent of the votes or four of the 25 Dutch seats, participating in the European polls for the first time yesterday, news agency ANP reported, citing preliminary results. The Freedom Party aims to reduce European Union influence, curb immigration and reject Turkey’s membership in the bloc.

The Irish and Czechs will cast their votes today. Final results will be released June 7 after all 27 EU nations have voted.

While Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende’s Christian Democratic Alliance remains the largest party, the vote indicated the ruling coalition risks losing its majority in the Dutch parliament after yesterday’s vote suggests the Freedom Party was the country’s second largest.

“The cabinet should step down, the sooner the better,” Wilders told Dutch public television NOS. Dutch parliamentary elections are scheduled for 2011.

The worst recession since World War II may spur voters across Europe to seek alternatives to established parties for the bloc’s legislature.

Libertas, which opposed the EU treaty in a referendum in Ireland, may win seats today for the first time. In Austria, the anti-immigration Freedom Party will pick up two seats and in France a new anti-capitalist party will gain seven, forecasts by a group of scholars show. “People are fed up with a large Europe as it is now and with Turkey possibly joining,” Wilders told NOS.

————-

Police Protection:

U.K. authorities in February refused entry to Wilders after he defied a travel ban and flew into Britain for a screening of his movie “Fitna.” Wilders said in a newspaper editorial the Koran was “fascist” and should be banned. The lawmaker, who receives police protection around the clock, faces trial in his own country on charges of inciting hatred.

The Netherlands and the U.K. were the first of the European Union member states to cast their vote for the Brussels and Strasbourg-based parliament, which oversees business and environmental regulations while leaving foreign and finance policy largely in national hands. Only the Dutch publish preliminary results the same day.

Balkenende’s Christian Democratic Alliance received 19.9 percent of the votes compared with 24.4 percent in 2004 and dropped to five from seven seats, according to the preliminary results. The Labor Party of Finance Minister Wouter Bos has been overtaken by the Freedom Party. The party received three seats (12.1 percent) after gaining seven seats (23.6 percent) in the previous election.

The Netherlands controls 25 seats in the 736-member European Parliament, compared with 27 in 2004, as the total numbers of assembly seats is reduced. Dutch turnout fell to 36.5 percent from 39 percent five years ago, ANP said after 99.7 percent of the votes have been counted.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jurjen van de Pol in Amsterdam at  jvandepol at bloomberg.net

————-

A breakdown of the seat distribution in the new 736-seat European Parliament per member state in the 27-nation EU bloc. Seats are distributed based on representation by population.

Under treaty rules, the size of the EU assembly falls from the outgoing 785-seat chamber to streamline the legislature’s work to the above 736 total:

_ Germany: 82.4 million people, 99 seats
_ France: 62.9 million, 72
_ Britain: 60.4 million, 72
_ Italy: 58.7 million, 72
_ Spain: 43.76 million, 50
_ Poland: 38.2 million, 50
_ Romania: 21.6 million, 33
_ Netherlands: 16.3 million, 25
_ Greece: 11.1 million, 22
_ Portugal: 10.6 million, 22
_ Belgium: 10.5 million , 22
_ Czech Republic: 10.3 million, 22
_ Hungary: 10 million, 22
_ Sweden: 9 million, 18
_ Austria: 8.3 million, 17
_ Bulgaria: 7.7 million, 17
_ Denmark: 5.4 million, 13
_ Slovakia: 5.4 million, 13
_ Finland: 5.3 million, 13
_ Ireland: 4.2 million, 12
_ Lithuania: 3.4 million, 12
_ Latvia: 2.3 million, 8
_ Slovenia: 2.0 million, 7
_ Estonia: 1.3 million, 6
_ Cyprus: 0,7 million, 6
_ Luxembourg: 0,5 million, 6
_ Malta: 0.4 million, 5

———————-

Astonishing – the reaction from the European Commission to the Dutch results:

05.06.2009 – 15:00 on the EUobserver -
Commission criticises Dutch for early results publication
 http://euobserver.com/9/28250/?rk=1

——————–

Open Democracy, June 5, 2009,   questions the sense of the European Parliament these days of such low interest by voters in the member states:

The European parliament: problem, and solution – The sacrifice of an institution without a purpose would strengthen the European Union itself, says Anand Menon.

To read the full article please look at:   http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the…

THE NEW EMERGENCY CONFERENCE:

Managing risk and building resilience in a resource-constrained world.

All Hallows College, Dublin, 10th -12th June, 2009

Climate change is not the only emergency at present. The peak in world oil production and the global recession are among many that come to mind. Normally, each crisis is discussed in isolation from the others. The New Emergency Conference, however, has been planned on the basis that they are all inter-linked and have common systemic roots.

It will cover such topics as:
how money systems need to be changed to cope with greatly reduced levels of fossil fuel use,
the possibility of using biochar to turn the world’s land into a CO2 sink rather than a source,
the global governance structures required for a climate agreement, and
the rate at which the the world’s net supply of energy might decline in view of the increasing energy inputs required to produce it.

Other topics include reshaping food production, rural bio-refineries, the Transition Towns movement, and the taxes and new forms of enterprise ownership which make the transition easier to bring about.

The workshop discussions will look for synergies between these possible solutions.

Among the energy and climate-related speakers are:

Alex Evans, whose Center for International Co-operation report on climate change and global institutional reform has just been published, will present the case for a basing a solution to the climate crisis on a scientifically-derived stabilisation target which shares the global carbon budget out between the world’s nations according to a transparent, equitable formula. He also wants a far more rigorous compliance regime than that for Kyoto.

Chris Vernon, European editor of The Oil Drum, will survey the prospects for oil, gas and coal supplies over the next 50 years. He will argue that, because the energy cost of producing these fuels is rising as more difficult sources have to be used, the actual amount of energy that will be available for other purposes will fall off more quickly than has been recognised so far.

Dmitry Orlov, author of Reinventing Collapse, will explain why efforts to extend the lifetime of   the industrial, fossil fuel-based economy are misguided and will fail. He will then present alternatives, describing how patterns of land use can be transformed into patterns of habitat creation and how informal local networks of sustainable non-fossil-fuel-based production and distribution can be created .

David Korowicz, a climate physicist, will document the growth of complexity in trade and financial networks and in the various types of infrastructure. He sees the collapse process as a system of re-inforcing feedbacks which mean that investment in energy and r&d cannot be maintained and supply chains and IT networks break down.

Richard Douthwaite, the author of The Growth Illusion, will look at the problems created by the availability of cheap energy. He believes it shaped capitalism and our monetary systems, led manufacturers and farmers to adopt unsustainable technologies, and permitted a six-fold increase in the human population while concentrating power and wealth in very few hands.

Julian Darley, founder of the Post Carbon Institute, will review the non-economic factors which influence decisions-making. He will explain how a knowledge of them can be used to get new systems introduced. The factors include culture, social and individual psychology, business and political fashions, perceptions of what will be publicly acceptable, and what other opinion leaders and decision-makers are thinking and doing.

Full details of the conference, which is organised by Feasta, the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability, can be found at http://www.thenewemergency.org/

Bono Gives Palestine an Inaugural Celebration Shout Out
Posted by John Nichols, The Nation, January 19, 2009.

This is “… an Irish dream, a European dream, an African dream … an Israeli dream … and also a Palestinian dream.”

The ‘We Are One’ Obama Inaugural Celebration concert at the Lincoln Memorial Sunday was carefully choreographed to be light on politics. This was always intended as a feel-good event, and it was.

But U2 frontman Bono gave the crowd at least a little something to think about.

***

Toward the end of the concert that drew half a million people to cheer Bruce Springsteen and Pete Seeger (singing a spirited “This Land Is Your Land”), Mary J. Blige, Stevie Wonder and the president-elect, U2 took the stage.

Before launching into “Pride (In The Name Of Love,” the band’s tribute to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.,) Bono noted that the crowd was gathered on the mall where King delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech.

“Let freedom ring. On this spot where we’re standing 46 years ago Dr. King had a dream. On Tuesday, that dream comes to pass,” before launching into ‘Pride (In The Name Of Love)’, U2′s tribute to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

“This is not just an American dream,” he said, adding that it was “also an Irish dream, a European dream, an African dream… an Israeli dream… and also a Palestinian dream.”

***

The mention of the Palestinians, in this semi-official setting, with Barack Obama sitting just a few feet away, will not change the circumstance on the ground in Gaza. It is unlikely to inspire a more engaged or functional U.S. policy with regard to the Middle East.

But Bono deserves a measure of credit for reminding the partygoers that peace and justice, for Israel and Palestine is a part of the dream.

Austrian minister quits over EU referendum clause.
VALENTINA POP

25.11.2008   the EUobserver – Austria’s pro-European foreign minister Ursula Plassnik has refused to be part of the country’s new governing coalition because it did not rule out future referendums on EU treaties.

“I was not ready to serve as an EU warranty or fig leaf for a government where some of its members do not distance themselves enough from a fruitless and energy consuming alliance with EU-critical forces,” Ms Plassnik told Die Presse.

The minister’s center-right OVP party formed a “grand coalition” with the populist Social-Democrats (SPO) at the weekend, following two months of talks that locked Austria’s resurgent far-right factions out of power.

The new SPO chancellor, Werner Faymann, declined to insert a clause into the coalition pact guaranteeing that future EU treaties will be ratified through parliament instead of referendums, prompting Ms Plassnik’s departure, she explained.

Instead, the coalition signed up to a “self-destruct clause” under which the two parties can seek EU-wide or national referendums by mutual agreement. In case of disagreement, the government would be dissolved.

The OVP and SPO both officially want the Lisbon treaty – which was ratified by the Austrian parliament in May – to come into force.

But in tendering her resignation, Ms Plassnik recalled that Mr Faymann and the then SPO chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer in July wrote a letter to Hans Dichand, the editor of the tabloid Krone newspaper, pleading for national referendums on EU affairs.

“Future changes on the EU treaty, which touch upon Austrian interest, should be decided through a referendum in Austria. The same applies to a possible EU accession of Turkey, which would overstrech, in our view, the current EU structures,” they said, as part of the SPO election campaign.

“It is not about cutting ‘the people’ out. Mr Dichand [the editor of Krone] is not ‘the people.’ It is about explaining carefully and clearly the EU and its co-operation with Austria. The EU must not be chased as a scapegoat through the villages. This is false and brings Austria to a dead end. And Austria is no dead end country,” Ms Plassnik told Kleine Zeitung.

A coalition cannot assume governing responsibilty and have an “official pro-EU line,” but at the same time “enter a coalition with EU opponents,” she added. “It shouldn’t be the case that Austria becomes a risk country [in terms of future EU integration].”

The Austrian public is the most eurosceptic in the union – only 28 percent had a positive view of the EU in a June 2008 survey, the lowest among all 27 states.

The majority of Austrians also wanted a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, with 59 percent saying they wanted a popular vote in a Gallup poll in April 2008.

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

Prague – It is inevitable for the Irish to vote on the EU Lisbon treaty in a referendum again, Dick Roche, Irish minister for European affairs, told CTK in Prague today.

He emphasised that the new referendum would take place only after careful negotiations with the EU removed objections and dispelled the apprehensions the Irish public feels about the reform treaty.
In a month Dublin is to disclose the main areas the Irish want to discuss with the EU in this connection, Roche said.
At the European Council meeting in December the Irish prime minister will propose a “road map” to identify the main areas we believe we have to discuss with our European colleagues in order to clarify the problems the Irish feel worried about, Roche said.
The complex negotiations will probably continue throughout the period of the Czech Republic’s EU presidency in the first half of 2009 and they could even be completed not before the start of the Swedish presidency, Roche said.
After the Irish apprehensions of the Lisbon treaty are dispelled, Ireland will see another referendum, Roche said.
He said the Irish government has not discussed the referendum’s date as it will be topical only after a final agreement with the EU is reached.
Roche said he personally hoped the process not to take more than a year.
One of the issues for the Dublin-EU discussion will be the proposed new size of the European Commission. Ireland insists on the principle of one commissioner from each member state, Roche continued.
The Lisbon treaty, nevertheless, contains a mechanism that enables to preserve this principle until 2014. Afterwards it will be possible for the EC to decide on an increase in the number of commissioners.
Dublin also objects to the EU’s liberal approach to abortion. Roche said Ireland respects it that other EU countries have a different approach, it is their right, Roche said.
He said the planned negotiations could bring about a declaration recognising Ireland’s different view in this respect.
The other problems Ireland considers important include the sovereignty of individual member countries in deciding on their own systems of taxes.
In this respect Roche said he believes that the Czechs and most small countries share a similar view.
He said the Irish also differ from most European countries by their strive for neutrality.
Other countries ensure their security by their participation in NATO. Ireland respects this, but it has a different view, Roche said.
He said he believes that a result can be achieved after all the worrying problems are analysed. The Lisbon treaty must not be approached with fear. It is necessary to assure the Irish that they rights will be guaranteed, he said.
The negotiations will last many months and they will require much good will. The discussion must not destroy the balance the other EU states have achieved, Roche pointed out.
In the Czech Republic, which is the last of the 27 EU countries not to have taken an official position on the Lisbon treaty so far, the document has been assessed by the Constitutional Court these days.
At the court’s public proceedings today, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an ardent opponent of the treaty, said in his opinion the treaty is at variance with the Czech constitution.
Klaus previously said that if the court gave the green light to the treaty and if the Czech parliament ratified it, he would not sign it until it is ratified by Ireland.
Roche said he would not dare to comment on a political debate in the Czech Republic as it would be impolite.
He said the ratification process in an EU country should not be made conditional on the ratification elsewhere.
Roche said there will always be discussions about the balance between national sovereignty and the advantage to be a member of a bigger grouping.
The Irish do not have a feeling of being less Irish in the EU. The opposite is true, Roche said.
Author: ÄŒTK
=============

Irish parliament to debate second Lisbon referendum.
LUCIA KUBOSOVA

November 26, 2008, EUobserver – An Irish parliamentary committee is to debate a report arguing that a second referendum on the EU’s Lisbon treaty is legally possible.

The draft report, first seen by the Irish Times, has been discussed in a private session by the Subcommittee on Ireland’s Future in the EU and is due to be presented to the joint Committee on European Affairs on Thursday (27 November).

It argues that a second poll on the EU’s new reform treaty – following the debacle in June when the Irish voters rejected the document by a clear majority – would be preferable, suggesting a vote on the same text but accompanied by clarifying declarations on controversial issues.

One concrete issue of the kind likely to be considered is a protection of the country’s neutrality. Parliamentarians argued that a new procedure should be set up to boost national decision-making powers regarding military-related matters.

Also, they would like to see in an attached declaration assurance that all member states keep their commissioner – if other European partners agree with the move.

Under the Lisbon treaty, EU member states would take turns at having a representative in the commission, meaning that once every 15 years, each country would be without a commissioner for a period of five years, as the number of commissioners is scheduled to be reduced from 27 to 18 as of 2014.

Earlier this month, Irish foreign minister Micheal Martin hinted that his government is in talks with other governments and EU officials on the issue of the composition of the bloc’s executive.

But some insiders doubt this modification could be achieved, as it is one of the major elements of Lisbon’s institutional reform and was introduced parallel to similar changes for other institutions, notably the European Parliament.

Under the Lisbon treaty, the new EU legislature will have 750 members instead of the current 785.

However, if the new parliament is elected according to the currently applied Nice Treaty in June, its size will be reduced to 732. In such a case, the new commission – due to be appointed later this year – should also have fewer than 27 members.

Julian Priestley, the parliament’s former secretary general, believes that Ireland itself should face some “consequences” if there is no second referendum by mid-2009.

Speaking on Tuesday (25 November) at a debate on the next EU elections organised by the European Policy Center, he argued “it would be a mistake to get some kind of a fix around the clear provision of the Nice treaty.”

Mr Priestley rejected the possibility of having 26 commissioners and to not count the president of the commission as part of the team, stressing that the EU should respect the provisions of whatever treaty is in force.

“If Ireland is the only country that hasn’t ratified the Lisbon treaty and at least superficially prefers the Nice treaty, it should face the consequences of Nice and lose the commissioner,” he concluded.

Waiting for the verdict on Lisbon

Meanwhile, Prague is expecting a verdict from the Czech constitutional court on whether the EU reform plan is in line with the Czech constitution after a heated exchange between the country’s president and government officials in the courtroom on Tuesday (25 November).

The Czech Republic is the only country that has not yet voted on the Lisbon treaty. Despite this fact, the republic is preparing to take over the helm of the EU from France in January, when it assumes the six-month rotating EU presidency, and must then lead talks with Ireland on how to solve the institutional problem.

But top politicians in Prague are divided on the issue. While deputy prime minister Alexander Vondra praised the document and its improvements to the bloc’s functioning, President Vaclav Klaus strongly criticised it at a public hearing.

He argued that the democratically elected institutions in the Czech Republic would be weakened and that key conditions for the country’s EU membership – as stated when the citizens voted on entry in 2003 – would change due to the new treaty.

In a radio interview on Monday (24 November) President Klaus also indicated he might sign the treaty – if adopted by parliament – only after it is ratified in Ireland, echoing the stance of Poland’s President Lech Kaczynski.

Meanwhile, Ireland’s minister for European affairs, Dick Roche, told the Czech CTK news agency that a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty is “inevitable,” adding that he hopes the whole process would not take more than a year.

Postpone UN climate summit, suggests former Irish president.
Former Irish president Mary Robinson has said that a crucial UN climate change summit due to take place in Poland in December should be postponed until after Barack Obama is inaugurated as US president.

Speaking at a meeting in Brussels on Thursday, Robinson, now vice president of the Club of Madrid, an organisation of former world leaders, said, “It would make more sense to postpone the summit until 20 January. It can’t possibly be led by a lack of understanding for the kind of change that Obama wants.

“This summit, which sounds great and sexy, is happening at the wrong time.”

Also speaking at the event, held to publicise the ‘Road to Copenhagen’ initiative – which refers to the UN climate meeting due to take place in 2009 in the Danish city – was commission vice president Margot Wallström.

She said, “The election of Barack Obama has sent a forceful positive signal to the EU. We see it in terms of negotiating a post-Kyoto agreement.

“We find it hugely important that Obama – with his strong statements on climate change – will be president.

“If we can have a signal from America that they are willing to sit down and talk, it will affect China and India.”

The ‘Road to Copenhagen’ project, which Robinson and Wallström are spearheading along with former Norwegian prime minister and UN special envoy on climate change, Gro Harlem Brundtland, was created to give the general public, industry, politicians and NGOs a say in the UN climate negotiations.

The Poznán summit in Poland this December is due to lay down the formal agenda for the whole process, but the decisive summit will be held in Copenhagen next year.

Robinson, Wallström and Brundtland were joined at the press conference by the Icelandic singer Björk, who has started her own climate campaign to find eco-friendly options for Iceland’s rich natural resources.

—————–

Unless postponed until the change in US Administration, Poznan will end up in a ditch and better to postpone it then let it derail the following Copenhagen meeting.

The Road to Copenhagen is a very bright idea if there is a productive Poznan meeting – otherwise Copenhagen will turn naturally into Poznan II and not into a Kyoto II as the UN professionals hope, or a Copenhagen I as an agreement between the US, China, India, Brazil would entail. Poznan is thus a make or brake event on the road to Copenhagen, and a US represented by Paula Dobriansky will just push the rest of those present into the ditch.

Barak Obama cannot speak up before January 20, and obviously cannot have his negotiator vetted by US Congress before he takes over as US President. He said clearly that he works under the rules of the US Constitution that says there is only one President at a given time. Pushing for keeping the Poznan date under these conditions is rather like saying that it is imperative for those opposing the notion that the world must be kept addicted to petroleum and other fossil carbons in their self-interest must have the day.

Barak Obama could appoint his Climate Change negotiator on January 20, 2009, right there at his inaugural speech, and Congress could approve his selection, the speediest, within a month – so, a Poznan meeting in March 2009 is the earliest it makes sense to hold this meeting if you are positively inclined to do something about climate change. We keep saying so for over a year, this even before we had an inkling of who might be next US President. We kept pouring cold water on the UN euphoria with their debate time-line. We are afraid that UN talk is very expensive – it allows people to fly around freely but is not intended to come up with results. Statements by the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, on how much he wants to see results from the climate change negotiations, and rosy pronunciations from the Executive of the UNFCCC, Yvo de Boer, cannot change the reality that in the end – it is the US President that holds the keys for a positive outcome of the Climate Change negotiations. It is in the promise of the US and the response from the Brazil, China, India, that an effective plan will be born.

See please also:

The Columbia University World Leaders Forum, September 26, 2008, Became The Podium For Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark To Make Known A Roadmap To The December 2009 Climate Change Meeting in Copenhagen. The Prime Minister Is Keenly Interested That The Copenhagen Event Becomes The Turnaround Point From Our Present Descent Towards Global Environmental Disaster, and He Negotiated This Week A Roadmap With The UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and The Two Candidates For The US Presidency. We Wished Him All The Luck He Needs; Nevertheless We Expressed Some Skepticism.

Posted on Sustainabilitank.info on September 27th, 2008
by Pincas Jawetz ( PJ at SustainabiliTank.com)

World News Desk – November 6, 2008, http://www.realtruth.org/news/081106-001…
INTERNATIONAL
World Reacts to Historic Presidential Win: Celebrations erupted across the world as American citizens elected Barack Obama to be the 44th president of th   United States.

U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) comes out to greet the crowd, along with his wife, Michelle, and children Malia, 10, and Sasha 7, at his Election Night Rally in Grant Park, Chicago, Illinois, Nov. 4, 2008.
Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT

Newspaper headlines from Azerbaijan to Argentina speculated about what kind of changes a presidency under Mr. Obama would bring to the world, who has been viewed as a global denizen and force of international unification.

Chandra Bhan Prasad, a prominent Indian author: “This is America’s second revolution, and Obama’s victory will boost the esteem of the underprivileged social classes and ethnic groups the world over” (Washington Post).

Samir Saadi, a Saudi journalist: “Given Obama’s name, his background, the doubts about his religion, Americans still voted for him and this proved that America is a democracy,’ he said. ‘People here are starting to believe in the U.S. again’” (ibid.).

Viktor Yerofeyev, Russian novelist: “The choice of an African American president in the United States overturns the whole idea of the stiff and conservative America. This means that America did wake up. This means that America is again open for free and democratic values. America has once again become a good model to emulate. It has again become a great country” (ibid.).

Kenya, the nation from where Mr. Obama’s late father was born, even declared a national holiday to celebrate the U.S. senator’s victory to the “most powerful office on earth” (Daily Nation).

Many world leaders were equally optimistic.

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd: “Senator Obama’s message of hope is not just for America’s future, it is also a message of hope for the world as well” (Washington Post).

Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen: “Barack Obama’s remarkable personal story—allied to his eloquence and his huge political talents—sends a powerful message of hope to America’s friends across the world” (ibid.).

Jose Manuel Barroso, European Commission President: “I sincerely hope that with the leadership of President Obama, the United States of America will join forces with Europe to drive this new deal. For the benefit of our societies, for the benefit of the world” (Jerusalem Post).

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev: “Russian-U.S. relations are historically an important factor of stability in the world. They are of great and sometimes, of key importance for resolving many pressing international and regional problems…We are confident that it is necessary to step-by-step enhance cooperation between our countries on a wide range of issues on the world agenda, but also to really promote bilateral interaction in all areas” (Itar-Tass).

French President Nicolas Sarkozy: “By choosing you, the American people have chosen change, openness and optimism…At a time when all of us must face huge challenges together, your election raises great hope in France, in Europe and elsewhere in the world” (AFP).

Kenyan Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka: “It is exciting for Kenya not only because of continental attachment to President-elect because of his roots in Kenya but because Obama victory is a harbinger of good tidings especially for our tourism sector” (Daily Nation).

Chinese President Hu Jintao: “The Chinese government and I myself have always attached great importance to China-US relations. In the new historic era, I look forward to working together with you to continuously strengthen dialogue and exchanges between our two countries and enhance our mutual trust and cooperation on the basis of the three Sino-US Joint Communiques, with a view to taking our constructive and cooperative relationship to a new high and bringing greater benefits to people of our two countries and the rest of the world” (China Daily).

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez: “The historical election of an Afro-descendant to rule the most powerful nation of the world is a symptom that the epoch change that has been gestated from the South of America could be knocking the doors of United States” (Agencia Bolivariana de Noticias).

BBC News also outlined the “Top 10 foreign challenges for Obama,” alluding that there could be “problems in new areas of al-Qaeda activity, especially Algeria and Somalia” when he takes office.

Although most government officials were excited about the historic win, several tried to be realistic.

The Jerusalem Post: “‘We are not the first priority,’ one senior diplomatic official said, reflecting the consensus thinking in the Foreign Ministry. According to this thinking, the new president will first need to tackle the economy, the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, the tension with Russia and a worsening situation for the U.S. in South America—the U.S.’s ‘own backyard’—before tackling the Middle East conflict.’”

Der Spiegel also featured a series of commentaries from various European leaders about what they want to see under the new president-elect.

Margot Wallström of Sweden, the vice-president of the European Commission: “The U.S. has been particularly successful in creating growth and jobs, and maintaining competitiveness through technological innovation rather than low labor costs. The EU on the other hand has brought forward an ambitious climate change package and works hard to promote social justice. As we have seen in Scandinavia—where the concept of the flexicurity seems to have been born—it is possible to combine economic growth with social justice…I believe the era of U.S. unilateralism is over, and that partnership with Europe has become a central plank of U.S. foreign policy.”

Democrats in the United States were equally elated about Mr. Obama’s win.

REEEP announces Call for Proposals for EUR 4.3 million in grant funding.
Vienna, 23.10.2008
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) today announced a call for project proposals which support the development of markets for renewable energy and energy efficiency. The project call is REEEP’s largest in its five year history with more than 4.3 million Euro available for projects in least developed countries and emerging market economies.

The programme cycle received funding from a consortium comprised of Australia, Ireland, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom.

Australia, with its significant contribution will help intensify REEEP’s efforts in small island states in the Pacific.

The United Kingdom and Norway will continue their focus on emerging economies and Ireland and Italy will continue their focus on Africa.

The REEEP call is an open tender seeking projects from priority countries – Brazil, China, India and South Africa and from across the developing world.

REEEP will build on its experience gained over the last five years with a bottom-up approach to defining priorities and selecting projects.

REEEP is intensifying its efforts to directly engage governments and financial institutions in its programme. REEEP is inviting countries with specific policy, legislative or regulatory needs or development finance institutions with need for financing structures and business models to develop projects directly with REEEP. It is hoped that by assisting governments with lowering risk within the renewables and energy efficiency sector and by working with development agencies to encourage business and finance models, finance can be attracted into new markets.

To increase operational efficiency and to increase transparency and openness, all proposals will be submitted for evaluation via REEEP’s new on-line Programme Management Information System (PMIS).

Dr. Marianne Osterkorn, REEEP International Director stated that the partnership can now add value across a number of areas. “We are grateful to all REEEP donors – UK, Norway, Ireland and Italy and we welcome the new donor Australia to the REEEP programme. We look forward to working with Australia to support the Pacific Islands to develop local energy sources and helping their quest for energy security. We also look forward to intensifying our engagement with governments and development financial institutions to increase the chances of investments in sustainable energy infrastructure “.
REEEP previously disbursed € 3.2 million euro in 2007,   € 2.2 million in 2006 and € 1.1 million in 2005.

Agata Gago
Media Relations
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP)
International Secretariat
Wagramerstrasse 5
1400 Vienna, Austria
Tel: +48 503 180 791
 http://www.reeep.org

 EUOBSERVER / WEEKLY AGENDA (5 – 12 October) – This week will start with a meeting of the EU’s economy and finance ministers (ECOFIN) in Luxembourg on the need for a European response to the international financial crisis, just a day after the bloc’s four biggest states – Germany, France, Britain and Italy – hold emergency talks on the subject in Paris.

The ECOFIN meeting on Tuesday (7 October) is expected to highlight the need for co-operation and cohesion among EU states on the issue, as well as the necessity of constructing a “structural response” to the crisis, rather than taking ad hoc actions.

The ministers will also underline the need to respect the so-called Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) – the rules underpinning the euro, following comments coming from some EU capitals that tackling the crisis should take priority over keeping budget deficits in line with EU rules.

“[The SGP rules] are temporarily not the priority of priorities. The priority is to save the global banking system and the savings of citizens. There is no other choice,” Henri Guaino, a close adviser of French President Nicolas Sarkozy told French television channel Canal Plus on Thursday.

The meeting – which will be preceded on Monday by a meeting of the economy and finance ministers from EU countries using the euro – will also assess the impact of the crisis on banks and insurance companies, as well as on small and medium-sized enterprises.

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

France believes EU-level measures may have to be cobbled together to aid banks in smaller member states, while denying rumours of a €300 billion package. But Germany has indicated it would not support any European “big-bang” deal.

“What happens if a smaller EU state is hit by a looming bank collapse? Maybe this country does not have the means to save the bank,” French finance minister Christine Lagarde told the Handelsblatt in an interview published on Thursday (2 October). “Therefore the question of a European safety net solution comes up.”

The safety package may be presented by French President Nicholas Sarkozy at a 4 October meeting between himself, the prime ministers of Germany, Italy and the UK, as well as Eurogroup chief Jean-Claude Juncker and European Central Bank president Jean-Claude Trichet.

Reports have it that the Netherlands is the source of the €300 billion proposal. The country quickly denied this was the case.

But any suggestion of a European version of US treasury secretary Henry Paulson’s $700 billion bail-out plan for Wall Street is being stiffly resisted by Berlin. In an interview with German daily Bild, Chancellor Angela Merkel said she opposed writing “blank cheques” for banks.

“The idea of applying one solution, one big bang … is not practicable and would create new, enormous problems,” German finance ministry spokesperson Torsten Albig told reporters yesterday in Berlin. “Germany does not think much of such a plan,” he said, according to AFP.

European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso on Thursday welcomed the approval of the package by the American Senate, which had enabled another attempt to hammer out the bill in the House of Representatives and described it as “a good step forward in the right direction.”

But after receiving negative signals from both Berlin and London on the idea of a similar emergency fund worth €300 billion for Europe’s banking sector, French president Nicolas Sarkozy distanced himself from the proposal.

A day later Sarkozy said: “I deny the sum and the principle,” according to media reports. And from Christine Lagarde’s office:   “there was an exchange of ideas but no French proposals. There was no French plan,” AFP says.

Asked by journalists about a possible EU version of the US banking rescue scheme on Thursday, the European Central Bank (ECB) president Jean-Claude Trichet – also to attend the Paris mini-summit together with commission chief Barroso – openly said it would not work for Europe. “We do not have a federal budget, so the idea that we could do the same as what is done on the other side of the Atlantic doesn’t fit with the political structure of Europe.”

Britain has suggested that solutions to the financial crisis need to be primarily sought by national authorities. “It is right that individual countries would want to take their own decisions, particularly when national taxpayers’ money is potentially at risk,” said spokesman of Gordon Brown, UK’s prime minister: “The purpose of the [Paris] meeting will be to discuss how each of the four major economies in Europe are responding to the global financial crisis,” he added, according to the BBC.

The Irish parliament on Thursday passed a bill fully guaranteeing all bank deposits, which has sparked a controversy in other European capitals about unfair advantage for Irish banks over foreign competitors.

British media reported a rising interest among Brits to switch from the UK’s to Ireland’s banks in a bid to secure their savings in a rising atmosphere of insecurity. Minister Lagarde said in a BBC live interview that better European co-ordination could prevent such cases, arguing that “a measure decided in one [EU] member state has to be shared in advance with other member states.”

EU competition spokesman Jonathan Todd said his department still hadn’t received any formal explanation from Ireland about how its bank insurance programme would work, meaning it was still uncertain whether or not the EU will even clear the Irish move as legal.

The Guardian says that Greece has followed Ireland in offering a guarantee on deposits in all banks operating in the country, after it says savers were getting restless. The paper goes on to say that it puts EU leaders in a difficult position ahead of an emergency summit in Paris on Saturday to find a common response to the crisis.

Meanwhile, Deutsche Welle says that on Thursday the European commission gave the go-ahead to Germany for a €35bn deal to bail out mortgage lender Hypo Real Estate.

And El País says that the EU is struggling to come up with a common response to the financial crisis, with individual member states taking unilateral action to save their own banks: the UK (Bradford and Bingley and Northern Rock), France and Belgium (Dexia), and Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (Fortis).

****
France and Germany at odds over EU ‘Paulson Plan’ – 02.10.2008

—————————————————————————-
France believes EU-level measures may have to be cobbled together to aid
banks in smaller member states, while denying rumours of a €300 billion
package. But Germany has indicated it would not support any European
“big-bang” deal.
 http://euobserver.com/9/26851/?rk=1

****
EU big four gather for financial crisis talks – 03.10.2008

—————————————————————————-
The leaders of the EU’s four biggest states – Germany, France, Britain and
Italy – are gathering for emergency talks on the financial crisis in Paris
on Saturday, one day after US lawmakers are expected to vote on an amended
bail-out plan. But France says there will be no US-type rescue package for
the EU.
 http://euobserver.com/9/26857/?rk=1

The plenitude of materials that show how much this calamity, started in the US, affects now Europe and the rest of the world, boils down to serious criticism of America Administration’s views on the essence of government.
And further – the proposed bail-out program did not make sense anywhere – but save-your-souls programs are very seriously needed – that is said by everybody.

What the Bush/Paulson effort was all about is the clear concept that the White House Knows Best – so the present White House will create a situation that binds the hands of the next Administration also. Just give away 1.5 trillion dollars to the cronies that managed a deregulated economy for their own benefit, and they will continue this mirage of government for their own benefit in the future as well – there will be no abrupt change amounting to   no upheaval – and as long as they will stay happy – so will the rest of the people have to stay quiet. The government is not there to help the people, but to help the system from needed change. in the end the tax-payer will be left to hold the bag while the former insider helps the present insider manage the huge puddle he left behind.

Europe is different. All of Europe seems to believe in much more government then the White House in Washington DC. Europe ranges from the Russian closing of the Stock Exchange so no impulsive reaction is possible, to plain Nationalization of Banks in Ireland – a great move that reassures the people and the businesses and removes the bankers – like one removes cancer. This latter treatment looked too radical to the folks in Brussels – but they also can do little more then say – each government is on its own – but we will all together back France and Germany in their call to view the crisis for what it is – the end of US hegemony on world economy and the establishment of a super structure that will share the responsibility that the US Superpower said it had for the world.

The best suggestions deal thus with the need of a global bail-out rather then again a US inside – job. Further, money is not dished out to the “IS” but governments take equity stakes in the fallen giants – this translating to the right to clean the houses from their rotten managers – as the saying goes – “the fish stinks from his head.”   With government ownership, comes now government responsibility that might indeed call for changes in accounting rules and in taxation laws – all so there is a new stimulus that moves the economy from the dead points it is stuck now.

Above all, the US cannot be allowed to get itself in a state of continuous disrepair with projected shadows to its business partners overseas. They want part of the action here because it is their money that is invested here.

—————

—–

—–

—–

—–

—–

—–

—–

—–

—–

—–

—–

Scotland to build world’s first ‘wind farms under the sea.’
 http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Scotla…

By Jenny Haworth, Environment Correspondent, The New Scotsman, September 29, 2oo8.

SCOTLAND has taken a major step towards leading the way in marine renewable energy with the announcement that the world’s first tidal farms could be built within three years.

Two tidal projects, each with up to 20 turbines, could be installed on the seabed in the Pentland Firth and the Sound of Islay. A third is planned off the North Antrim coast in Northern Ireland. The aim is that all the underwater turbines would be constructed in Scotland, kickstarting the renewables industry in this country.

ScottishPower Renewables will apply for planning permission for the three tidal projects next summer. If permission is granted, they would be the first commercial underwater tidal turbine farms built anywhere in the world.

The structures stand 30 metres tall and can work as deep as 100 metres. The 20-metre blades would turn at least 10 metres below the surface to avoid shipping, developers said, and the zones would be off-limits to trawlers for safety reasons.

ScottishPower said tests in Norway proved the blades moved slowly enough for marine life to avoid them.

Scotland, which aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, has the best tidal resources in Europe and it has been calculated that at least a third of Scotland’s energy demand could be met by tidal renewables.

The tidal farm sites would have a combined output of 60 megawatts, enough to power 40,000 homes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. If planning approval is granted, ScottishPower Renewables says the projects could be operational by 2011.

The company is also hoping to build a factory in the north-east of Scotland where all the turbines will be constructed, and the projects would be expected to bring hundreds of jobs.

Keith Anderson, the director of ScottishPower Renewables, said this was Scotland’s chance to become the global leader in a new renewable energy industry.

He said Scotland has the best tidal resources in Europe, with the Pentland Firth alone containing enough energy to meet a third of Scotland’s power requirements. “The rapid technological advance of tidal power has been startling and is now allowing us to progress plans for substantial projects delivering major environmental and economic benefits,” he said.

“Tidal power is completely renewable, being driven by the gravity of the sun and moon, with no carbon dioxide emissions, plus the added benefit of being entirely predictable.”

First Minister Alex Salmond, who will visit Caithness, near the potential site of the tidal farms, described the announcement as “significant”. He said: “We have an estimated 25 per cent of Europe’s tidal resource and 10 per cent of its wave potential. That is why this announcement is so significant.”

Before it can be deployed, a £6 million prototype will have to be tested for about a year in Scottish waters, probably off Orkney.

Engineers rising to the challenge of harnessing tidal power:

THE tidal farms will use a machine known as the Lànstrøm device, which was invented in Norway and has already gone through four years of successful testing.

Even though the devices seem likely to be the first to be used in a large-scale commercial tidal farm, many other machines are in development in what is set to become a very competitive market.

Marine Current Turbines, based in Bristol, installed a 300kw tidal turbine called Seaflow off Lynmouth, Devon, in 2003.

It’s a two-bladed rotor connected to an electrical generator mounted on a single steel tower drilled into the seabed.

Irish firm OpenHydro Group has developed the Open-Centre Turbine, which has a single rotor. A single prototype turbine was installed at the European Marine Energy Centre in Orkney in 2006. In May 2008 it became the first tidal device to export power on to the UK grid.

The Engineering Business, based in Newcastle, is developing the Stingray tidal generator, which uses the flow of the tide over a hydroplane, similar to an aeroplane wing, to generate electricity. In 2002 the 180-tonne, 150kw machine was tested in the Yell Sound, Shetland.

SMD Hydrovision, based in Tyne and Wear, has developed the TidEL concept, which consists of a pair of contra-rotating 500kw turbines, mounted together on a single crossbeam.

The unit is buoyant and tethered to the seabed, allowing it freedom of movement. The turbines can automatically align themselves downstream of the tidal flow as it changes during the day.

***

IN NUMBERS:

40 – Turbines that could be built in Scottish waters by 2011.

40,000 – Homes that could be powered by the three turbine farms.

80 – The percentage of the UK’s potential tidal power in Scottish waters.