Our Recent articles were:

From Campaign for America’s Future – Your Progressive Breakfast: Pressure on EPA To Suspend Climate Action. (February 24th, 2010)

An analysis of the Copenhagen pledges by the 60 Developed and Developing Countries, when analyzed by 9 different leading policy and science institutions were found very short of the needed goals of GHG emissions reduction by 2050. (February 24th, 2010)

On Climate Change – Sinners (Annex 1) and Sinned (the rest) is a division that proved it leads nowhere. Professor Jagdish Bhagawati suggests a Stock & Flow methodology that allows the funding of new technology and passing the know how as a way to have an impact on the future. William Antholis of Brookings is working on similar ideas. (February 24th, 2010)

These articles dealt with post-Copenhagen policy realities and our main preoccupation now -  how do we follow up. Also the question of the July 1, 2010 vacancy in the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC office in Bonn. Have we reached the end of an era and do we understand how to open the door for next era in climate negotiations?

The UN Think-Tank at the UN University office in New York promised us several weeks ago an event with Dr. William J. Antholis, Managing Director at the Washington DC Brookings Institution. The event was postponed and it finally came about on February 23. 2010 3:00-5:00 pm and as you see from above three postings, and from our following posting – the speaker has lost quite a bit of his thunder because of the fact that above articles in the press estimate the situation very closely to his opinions – and had he presented them two weeks earlier – he clearly would have been first. Nevertheless, today, I can say that a new positive consensus is being established despite the attacks in Washington DC from the American Red-Right. The Brookings Institution knows the Washington establishment and has now close links to the Administration – so the brain picking we love to do is now:  how does Dr. William Antholis see the practical way of tackling the subject so it overcomes the real man-made hurdles that are being set up by paid lobbyists that swarm to the US capital?

In Washington, when one looks at how difficult it seems to come up with a Health-Care bill, Dr. Antholis says that under the UNFCCC rules, coming up with a consensus on climate will be 192 times more difficult then that. But he is here to praise the UN, not bury it – so, let us say that without the UN we would not even be where we are today. We must look at the flows of the system the way it was designed. All agree that a global agreement is necessary but do not agree on what has to happen – there is no common view on what the treaty has to have. Like in Washington, everyone wants to be a free rider and any major free rider on a common effort undermines the common effort.

The UN system asks for unanimity as a surrogate for the process – so the 60 % of US Senate votes is easy compared to this. Also, the division between Annex I and Annex B is a hindrance. The ritual of the yearly meeting of the UNFCCC has nevertheless served a purpose – it publicized the problem.

What Dr. Antholis suggested is that now we start a system with the countries that really matter on the issue – the greatest emitters. We also realize that regulation is best executed on the National level – so we have to deal with the Nation States – that brings back the system to the need that all Nations of the UN do something within their own borders.

He also says we should learn from the way the GATT was created with a system that allows countries to join as they were able to do it. There is a commitment – then one looks for when they develop the capacity to implement it. This is a far cry from what the UNFCCC has now. Under GATT – the US Europe, and Japan can develop the commitment and trade among themselves – others should eventually be part of that system! This approach could work with what exists already under the KP  What is needed is a Carbon Tax on the border of countries that have not done enough! Simple and useful! Start with the Four biggest entities (he called it countries) – there is 50% of the population and 60% of emissions, 2/3 of global nuclear power – these are:  China, US, EU, India. Then figure on bringing in Russia and Japan. Russia has 20% of world’s forests that account for two years og global emissions worth. Then Brazil that actually stepped up as a leader with largest forest. South Africa is a player – so are the SIDS.

What Dr. Antholis described has similarity to what Professor Jagdish Bhagawati suggests as a  Stock & Flow methodology that starts with working first with the greatest emitters who could then start working with the greatest forest wardens. They could find ways to make their dealings to best mutual benefits – but this is done via work within the National territory and in cooperation between the Nations that cooperate. We do not think that this is a blow to multilateralism – it is rather the recognition that there must be a clear limit to obstruction from countries that are not among the major concerns when it comes to the harmful emissions release to the atmosphere.

When question were allowed from the participants, it became clear that all UN points of view were present in the room.

We heard about historical guilt and we heard about the Solar Cookers that can help people in poor rural areas in the developing countries – both positions forget that while we scratch for our past sins, the major transgressions go on just now before our nose.

Then came the suggestion that in effect, what he described was the end of phase one in the raising of the issue of Climate Change and even though skeptics of climate science abound, we know clearly that we did spew CO2 into the atmosphere in the last 200 years by burning fossil fuels – so whatever one says there is a need for action. That calls for a second phase – the implementation of an action program that is different from the search for an agreement between 192 States.

Dr. Antholis thinks that the new leader of this effort, that will replace outgoing UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer ought to be a politician apt to come up with agreements between the initial small group that will start the activities. He will learn from President Obama who will sell the needed program to the US public not as a climate change bill but as clean energy, energy security, job creation – something clearly good for you – today. This should work with everyone for his personal advantage. For the sake of continuing also through the UN system, it would be nice if the new person in Bonn would be a Brazilian politician, or as Dr. Antholis said an Indian – though it seems that China might go along easier with a Brazilian.

Then there are further avenues for one to travel – there are levels closer to the people – State and Local Governments like City Mayors.

If one goes through these lesser routes, for the global commitment – the UN could take on ultimately the job of the verifier.

He described the so called Copenhagen Accord rather as an Accordion making it clear that there will be now a continuously change in size of the instrument. Also let us remember the consultancy profession’s main rule – 80% of the solution lies in 20% of the problem – go thus for the 20% in order to reach towards the 80%. Will the UN be able to live up to such ideas?

———-

What about my question of who will be that new man or woman at the UN?

The only indication comes from Mr. Janos Pasztor from Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s climate office at UN Headquarters. He said that the UNSG started to discus the issue immediately after Mr. de Boer’s phone call, with the members of the Board of the Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC. The new head will be chosen well before the July 1, date – but the UNSG wants to see it happen well soon. Until then he has confidence in Richard Kinley is the Deputy Executive Secretary of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Since joining the Climate Change Secretariat in 1993, Mr. Kinley has held a number of senior positions including as Coordinator;
Intergovernmental and Conference Affairs (2000 to 2006) and Coordinator; Resources, Management and Coordination (1996-2000), overseeing the secretariat’s teams dealing with intergovernmental process management, conference affairs, administration and budget, and national communications. He has been Secretary of the Conference of the Parties since 1996 and led the secretariat support for the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol (1995-1997). He was also the Officer-in-Charge of the secretariat from September 2005 to August 2006.

Prior to joining the climate change secretariat, Mr. Kinley was an official in the Government of Canada, working in the areas of
international environmental policy, northern environment and resource management, and international climate policy.
Richard Kinley is a national of Canada.

Mongolia is an unassuming country, sandwiched in between Russia and China and has sworn to stay nuclear free and made known it is no danger to anyone. This is Mongolia’s highest contribution to its region and it could be an example to North Korea when that State decides to attempt change. Mongolia can smooth the way to the six parties talks.

Mongolia is the 19th largest and the most sparsely populated independent country in the world, with a population of about three million people. It is also the world’s second-largest landlocked country after Kazakhstan. The country contains very little arable land, as much of its area is covered by steppes, with mountains to the north and west, and the Gobi Desert to the south. Approximately 30% of the population are nomadic or semi-nomadic. The predominant religion in Mongolia is Tibetan Buddhism, and the majority of the state’s citizens are of the Mongol ethnicity, though Kazakhs, Tuvans, and other minorities also live in the country, especially in the west. About 20% of the population live on less than US$1.25 per day. Global warming has had a serious impact on Mongolia and its land became even drier with very active further desertification; but Mongolia is rich in minerals and exporting minerals such as Coal, Uranium, Lithium, Copper, Molybdenum, Tin, Tungsten, Gold and oil provide it with cash flow. Companies and Financing from China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, Russia, Canada are active in Mongolia.

In Mongolia during the 1920s, approximately one third of the male population were monks. By the beginning of the 20th century about 750 monasteries were functioning in Mongolia. The Stalinist purges in Mongolia beginning in 1937, affected the Republic as it left more than 30,000 people dead. Japanese imperialism became even more alarming after the invasion of neighboring Manchuria in 1931. The Soviet threat of seizing parts of Inner Mongolia induced China to recognize Outer Mongolia’s independence. So – the mutual distrust between China and the Soviets allowed for an independent Mongolia.

The introduction of perestroika and glasnost in the USSR by Mikhail Gorbachev strongly influenced Mongolian politics leading to the peaceful Democratic Revolution, and the introduction of a multi-party system and market economy. A new constitution was introduced in 1992, and the “People’s Republic” was dropped from the country’s name. The transition to market economy was often rocky, the early 1990s saw high inflation and food shortages. The first election wins for non-communist parties came in 1993 (presidential elections) and 1996 (parliamentary elections). So, Mongolia, an ex-communist country moved to a market economy.

The evolution of Mongolia is now of special interest to those that would like to see movement in efforts to solve the Korean peninsula schism. Mongolia could be an example for North Korea if it becomes interested in dropping its attachment to the former Soviet way of managing a country – and that is what brought a high level Mongolian group to The Korea Society in New York City, for breakfast, today, February 23, 2010.

The speaker was H.E. Damdin Tsogtbaatar, State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Next to him sat the Mongolian Permanent Representative to the UN H.E. Enkhtsetseg Ochir. Also present was the Deputy Permanent Representative Sodnom Gankhuyag.

The presentation started with the geopolitics and the paradox that both neighbors – China and Russia – are conservative cultures but when changing they are revolutionary. Being enclosed in that sandwich, the Mongolian Foreign Policy has to be an open policy and with both neighbors nuclear  – it had to mean for Mongolia that it can only be free of nuclear weapons. From here he looked at the other two countries that started out in similar conditions like Mongolia – Cuba and North Korea. While Mongolia developed a democracy romanticism – this was not the case with the other two. In effect North Korea looked down at Mongolia and closed its embassy in 1999 and used the excuse that they do so because of economy conditions. Mongolia watched the South Korean Sunshine Policy towards North Korea and as regional Mongolian expats live in South Korea, and Mongolia’s interest to help stabilize the region in its own interest, they started to get more and more interested in what goes on on the Korean Peninsula and in Japan. For one thing – North Korea was interested in Petroleum. North Korea is isolated by its own choice – but someone must get interested in North Korea. In fact in the 1970’s North Korea was ahead of South Korea – more developed – but se now. During the Korean War – only the Russian and Mongolian Ambassadors were left in North Korea. Mongolia also helped by taking in the N. Korean orphans and returned them when hostilities stopped.

Mongolia does not think that the North Koreans are totally irrational, even though he told of some instances that you real wonder – one such was the idea of developing an ostrich farm in N. Korea. Mongolia initiated cultural exchanges that include also Japanese groups. The idea is that Mongolia can try to prepare the ground on which the meetings of the six parties could be restarted.

Mongolia does not believe that sanctions will work – they only punish the people who then clam up and there is no progress. That is when I noted that the two Mongolian men in the room both had purple ties, and I wandered if this is an effort not to look blue or red? Further – Acquiring nuclear technology is not the end – he said – see Kazakhstan and the Ukraine – they had nuclear and gave them up – eventually comes a government and changes of a sudden are possible.

North Korea – the transition of power is supposed to happen in 2012, but considering the health of the leader it could happen earlier. About money reform -That had an impact only on those that had money. It affected people in the cities – not the countryside.

John Delury, an Associate Director at the Asia Society Center on US-China Relations, said that when he spoke to North Koreans when asked why they do not evolve according to the China model, they answered that they are on the China track. See, China first got nuclear, then only formalized relations with the US after they became nuclear. Only then kicked in stage three that was economical.

The answer was – That it is so – Mao Tse-Tung got nuclear first, on account of Stalin. Mongolia does not want to be any-body’s model – “we avoid the word.”

Mongolia was able to put at one table North Korea and Japan but to bring together both Koreas is more difficult. First, with President Lee the Sunshine policy was ended, and a strong anti-North Korean approach was established. The feeling is that the South Koreans, like any democracy, became tired to wait. The situation is now such that both Koreas say – we know what to do – thanks – no – thanks.

Mongolia does no believe in treaties and going to court like lawyers when you deal with nuclear weapons. One can push the button and it is over – but then he said earlier that the belief is there that eventually people are rational – so what is it? Do we must be careful to avoid such situation by stopping a country like Iran from getting nuclear, in order to avoid later dilemmas? Anyway – Iran was not the Issue here but North Korea – so let us say that Mongolia can nevertheless provide an example to North Korea, even if not a model – that changing from threat to agreement could help economically. In effect the day before, the Mongolian envoy had an hour-long meeting with UNSG Ban Ki-moon.

February 18, 2010

Religion rejuvenates environmentalism

By Courtney Woo
The Miami Herald

Evangelical pastor Ken Wilson’s environmental conversion began a few years ago with goose bumps, watery eyes and an appeal for help.

“I heard Gus Speth, the dean of forestry at Yale, say to a group of religious leaders, ‘I used to think the top environmental problems facing the world were global warming, environmental degradation and eco-system collapse, and that we scientists could fix those problems with enough science,’ ” Wilson recalls. “‘But I was wrong. The real problem is not those three items, but greed, selfishness and apathy. And for that we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that. We need your help.’”

For full story, visit:
 http://www.miamiherald.com/news/environm…

=——————————
February 17, 2010

Rwanda Named Global Host of World Environment Day 2010

United Nations Environment Programme

Kigali (Rwanda)/Nairobi (Kenya) – Rwanda, the East African country that is embracing a transition to a Green Economy, will be the global host of World Environment Day 2010, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) announced today.
World Environment Day (WED), which aims to be the biggest global celebration for positive environmental action, is coordinated by UNEP every year on 5 June.
This year’s theme is ‘Many Species. One Planet. One Future.’ – a message focusing on the central importance to humanity of the globe’s wealth of species and ecosystems.

For full story, visit:
 http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingu…

The Bloom Box: An Energy Breakthrough?
CBS 60 Minutes: First Customers Says Energy Machine Works And Saves Money

Bloom Energy’s K.R. Sridhar, holding up fuel cells that are key components of the so-called “Bloom box.”

Lesley Stahl (CBS):  In the world of energy, the Holy Grail is a power source that’s inexpensive and clean, with no emissions. Well over 100 start-ups in Silicon Valley are working on it, and one of them, Bloom Energy, is about to make public its invention: a little power plant-in-a-box they want to put literally in your backyard.

You’ll generate your own electricity with the box and it’ll be wireless. The idea is to one day replace the big power plants and transmission line grid, the way the laptop moved in on the desktop and cell phones supplanted landlines.

It has a lot of smart people believing and buzzing, even though the company has been unusually secretive – until now.

K.R. Sridhar invited “60 Minutes” correspondent Lesley Stahl for a first look at the innards of the Bloom box that he has been toiling on for nearly a decade.

Looking at one of the boxes, Sridhar told Stahl it could power an average U.S. home.

“The way we make it is in two blocks. This is a European home. The two put together is a U.S. home,” he explained.

“‘Cause we use twice as much energy, is that what you’re saying?” Stahl asked.

“Yeah, and this’ll power four Asian homes,” he replied.

“So four homes in India, your native country?” Stahl asked.

“Four to six homes in our country,” Sridhar replied.

“It sounds awfully dazzling,” Stahl remarked.

“It is real. It works,” he replied.

He says he knows it works because he originally invented a similar device for NASA. He really is a rocket scientist.

“This invention, working on Mars, would have allowed the NASA administrator to pick up a phone and say, ‘Mr. President, we know how to produce oxygen on Mars,’” Sridhar told Stahl.

“So this was going to produce oxygen so people could actually live on Mars?” she asked.

“Absolutely,” Sridhar replied.

When NASA scrapped that Mars mission, Sridhar had an idea: he reversed his Mars machine. Instead of it making oxygen, he pumped oxygen in.

He invented a new kind of fuel cell, which is like a very skinny battery that always runs. Sridhar feeds oxygen to it on one side, and fuel on the other. The two combine within the cell to create a chemical reaction that produces electricity. There’s no need for burning or combustion, and no need for power lines from an outside source.

In October 2001 he managed to get a meeting with John Doerr from the big Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins.

“How much do you think, ‘I need to come up with the next big thing’?” Stahl asked Doerr.

“Oh, that’s my job,” he replied. “To find entrepreneurs who are going to change the world and then help them.”

Doerr has certainly changed our world: he’s the one who discovered and funded Netscape, Amazon and Google. When he listened to Sridhar, the idea seemed just as transformative: efficient, inexpensive, clean energy out of a box.

“But Google: $25 million. This man said, ‘How much money?’” Stahl asked.

“At the time he said over a hundred million dollars,” Doerr replied.

But according to Doerr that was okay.

“So nothing he said scared you?” Stahl asked.

“Oh, I wasn’t at all sure it could be done,” he replied.

(CBS)  But there was a selling point: clean energy was an emerging market, worth gazillions.

“I like to say that the new energy technologies could be the largest economic opportunity of the 21st century,” Doerr explained.

He told Stahl it was the firm’s first clean energy investment.

Many followed, and the clean tech revolution in Silicon Valley was off and running with start-ups that produce thin flexible solar panels, harness wind with giant balloons, or develop new fuels from algae.

But Bloom is among the most expensive. “I heard actually so far, not just from Kleiner Perkins, but total $400 million,” Stahl remarked.

“You’re in the ballpark,” Sridhar acknowledged.

With that kind of money comes a lot of buzz. “In Silicon Valley, every time a company raises over $100 million, and they haven’t come out with a product yet, everybody starts getting the heebie-jeebies,” Michael Kanellos, editor-in-chief of the Web site GreenTech Media, told Stahl.

Kanellos admitted he is skeptical. “I’m hopeful but I’m skeptical. ‘Cause people have tried fuel cells since the 1830s,” he explained. “And they’re great ideas, right? You just need producing energy at an instant. But they’re not easy. They’re like the divas of industrial equipment. You have to put platinum inside there. You’ve got zirconium. The little plates inside have to work not just for an hour or a day, but they have to work for 30 years, nonstop. And then the box has to be cheap to make.”

One thing stoking his skepticism: Sridhar has been hyper-secretive – there’s no sign on his building, a cryptic Web site, and no public progress reports.

Given the stealthiness, we were surprised when Sridhar showed us – for the very first time – how he makes the “secret sauce” of his fuel cell on the cheap.

He said he bakes sand and cuts it into little squares that are turned into a ceramic. Then he coats it with green and black “inks” that he developed.

Sridhar told Stahl there is a secret formula. “And you take that and you apply that. You paint that on either side of this white ceramic to get a green layer and a black layer. And…that’s it.”

Sridhar told Stahl the finished product, a skinny fuel cell, would generate power.

One disk powers one light bulb; the taller the stack of disks, the more power it generates. In between each disk there’s a metal plate, but instead of platinum, Sridhar uses a cheap metal alloy.

The stacks are the heart of the Bloom box: put 64 of them together and you get something big enough to power a Starbucks.

Sridhar offered to give Stahl a sneak peek inside the Bloom box.

“All those modules that we saw go into this big box. Fuel goes in, air goes in, out comes electricity,” he explained.

(CBS)  Asked if Bloom box is intended to get rid of the grid, John Doerr told Stahl, “The Bloom box is intended to replace the grid…for its customers. It’s cheaper than the grid, it’s cleaner than the grid.”

“Now, won’t the utility companies see this as a threat and try to crush Bloom?” Stahl asked.

“No, I think the utility companies will see this as a solution,” Doerr said. “All they need to do is buy Bloom boxes, put them in the substation for the neighborhood and sell that electricity and operate.”

“They’ll buy these boxes?” Stahl asked.

“They buy nuclear power plants. They buy gas turbines from General Electric,” he pointed out.

To make power, you’d still need fuel. Many past fuel cells failed because they needed expensive pure hydrogen. Not this box.

“Our system can use fossil fuels like natural gas. Our system can use renewable fuels like landfill gas, bio-gas,” Sridhar told Stahl. “We can use solar.”

“You know, it’s very difficult for us to come in here and make an evaluation. How are we supposed to know whether what you’re saying is true?” Stahl asked.

“Why don’t we talk to our first customers?” he replied.

Yes, he already has customers. Twenty large, well-known companies have quietly bought and are testing Bloom boxes in California.

Like FedEx. We were at their hub in Oakland, the day Bloom installed their boxes, each one costing $700-800,000.

One reason the companies have signed up is that in California 20 percent of the cost is subsidized by the state, and there’s a 30 percent federal tax break because it’s a “green” technology. In other words: the price is cut in half.

“We have FedEx, we have Walmart,” Sridhar explained.

He told Stahl the first customer was Google.

Four units have been powering a Google datacenter for 18 months. They use natural gas, but half as much as would be required for a traditional power plant.

Sridhar told Stahl that three weeks in at Google, suddenly one of the boxes just stopped.

Asked if he panicked, he told Stahl, “For a short while… yes.”

He fixed that; then there was another incident. “The air filters clog up and air is not coming into the system because the highway is kicking dirt. You just flip the system around, and the problem is gone,” he explained.

Another company that has bought and is testing the Bloom box so Sridhar can work out the kinks is eBay. Its boxes are on the lawn in the middle of its campus in San Jose.

John Donahoe, eBay’s CEO, says its five boxes were installed nine months ago and have already saved the company more than $100,000 in electricity costs.

“It’s been very successful thus far. They’ve done what they said they would do,” he told Stahl.

eBay’s boxes run on bio-gas made from landfill waste, so they’re carbon neutral. Donahoe took us up to the roof to show off the company’s more than 3,000 solar panels. But they generate a lot less electricity than the boxes on the lawn.

“So this, on five buildings, acres and acres and acres,” Stahl remarked.

“Yes. The footprint for Bloom is much more efficient,” Donahoe said. “When you average it over seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the Bloom box puts out five times as much power that we can actually use.”

(CBS)  But not everyone is convinced that even if the technology works, Bloom – that now makes one box a day – will ever be able to be as big as its backers say.

“Going from a few to mass-manufacturing’s going to be tough. And then making them so people won’t run away at the price tag. It needs to be cheaper than solar. It needs to be cheaper than wind,” a

href=”http://www.greentechmedia.com/”target=new”>GreenTech Media’s Michael Kanellos told Stahl.

“What if he can get the price way down? He claims he can,” she asked.

“And if he can, the problem is then G.E. and Siemens and other conglomerates probably can do the same thing. They have fuel cell patents; they have research teams that have looked at this,” Kanellos replied.

“What do you think the chances are that in ten-plus years you and I will each have a Bloom box in our basements?” Stahl asked.

“Twenty percent,” Kanellos replied. “But it’s going to say ‘G.E.’”

“Companies that you have bet on, they haven’t all succeeded?” Stahl asked John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins.

“I have some famous failures,” he acknowledged.

Doerr is praying that Bloom is not the next Segway, as he and Sridhar get ready for the company’s official launch this Wednesday. They’re pulling out all the stops, including high profile endorsements.

“I have seen the technology and it works,” former Secretary of State Colin Powell said.

He joined Bloom’s board of directors last year.

Asked if this is the answer to our energy problems, Powell told Stahl, “I think that’s too big a claim to make. I think it is part of the transformation of the energy system. But I think the Bloom boxes will make a significant contribution.”

To make a contribution, in Sridhar’s mind, Bloom boxes will power not just our richest companies, but remote villages in Africa and all our houses.

“In five to ten years, we would like to be in every home,” he told Stahl.

He said a unit should cost an average person less than $3,000.

“You are an idealist,” Stahl remarked.

“You know, it’s about seeing the world as what it can be and not what it is,” Sridhar replied.

“I see you seeing a Bloom box in the basement of the White House,” she said.

“Absolutely. I would love that to go on the lawn,” he replied.

“So, forget…the basement. You want the Bloom box in the Rose Garden?” Stahl asked.

“Maybe next to that organic vegetable garden,” Sridhar joked. “I would be happy with that.”

Inside Politics Daily
Support for Obama and Democrats Slips Among 18-to-29 Year Olds.
CPAC Gets Younger, Hipper, More High Tech.

Conservative Favorites for 2012:
Texas Rep. Ron Paul was the clear winner of a straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Saturday, garnering 31 percent of the vote. Click through to see the next favorites.

Patricia Murphy, Columnist

Ron Paul Wins CPAC Straw Poll, Sarah Palin is Third With 7 Percent.
POSTED: 02/20/10

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) ran away with the presidential straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference Saturday, with 31 percent of the vote. Paul’s libertarian conservative message has made him a hero to small-government Republicans for years, but this is the first CPAC straw poll he has ever won.

Paul’s victory came as a surprise to supporters of Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, who has won the straw poll at this event for the last four years. Romney was second this year, with 22 percent.

Another surprise came with Sarah Palin’s third-place finish, with 7 percent of the vote. Palin is a favorite of the conservative base, but was one of the few Republicans included in the straw poll ballot who did not attend or speak to the conference.

CPAC’s straw poll is an unscientific, voluntary poll, but it has served as a barometer of support for possible Republican presidential candidates among their all-important conservative base.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul was the clear winner of a straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., Saturday, garnering 31 percent of the vote. Click through to see the next favorites.
 http://xml.channel.aol.com/xmlpublisher/…

 http://www.aolcdn.com/ke/media_gallery/v…

- – - -
Here are the full results:

Rep. Ron Paul- 31 percent

Mitt Romney- 22 percent

Sarah Palin- 7 percent.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty – 6 percent

Rep. Mike Pence- 5 percent

Mike Huckabee- 4 percent

Newt Gingrich- 4 percent

Gov. Mitch Daniels- 2 percent

Rick Santorum- 2 percent

Sen. John Thune- 2 percent

Gov. Haley Barbour- 1 percent.

———

The highest rated comments that represent best that meeting were:

from: Carlene’s Visit
11:23PM Feb 20th 2010
OBAMA IS NEITHER A DEMOCRAT OR A REPUBLICAN AND HE IS NOT EVEN A LIBERAL -
HE IS A PROGRESSIVE SOCIALIST LEADER WHO HAS DONE NOTHING TO HELP AMERICA
BUT PUT US FURTHER IN DEBT.

RATE THIS COMMENT: (150)

—

from: fmtflf
11:53PM Feb 20th 2010

I like Ron Paul…if you watch the debates from the last election, everything he said was going to happen in the financial markets happened! he tried to get people to listen and fix this and nobody would. he is the only politician that is screaming for smaller govt and plans to remove the irs and income tax, as his reduction in govt would allow for this. we all can agree that govt spending is out of control and he’s got a plan to fix that. I also like that he supports bringing our military home from all over the world. We don’t need to be in Japan and Germany…plus we can’t afford to keep them there. fb

RATE THIS COMMENT: (166)

——————–

Matt Lewis, Contributor Politics Daily.
CPAC Gets Younger, Hipper, More High Tech.
POSTED: 02/21/10
Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Liz (and Dick) Cheney gave big speeches on the opening day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) — and Glenn Beck closed it to a rousing ovation, but just as interesting as the speakers on stage was the ages of the people sitting in the seats, congregated around the bars and cafes, and holding court in the lobby of the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel.

I speak from experience. My first CPAC conference was eleven years ago. Since then, I’ve attended seven or eight of the annual affairs. The most obvious difference this year is that there are more young people in attendance.
CPAC director Lisa De Pasqual told me: “Our pre-registration numbers were 20 percent above last year’s. We’re expecting over 10,000 attendees and more than half of them are college students. I think it really speaks to the excitement and energy in the conservative movement right now.”
One seasoned CPAC veteran, who asked not be named, bluntly told me, “I’ve been coming to these for years. This used to be a convention of blue hairs; now it has youthful energy.” If you’re a conservative — as I am — it was nice to see fresh young faces, who attend at a greatly reduced price. “Blue dog” Democrats are one thing, blue-haired Republicans are quite another.
Liberal blogger Bill Scher, who has gone to previous CPAC’s, speculated to me that the increase in young attendees is a result of “the James O’Keefe Effect” — a referece to someone their own age who made a splash. Scher’s theory is that young conservatives now have a contemporary example of a person in their age bracket who made a difference, and got lots of attention in the process.
For young conservatives, who exist in a sea of skepticism, if not downright hostility, on the typical college campus, CPAC offers a safe haven where they can network with other like-minded students. A student named Kelly Schumacher, who attends college in Milwaukee, told me, “It’s nice to have a conversation with someone who isn’t arguing with you.”
Added Chelsea Lapp, a high school student attending CPAC with 18 of her classmates at Westfield Academy near Buffalo, New York: “Everybody seems pretty pumped up about it.”
Jason Mattera, a young conservative who works for Young America’s Foundation, was so pumped that he gave a rousing, if politically incorrect, speech at CPAC — and found himself singled out for criticism in the New York Times for his trouble. That might mortify a typical liberal college student. Here, it’s a badge of honor.
Conference organizers did more than just offer to reduce the entry fees for students. For the past few years, bloggers had been relegated to the nether reaches of an exhibition hall, requiring them to dash upstairs to wait in line for the keynote speakers, and then scurry back to their warrens to write up something about the speech — before setting out in search off a stray WiFi connection. This year, as New Media consultant Justin Hart told me, “bloggers have the best seats in the house. WiFi was up … and the blogger row table has gone from seating 25 to seating about 100.”
“Our new set-up for Bloggers Lounge is packed thanks to Erick Erickson and Redstate.com,” explained De Pasqual, referring to relatively new stars of the conservative blogosphere. “We’ve also integrated a lot of panels and speakers who can educate attendees about modern media success stories and how they can apply them to their efforts.”
Aside from bloggers getting a huge upgrade, and aside from seeing more young people than ever, it was also interesting to note who was not seen. There are always gadflies who show up at these things — you see them year in and year out — but this year, they were noticeably in short supply. I had assumed that the Tea Party movement would mean an influx of unkempt grassroots activists at CPAC, but if they were here, they brought their khaki pants with them.

Saudi starts work on first solar water desalination plant.
by Neeraj Gangal on Saturday, 13 February 2010
 http://www.arabianbusiness.com/581394-sa…

WATER PLANS: Saudi Arabia produces today 18 percent of the world’s desalinated water.

Saudi Arabia has started building the first solar-powered water desalination plant, the first step in a three-part program to introduce solar energy into the Kingdom.

The programme, launched by the King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (KACST) aims to help stabilise future power and water supplies inside Saudi Arabia through the creation of solar-powered desalination facilities, it said in a media release on Friday.

By building water desalination plants that run on solar energy, the Kingdom can reduce operational costs and in turn, reduce consumer costs, the statement added.

Dr Turki bin Saud Bin Mohammad, Vice President for Research Institutes said, “The solar energy program will reduce the cost of producing desalinated water and of generating power for use in the Kingdom, an oil-dependent nation, which has launched a national energy efficiency program.”

Saudi Arabia is a prime location to harness solar energy because of its year-round sunshine. The sun in Saudi Arabia emits about 7,000 watts of energy per square meter over an average of 12 hours every day.

KACST and IBM have developed a research centre to determine how best to harness and repurpose this solar energy and is preparing to implement this state-of-the-art technology, KACST said.

Yvo de Boer, the new free man, gives  to The Financial Times his first interview as elder statesman – and we gleaned three elements in his statement as his very balanced views after 20 years of experience with the climate international problematics.

(1) The Copenhagen non-binding outcome has nevertheless provided us with a good basis for a treaty.

It Copenhagen accord has for the first time drown from from both – rich and poor countries pledges to limit their  GHG emissions, and promised financial assistance from the developed to the developing world to do so. (we did in effect earlier today post already such an agreement between Japan and Kenya.)

(2) There is no practical hope that a binding treaty that has both form and content – can be signed at the meeting of December 2010 in Mexico. (Mr. de Boer has removed the smiley face that the UNSG has imposed on him these last two years)

(3) While governments provide the necessary policy framework for addressing climate change, the real solutions must come from business. As such there are two stages in the process:

(a) Governments must use Taxes or a Cap & Trade methodology to limit emissions.  No corporation can justify the investment required to reduce their carbon intensity without confidence that carbon emissions will become and remain much costlier than today, with few loopholes for those unwilling to pay. Only government can provide that predictability. As we see it today – the EU failed in its effort because of the permit system that allowed for too many permits to float around, and for the US – even the bill that is stalled in Congress is useless as it was emasculated by emission permits giveaways to favored sectors. (what he is saying is what we say all the time – government is there in order to govern – without this nothing logical will evolve from plain empty handed competition.)

(b) If governments dared to embark on real efforts to limit emissions – as long as it is more then just a token idea – the private sector would take it in its stride, it would even thrive, especially the low-carbon companies and sectors that would emerge to replace those unable to kick the carbon habit.

———

We knew already that Yvo de Boer will join KPMG consulting. We know that he is not the first to jump the public policy wagon for the private sector. Al Gore, former US Vice President and father of The Inconvenient Truth” has shown the way He is doing very well – thank you – in the corporate world. We know of people that were formerly with Greenpeace that make now a good living supporting renewable energy corporations.

What we did not know before this interview is that in the academic world, Mr. de Boer chose Yale University and the University of Utrecht that will benefit from his direct involvement.

———

Strange remarks we saw from some that did very little to help the climate cause earlier, but now look down at Mr. de Boer as if he were a traitor to that lost cause to which they did not put their honest heart earlier. Specifically we found the mention to Paul Bledsoe the policy director at the Washington – US National Commission on Energy Policy and former White House adviser.

He said: “This resignation is simply dispiriting – if someone as politically adept, dedicated and charismatic as Yvo de Boer can’t bring the UN process to heel, then the process is broken and has to be reformed.” That is true but disingenuous – why did he not work harder at creating the US government solution that could have been helpful to that UN process? After all, there were times that even the UN was trying to achieve climate goals. On the other hand, the fact that BP and ConocoPhillips walked out from a business pro-climate group this week, came about because they found that the White House will subsidize nuclear power so the price of energy stays low – but oil companies are not electric utilities to be subsidized under this plan – so why should they be part of a program that can only harm them. This was clearly a give-away to the nuclear lobby on the back of the oil lobby – and thus two out of the only three progressive oil companies, that dream of becoming energy companies, found it completely irrational of participating in the backing of an Administration that did not think through all aspects of the issues.

Now, just two nights ago, at a meeting at a top University here, I saw people from Academia and Businesses (the AB of the process) trying to spread the word about what they are doing, but did also not understand the basic policy logic on which they were trying to sell – but on this on a different posting. Here it will suffice to say that we will look forward at what Mr. de Boer will do for Yale University with the strong hope that from now on he will be ready to stand up for what he believes, without bowing to UN or business interests that will flock on him like vultures trying to push him in their preferred directions. We had our difficulty with his bowing to the UN bosses, but we expect to see no future problem in his AB role.

Morrison & Foerster Seminar.
Cleantech Forum XXVI

Thursday, February 25, 2010

At The Palace Hotel
2 New Montgomery St.
San Francisco, California, 94105

Program:    11:30 AM – 12:30 PM
For more information and to register for the Cleantech Forum XXVI, please visit the Cleantech Forum website.

—————

Morrison & Foerster is a sponsor of the Cleantech Forum XXVI “Taking Cleantech to Scale” in San Francisco February 24-26th, 2010 at The Palace Hotel.

As a sponsor, we will present the following break-out panel discussion on Thursday, February 25 from 11:30 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.:

China/U.S. Cross-Border Investment in Cleantech.

China’s ambitious renewable energy goals, national incentive programs, and aggressive fuel economy standards will enable the growth of a domestic Cleantech industry that some have predicted could reach $1 trillion, or 15% of China’s GDP, by 2013. At the same time, the U.S. is increasing its focus on retrofitting existing infrastructure for efficiency. This panel will discuss differences in Cleantech investment priorities between the U.S. and China, their implications and key issues for cross-border Cleantech deals between the U.S. and China.

Moderator:
Charles Comey, Managing Partner of the Shanghai Office, Morrison & Foerster

Panel:
Raj Atluru, Managing Director, Draper Fisher Jurvetson
Ken DeWoskin, Senior Director, Deloitte China
David Yarnold, Executive Director, Environmental Defense Fund
Honghui Yu, Vice President, China Energy Conservation Investment Co.

The Cleantech Forum will bring together 1,000 industry leaders ushering in new forms of financing for scale and innovation, for a broader set of global demands and new business models. Attend Cleantech Forum and gain a competitive advantage as large corporate incumbents and governments worldwide play an increasing role in financing and scaling Cleantech. Learn about the new business models and markets that a maturing Cleantech sector is creating. Attendees have access to first-hand accounts from the new companies appearing, the new funds investing, and corporations looking for partners.

For more information and to register for the Cleantech Forum XXVI, please visit the Cleantech Forum website.

Morrison & Foerster’s global Cleantech Practice is dedicated to representing clients that are bringing innovative, sustainable products, services, and processes to the marketplace. The firm is the largest U.S. law firm in Asia and has over 75 lawyers working on the ground in China across three well-developed offices in Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong. Morrison & Foerster is pleased to have served as sole international counsel to the Beijing Olympic Organizing Committee for the 2008 Summer Olympic Games.

March 3, 2010, Innovate in Canada: Bolstering Profitability in Greentech with Cross-Border Opportunities.

The Canadian Consulate General, representatives from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the Vale Columbia Center are co-hosting an interactive strategy session on how companies can increase profitability by engaging in cross-border research collaboration. Companies including IBM, GE, Trilliant and Fasken Martineau will discuss cross border greentech projects during the session, including how to harness Canada’s agressive R&D tax incentives.

Karl Sauvant, Executive Director of the Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment will comment on the challenges of sustainable FDI, and the session will be moderated by Richard Bendis of Innovation America.

Date: March 3rd, 2010, 8:30am-10:00 am
Place: Reuters Building (3 Times Square, 30th Floor)
RSVP:  charlotte at thepontgroup.com  646-552-5803

Karl P. Sauvant, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Vale Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment
Columbia Law School – Earth Institute
Columbia University
435 West 116th Street, Rm. JGH 639
New York, NY 10027
Ph: (212) 854-0689
Fax: (212) 854-7946

Please visit our website - http://www.vcc.columbia.edu
____________

HIGH COURT IN TEL AVIV FLEXES ITS LIBERAL MUSCLES.
16 February 2010
BY CHRISTOPH SCHULT
Der Spiegel via The San Francisco Sentinel.

On many issues, from human rights to social mores, Israel’s high court is well out in front of society at large. Israeli politicians now want to clip the court’s wings.

Tel Aviv, an apartment building from the Ottoman era on the edge of the Karmel market. The Sabbath is about to end, and a casserole is baking in the oven in the apartment of the Berner-Kadisch family. The three sons are playing in their rooms, while the parents drink tea in the living room.

The parents are Nicole, 44, an attorney, and Ruti, 45, an academic with a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies. The two women alternated having children, with the help of a sperm bank and a reproduction clinic. Their first son, Matan, was born in 1995. Ruti was his biological mother and Nicole adopted him, which is permitted in some states of the United States.

Their problems began when they moved to Israel a year later. Both women had Israeli citizenship, but the consulate general in Los Angeles refused to recognize Nicole as the adoptive mother. The two women contested the decision in an Israeli court and, after 10 years, the Israeli Supreme Court recognized the adoption. The birth certificate of their youngest son, 6-year-old Segev, is lying on the coffee table in the living room. Nicole and Ruti are listed as his parents, under Israel’s national coat of arms. The Interior Ministry issued the document only recently.

Once again, the Supreme Court was more progressive than the country. The court’s ruling on the parenthood of Nicole and Ruti is only one of many sensational decisions in recent years. “If the Supreme Court didn’t exist, who would safeguard democracy in Israel?” asks Ruti Berner-Kadisch.

Insisting on Compliance

The court takes an interventionist approach. For instance, it prohibited the country’s attorney general from dropping rape charges against former President Moshe Katsav in return for a confession of other, lesser offences.

In the conflict with the Palestinians, the judges have resisted pressure from the military and the government and are insisting on compliance with human rights regulations.

Is it legal to use force on a Palestinian if he has information about an imminent terrorist attack? No, the high court ruled in 1999, when it imposed a torture ban on the military and the intelligence services. In 2006, the judges set narrow limits on the practice of preventive liquidation of presumed terrorists. Under the new rules, the targeted killings are only allowed if no civilians are harmed and there is no possibility of arrest. The Supreme Court has also issued several orders to move the security wall with which Israel protects itself against terrorists along its border with the West Bank. Arguing that there is no such thing as absolute security, the judges limited the Israeli government’s ability to seize land owned by Palestinians.

“In no other country in the world has a high court dealt with issues of international law as much as it has in our country,” says Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court. This is precisely why the judges have made so many enemies with their liberal administration of justice. For some rabbis, the court’s rulings are nothing short of blasphemy. Some generals consider the judges to be a security risk, and politicians see them as rivals.

Doris Beinisch, 67, an elegant woman wearing gold earrings and a scarf draped over her shoulders, has been the president of the Supreme Court for more than three years. From her office, she has a view of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, while the prime minister’s office is on the other side. Beinisch points out that her office sits right in the middle, both physically and symbolically, between the legislative and the executive branches of government.

No Constitution

The families of Palestinian terror attack victims recently appealed to the Supreme Court to force the government to release the names of the Palestinian prisoners it intends to set free in exchange for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier abducted by Hamas in 2006. Beinisch rejected the appeal.

It is only one of 12,000 cases the Supreme Court hears each year (by comparison, the US Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year). Every Israeli citizen can appeal to the court to raise doubts about government decisions or laws enacted by the Knesset. The “High Court of Justice” (known by the Hebrew acronym “Bagaz”) also serves as a court of appeal for the lower courts.

The central problem, says Beinisch, is that Israel doesn’t have a constitution. Although the 1948 declaration of independence expressly stipulates the creation of a written constitution, it hasn’t been formulated yet — in deference to the ultra-orthodox Jews, who refuse to recognize any constitution other than the Torah. This frequently gives the government and members of parliament an excuse to question the sovereignty of the highest court — for political expediency, of course.

In addition, because there is no constitution, there is nothing that clearly states whether each citizen has certain inalienable rights. The country only has its so-called basic laws, which, like any other laws, can be amended with a simple majority. According to the basic law on “human dignity and freedom,” Israel aims to be a Jewish state and a democracy at the same time. But what does this mean for its roughly 1.3 million Arab citizens?

Not Allowed for Arabs

Adel Kaadan, 54, lives in Baka al-Gharbiya, a small Arab city of 30,000 people halfway between Tel Aviv and Haifa. He wanted to move away years ago, he says, citing problems like bad roads, a lack of waste disposal services and asbestos in schools. He saw an advertisement for a new community, Kazir, which was being planned a few kilometers north of Baka al-Gharbiya. It sounded appealing: new roads, inexpensive land, his own house. But when Kaadan went to see the town council, he was told that Arabs were not allowed to move to Kazir.

“I thought I was a citizen of Israel,” says Kaadan, who works as a nurse in a hospital. “In school, we were taught that discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion was not allowed.”

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel took on Kaadan’s case. Eleven years and two trials later, Kaadan finally won the case, when the town of Kazir was ordered to sell him a piece of land. Meanwhile, the house is almost finished, and in six months Kaadan plans to move in, together with his wife and their five children. “It’s good that the court exists,” says Kaadan, “but why do you have to go through the trouble of going to court just to assert your rights?”

Even when it comes to the major conflict in the region, between the Palestinians and Israelis, the judges insist on compliance with human rights laws. In Nilin, for example, a small town in the West Bank. The security wall separates the village from the Israeli settlement of Hashmonaim — and Palestinian farmers from their olive plantations. Every morning, the residents of Nilin protest against the wall, usually peacefully. On July 7, 2008, the military stopped the protestors and a few activists were arrested, including Ashraf Abu Rahma. The soldiers blindfolded him, tied his hands behind his back and let him sit in the sun for one-and-a-half hours.

Then He Shoots

“Suddenly something hit my right foot,” says Abu Rahma. “I had the feeling that my leg was flying away from my body.” He is sitting, smoking a cigarette, in the courtyard of the Amira family’s house, at the entrance to Nilin. Journalism student Salam Amira, 18, is sitting next to him. She filmed the events of the day from her window, using a digital camera.

On the video, the Israeli commander holds down Abu Rahma while one of his soldiers points his gun at the Palestinian’s feet. Then he shoots.

The Israel human rights organization Betselem published the video. A military judge merely reprimanded the soldiers for their “improper behavior” and suspended the commander from duty for 10 days. Betselem took the case to the Supreme Court, which ordered that both soldiers be punished more severely. The incident, the court argued, was a “serious deviation from the moral norms incumbent upon all soldiers in the Israeli army, particularly senior commanders.”

“Although it is a Jewish court, it issued a fair verdict,” says Abu Rahma. These words of praise don’t come easy for Rahma, whose brother was killed when he was shot in the chest during a demonstration a few months ago. Journalism student Amira says that she was positively surprised by the verdict. Palestinian judges, she says, rarely demonstrate such independence.

‘Illegal to Attack the Courts’

Israeli politicians, particularly the conservatives, feel that the court is too independent. To address this concern, the administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to propose a law that would limit the power of the judges on Jerusalem’s high court in an important way: The court would no longer have the power to invalidate laws enacted by the parliament. The government also wants to supervise the selection of judges more strictly in the future.

The court’s decisions often go too far for many Israelis, as well. Judge Beinisch has become a target of their indignation, so much so that she now has several bodyguards. In a hearing at the end of January, an older, balding man stood up and threw his shoe at the judge. Beinisch was hit in the head and fell, unconscious, from her chair. Although the man who had thrown the shoe was only expressing his dissatisfaction over his divorce decree, the opposition in the parliament claimed that the right wing, with its many reproaches of judges, had made the attack possible in the first place.

Ironically, this left Prime Minister Netanyahu with no choice but to express his solidarity with the judge. He called Beinisch and confirmed publicly: “It is illegal to attack the courts.”

We believe that America was not created by God and that Theocrats have no place among its bureaucrats. America was incorporated by groups of free people – not Peoples – but men and women.

We believe that the EU should take the America as intended – as its example; and we believe that the UN will eventually also be replaced by this sort of incorporation that is based on the concept that all people were created with the intention to live as equals.

——————–

The New York Society for Ethical Culture Believes in Secular Humanism as the driving Force In The American Constitution.

Sunday Meeting, February 21, 2010
Sunday Meeting – 11:15 a.m. – Auditorium

“One Nation Under the Constitution: Moral Values through Humanistic Government”
Sean Faircloth, Executive Director of Secular Coalition for America
The Secular Coalition for America is a leader of what The Nation magazine recently called the newly “visible, assertive, and respected” secular movement. Executive Director Sean Faircloth, will discuss how the values of our nation’s founders directly connect to the values of the secular movement.

Faircloth served for 10 years in the Maine legislature, and was elected to the post of Majority Whip of the Maine House of Representatives by his colleagues. An attorney whose duties include lobbying in Washington on behalf of the Secular Coalition’s 10 member organizations, he will show how injustices in American law based on religion are not a historical artifact but a stark current reality. He argues that all Americans have a moral obligation to address these injustices through rejuvenation of our government’s secular heritage and legal system. Faircloth is a strong advocate of the separation of church and state and has received many awards for his work, including the 2006 Legislator of the Year Award from the Maine People’s Alliance.

Should You Invest in a White Roof?
— By Kiera Butler, Mother Jones, Monday February 15, 2010
Common sense fashion advice: When the weather’s warm, light colored clothes keep you cool. Recent studies have shown that the same is true for buildings: White roofs and roads reflect heat instead of absorbing it, reducing scorching summer temperatures in cities (cities are hotter than rural areas because of the “heat island effect”)—and possibly even slowing global warming.

The latest white-roofs study used computer simulations to figure out what might happen if every roof in every city of the world were white. The finding: An average temperature reduction of .7 degrees Farenheit. Good news in general, but here’s the problem for homeowners: Since white roofs cool buildings all year round, some people have pointed out that folks with white roofs in northern climates might end up cranking the thermostat higher than their neighbors with dark-colored roofs during winter months.

Roofs of the future might solve this problem: Last year, a team of MIT researchers came up with a prototype of high-tech tiles that change color based on the air temperature. A cool idea for sure, but unfortunately the smart tiles aren’t on the market yet. So till they are, should you spring for a white roof even if you live in the chilly north? Hashem Akbari, a senior scientist and leader of the Heat Island Group at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, says yes, since AC typically uses a lot more energy than heat. “The wintertime penalties are only a fraction of summertime savings.”

Most of the studies so far are have focused on cities—but Akbari says that white roofs make sense for folks in rural areas and the ‘burbs, too. One thing to keep in mind: Whitewashing your roof won’t cut it—for significant energy savings, the roof materials themselves have to be white. “Many roofing materials come in an assortment of colors at the same cost,” says Akbari. “One can select a white rather than a dark color.”

———————-

OK MIT, MAKE THE TILES SO THAT YOU CAN COLLECT THE RAYS FOR INPUT TO THE HOUSE SYSTEM – THE TRUELY WISE TILES AWAY.

———————-

Solar Power For Homes – The Clean and Cheap Energy of the Future
Ric_ Green Tech     2010-02-14
Are you looking for a way to reduce your monthly electricity bills? Are you concerned that the sky rocketing cost of petrol will increase your energy costs? If you, like most people, depend on thermal power plants for electricity in your home, you have every reason to be worried.

Address: Solar Power For Homes – The Clean and Cheap Energy of the Future”>http://dev.squarecows.com/2010/02/14/solar-power-for-homes-the-clean-and-cheap-energy-of-the-future/

February 16, 7:00PM-9:00PM
Jewish Community Center Theater, 1529 16th St NW, Washington DC
Evaluating Copenhagen: What it Means for Ecology, Economy, and Equity.

Given the continuing confusion within the climate policy community, the media, and even among governments themselves, there is an urgent need to set the record straight on the actual results of the Copenhagen summit, to reinforce the reasons why a UN climate process is so critical, and to point to some possible ways forward to a successful conclusion at Cancun in December 2010.

Contrary to news reports of a victorious American initiative, much of the world does not view President Obama’s forging the Copenhagen Accord as the “rescue of a collapsing UN process” but rather as a move jeopardizing two years of good faith negotiations. In fact, many multilateralists view it as defying the UN¹s established principles of equity in a way that shifts new obligations onto developing countries at a time when the U.S. has yet to deliver on its own legal commitments assumed almost two decades ago.

Copenhagen saw China blamed for lack of “transparency: and poor countries for “blackmailing” industrialized nations. This trend has serious implications for the prospects of creating effective constituencies in the US for global climate justice, a precondition to getting a truly effective domestic as well as global deal for limiting greenhouse gas emissions.

Panelists include:

Martin Khor, Director of the South Centre, a think tank for developing countries
Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Chair of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issue
Maude Barlow, Senior Advisor on Water to the President of the UN’s General Assembly
Gopal Dayaneni, Movement Generation, delegate with U.S. grassroots leaders from urban, racial, economic and environmental justice groups to Copenhagen
Victor Menotti, Executive Director, International Forum on Globalization

———
This event is cosponsored by the International Forum on Globalization, the Institute for Policy Studies, Action Aid USA, Oil Change International, and Friends of the Earth. For more information, visit www.ifg.org.

CLIMATE CHANGE: Amidst Global Warming Coldest Winter in 50 Years.
By Julio Godoy

BERLIN, Feb 11, 2010 (IPS) – It was probably an irony that Europe’s coldest winter in 50 years coincided with the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen last December, which failed to deliver a treaty to reduce global warming emissions.

Since Dec. 13 it has been snowing uninterruptedly in Northern Europe. In some places in Germany, average night temperature has been around minus 20 degrees Celsius. The arctic winter, the coldest since 1957, froze rivers and channels, and disrupted transport links to some islands in the Baltic Sea.

The winter has also taken a toll on human lives. In Poland alone at least 212 people have died since November. Victims of cold In Germany, 14 people are known to have died during January, and hospitals around the country are reporting thousands of winter-related accidents – from auto crashes to people who simply slip on the frozen sidewalks and suffer fractures.

Similar severe weather conditions have been reported in Eastern Europe, in Central Asia and in North America.

But the arctic winter – the second this decade – is an exception to the general trend of global warming, according to meteorologists and climate experts. Frank Boettcher, director of the German Institute for Weather and Climate Communication, told IPS that “the present winter does not contradict the global climate change trend at all.”

As indicator of the persistence of climate change, Boettcher referred to the present temperatures in Greenland. “Right now, temperatures in Greenland are 15 degrees Celsius above the season’s long-term average,” he said. “This is a good indicator that we cannot rationalise global warming away.”

Boettcher said that the present temperatures in Central and Northern Europe are relatively low. ‘’That’s why many consider the winter particularly cold. But, in general, average temperatures have been on the rise since many years.”

According to official German weather statistics, present average temperature is at least one Celsius higher than 100 years ago. Even more illustrative is the comparison of the so-called cold sum of the winter, which is the total of all the daily negative average temperatures measured in the period between Nov. 1 and Mar. 31.

During the winter of 2009, the cold sum amounted to 131 – in 1946, last century’s coldest winter, the value surpassed 500 points. According to the German weather station of Zwickau, some 200 km south of Berlin, so far the cold sum of this winter has reached 225.

Uwe Kirsche, spokesperson of the German weather service, also said that even if the present weather conditions appear very cold, “it is the long-term observations which are important. This winter, even if it appears to be particularly cold and particularly long, it does not contradict the long-term evidence of global warming.”

Kirsche referred to a report by the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), which confirmed that the present decade has been the warmest ever observed in the southern hemisphere.

The NASA report released Jan. 21, said that new analysis of global surface temperatures found that 2009 was the second warmest since 1880. “In the southern hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record,” it said.

The report explained that 2008 was the coolest year of the decade in the southern hemisphere due to a strong La Nina phenomenon, which cooled the tropical Pacific Ocean below average temperatures. La Niña (the little girl) is a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon similar to El Niño.

During La Niña, sea surface temperature across the equatorial Eastern Central Pacific Ocean is lower than normal by 0.5 degrees Celsius. In the United States, an episode of La Niña is defined as a period of at least five months of La Niña conditions.

In its report, the NASA said that “2009 saw a return to near-record [high] global temperatures as the La Nina diminished, according to the new analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.”

The document also confirmed the trend seen elsewhere, that this decade has been the warmest ever. In the paper, NASA points out that the 2009 average temperatures were a small fraction of a degree lower than 2005, the warmest on record.

That puts 2009 in a tie with a cluster of other recent years – 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, and 2007 – as the second warmest on record.

“There’s always interest in the annual temperature numbers and a given year’s ranking, but the ranking often misses the point,” said James Hansen, GISS director, according to a NASA press release. “There’s substantial year-to-year variability of global temperature caused by the tropical El Nino-La Nina cycle.”

“When we average temperature over five or ten years to minimise that variability, we find global warming is continuing unabated,” Hansen concluded. According to GISS data, during the past three decades, there has been an upward trend in world average temperatures of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. In total, average global temperatures have increased by about 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880.

This data is consistent with observations by the U.N. weather agency, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). Just ahead of the Copenhagen conference , the WMO said that the past ten years had been the warmest since records began in 1850.

The decade 2000-2009 “is very likely to be the warmest on record, warmer than the 1990s, than the 1980s and so on,” Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the WMO, told a news conference at the Danish capital on Dec. 8.

Other than average temperatures, evidence of global warming is manifold, from the bleaching of coral reefs to the melting of glaciers in several regions of the world, and to the acidification of ocean waters and their continued rise in level.

And yet, the present European cold winter will continue until March, according to the German weather forecast service. “The cold air is this time obstinate,” meteorologist Dominik Jung told IPS. “There is a stable thick cold air mass over Northern Europe, which is being constantly driven towards the South. It is going to be cold for the weeks to come.”

Post-Copenhagen – ALDE MEPs Corrine Lepage (MoDem, France) and Chris Davies (Liberal Democrat, UK) have called on the EU to be bolder in its strategy to help forge a legally binding global deal on carbon emission cuts in the wake of the failed Copenhagen Climate Change Summit.

Speaking after the European Parliament voted today to set a target of cutting EU emissions by more than 20% Lepage, vice-chair of the Environment Committee said:

“This resolution should be considered as a first step.

Our priority must be to re-establish the trust of our citizens in scientific data. It is vital to convince them that the promotion of a low carbon economy is a response both to the effects of climate change and, in part, to the economic crisis.

It is equally crucial that Europe speak with one voice in favor of an agreement with the main emitters of CO2, notably the US and China.

Finally, it is essential to stick to our financial commitments with regard to developing countries.”

Mr Davies, ALDE Environment Spokesman added:

“After the disappointment of Copenhagen the EU has to raise its game and take a lead. By saving energy and improving energy efficiency we will save resources, drive down emissions, and make our economy more competitive.”

Green groups have warned that electric cars could actually increase carbon emissions.

Spain pushes for common strategy on electric cars.
VALENTINA POP

January 10, 2010, EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS  http://euobserver.com/9/29443/?rk=1

EU industry ministers on Tuesday (9 February) discussed plans to establish a common strategy for electric cars, a pet project of the Spanish EU presidency.

Following the informal talks in the northern Spanish city of San Sebastian, the country’s industry minister Miguel Sebastian said it was not an exaggeration to say that the electric vehicle “has been born today in Europe,” and that it has done so under the Spanish presidency.

“Obviously there are lots of questions …issues of legal security, validation, the safety of the vehicles themselves …and cost,” he admitted, however.

As national plans vary throughout Europe and use differing technologies, not always compatible, Spain is pushing for the EU commission to come up with a common strategy in May. The Spanish minister cited Germany’s support for the plan.

Madrid also wants the electric car included in the bloc’s economic strategy for the next ten years, the so-called 2020 Agenda, as it would boost its ailing auto sector, stem soaring unemployment rates and use the renewable energy produced domestically.

The EU would compete against already established electric car manufacturers in Japan, China and the United States.

“It is good for people’s pockets, good for European income and employment, good for Europe as a whole, and it will be good for the planet from an environmental perspective,” the Spanish minister said.

But his view was not shared by several green groups issuing a report on Monday in which they warned that electric cars alone could actually increase carbon emissions unless they were backed by “smart” power grids.

The report, commissioned by Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and Transport & Environment, says that existing EU legislation on car emissions is flawed because it allows manufacturers to use sales of electric vehicles to offset the continued production of high gas-consuming cars.

Increasing sales of electric cars to 10 percent of the total could lead to a 20 percent increase in both oil consumption and CO2 emissions in the EU car sector, the groups warn.

About 400 grams of carbon dioxide are emitted on average for every kilowatt-hour of electricity in the EU, but this can more than double if coal is used, says the report.

The answer, in their view, is to integrate electric cars with a “smart” electricity network, which would charge vehicles only when there was an abundance of green power from sources such as wind farms. But smart power networks are still in their early phase, despite EU pledges to develop them further.

“Just as every car sold today has to have an odometer to show how far it has driven, every electric car needs a smart meter to show how much electricity has been used and better still, whether or not that electricity came from a renewable source,” Nusa Urbancic from Transport & Environment said in a statement.

Simply plugging electric cars in “like kettles” would leave consumers and electricity suppliers “in confusion and chaos”, Ms Urbancic argued. “It’s up to the EU to ensure that all new cars sold in Europe are fitted with this kind of technology,” she added.

from: Lorenz Martin

Workshop on Climate Change Scenarios

2 March 2010, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

The Center for Climate System Modeling (C2SM) of the ETH Zurich and the
NCCR Climate, Switzerland’s centre of excellence in climate and climate
impact research, are organising a workshop on climate change scenarios.

————–

A series of national and international speakers will

- present the current state of scenario development at regional and
global scales;
- discuss the strategy for the development and dissemination of updated
future climate scenarios for Switzerland.

Further information including the detailed workshop programme are
available at <http://www.c2sm.ethz.ch/news/scen_workshop/>.

Everybody is welcome at the workshop, please register at
<http://www.c2sm.ethz.ch/news/scen_workshop/registration>. The
participation fee of CHF 40 has to be paid in cash at the workshop.

————–

Contact: Dr. Isabelle Bey, <mailto:isabelle.bey@env.ethz.ch>

–
Dr. Lorenz Martin, Science Officer
Oeschger Centre and NCCR Climate Management Centre
University of Bern, Zähringerstrasse 25, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland
Phone +41 31 631 31 46, Fax +41 31 631 43 38
mailto:lorenz.martin@oeschger.unibe.ch http://www.oeschger.unibe.ch

We congratulate Mr. Ban Ki-moon for finally taking this initiative as
his first term at the UN has entered its last year. We have advocated
this move from the first day he won the UN contest for the job he
holds. It was obvious to us that a success there, against the odds
that none of the powers involved likes to see a united Korea on their
global bloc – I mean the US, China, and Japan – this will cover for
all the other impossible jobs that were his lot. Compared to these
other topics, a well programmed approach by his right-hand man -
Ambassador Kim Won-soon – at a time North Korea is really down, has a
good chance of success, if he can just get full backing from his home
government in Seoul.

In the global economic conditions of today, building from scatch North
Korea could become the greatest thing for South Korea – and the united
Korea has the potential of being the united Germany of the Far East.
This requires the acceptance of North Korea leadership as part of the
United Korea leadership according to a Federal construct of the State.

In the process – a denuclearized Korean Peninsula can be established
and threats against China and Japan avoided.The Obama US
Administration, with its own economical problems today, has no reason
to insist on guarding the two Koreas from each other, while it could
be a clear winner when being able to pull the major part of the US
troops out of Korea. China, on its part, will be relieved of the
danger of an imploding nuclear Korea and the mass migration of Koreans
into China. The only remaining resistance might come from Japan that
might fear the economic competition from the United Korea. Even that
can be handled with economic agreements that will bind the two
countries by providing cheap labor also for Japanese industry that
moves into Korea.

Will now the Korean UNSG make this as the main topic to deal with in
the coming few months? Will the US President, he also seeking a
break-through this year, give him his blessing for going ahead with
this effort? It seems that such an agreement exists when judging the
composition of the three people group that will handle the approach to
North Korea. If on this team is also Mr. Lynn Pascoe is an american.
The third member seems to be the Chef de Cabinet – Mr. Vijay Nambiar -
an Indian.
 http://www.innercitypress.com/unban2kore…

As UN’s Ban Rolls Dice on N. Korea Trip, Kim Won-soo Is Asked to Brief Press.

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, February 3 — UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, returning from a brief trip during which protesters in South Sudan told him to “repent before judgment” while he was snubbed in Cyprus by four political parties, is said by close observers to be “rolling
the dice” on a trip to North Korea.

“Ban wants to be remembered as the S-G when the Koreas reunited,” the close insider said. “If it happens, all the other failures will be forgotten.”
The importance of the upcoming trip to Ban’s closest inner circle is reflected by on the record quotes that his main advisor Kim Won soo — Ban’s Karl Rove, as some put it — gave to the JoongAng Daily. Inner City Press asked Ban’s spokesman Martin Nesirky, with his own Korean connections, about the quote at Wednesday noon briefing, UN transcription here, video here:

Inner City Press… You said the other three members; who are the other three members of Mr. Pascoe’s team?

Spokesperson Nesirky: Kim Won-soo, the Deputy Chef de Cabinet is one of them, and two other members of staff.

Inner City Press: Of DPA or of the Executive Office of the Secretary General?

Spokesperson: One of each.

Inner City Press: Okay. I had asked earlier about when it was first announced that Kim Won-soo was quoted in Joong Ang Daily, describing the trip, saying it may have a nuclear component, as well as humanitarian. So, I was wondering, I mean, those are his quotes, right? That he spoke on the record Joong Ang?

Spokesperson: Well, you have to ask Kim Won-soo.

Inner City Press: That’s why I asked. When it first came up, I actually asked whether he could be a part of the briefing with Lynn Pascoe, since I don’t think he’s ever briefed the media on the record, but he seems to have a pretty important role within the Executive Office of the Secretariat, and obviously he is willing to speak on the record to at least some media. Is that possible to convey thatrequest?

UN’s Kim, at left, with UN’s Ban and Munoz, on glaciers

Spokesperson:
I will certainly convey it.
Hours later when Ban and his entourage, including Vijay Nambiar and Lynn Pascoe,
passed the Press at the Security Council stakeout, Kim Won-soo waved over. Correspondents recounted anecdotes from Ban’s trip last month to Haiti. There was general agreement: Mister Kim must brief the press, and on the record. We’ll see. Watch this site.
================

Monday February 8, 2010 UPDATE with information from the UN.

UN POLITICAL CHIEF HEADS TO DPR KOREA FOR TALKS WITH DPRK SENIOR OFFICIALS.

The top United Nations political official will arrive in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) tomorrow for talks with senior Government officials after wrapping up meetings in Beijing and Seoul.

As the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs B. Lynn Pascoe will depart the Chinese capital tomorrow morning to hold comprehensive talks on all issues of mutual interest and concern with the DPRK during his visit to Pyongyang, slated to run from today through Friday.

While in the DPRK, he also plans to meet with the UN country team and foreign diplomats, as well as visit several UN project sites.

Over the weekend in Seoul, Mr. Pascoe held talks with officials from the Republic of Korea – including Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan and the country’s chief negotiator to the Six-Party Talks, which also involve Japan, China, Russia and the United States – on its relationship with the UN as well as the DPRK, among other topics.

Mr. Pascoe also conferred with UN-related civil society leaders, including former prime minister Han Seung-soo, who is now president of the World Federation of UN Associations (WFUNA), before travelling to Beijing for talks with officials from that country.

In September, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon met with the DPRK’s Vice Foreign Minister Park Gil Yon at UN Headquarters in New York, where he discussed the country’s nuclear issue along with the humanitarian and human rights situations.

In a report to the General Assembly last year, Mr. Ban voiced concern over the impact of the humanitarian situation on human rights in the country, where more than one third of the nearly 24 million-strong population is in need of food assistance.

The Asian nation’s humanitarian problems – including food shortages, a crumbling health system and lack of access to safe drinking water – seriously “hamper the fulfilment of human rights of the population,” he wrote.

In Washington DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh – the news were the record snow. So, that keeps them busy – the need to dig out from under that snow.

So far as governing goes, the Village Voice – that is Greenwich Village in new York City – wrote that the Republicans won a 41-59 majority as a result from the Massachusetts avalanche.

The new weather predictions are that the President will set now the agenda and expect the Democrats to follow – AMEN!       That is leadership – for God’s sake with 59 still standing – what do they wait for?

Further – he – that is Obama – will try to brow-beat the Republicans to cooperate first. The American people say Washington is too partisan ? If that were true the 59 would be good enough – but really? Who are the Obstructionists?

If Obama invites the Republicans to come on board that would be very clever – it would tell the Democrats to stop being obstructionists.

But, politics might be such that the Republicans feel comfortable to project that they are THE PARTY OF NO!

How do you pull out a rabbit from your top-hat? How do you change unemployment rates with nothing happening in the economy? The Republicans might be happy to see the Administration collapse – the country collapse – so who cares about OSAMA!

Obama tells the Democrats – we will be losers together if you do not shape up and they returned – SHOW US THE WAY!

——————

Next topic:  How long can the World’s biggest borrower continue to be the World’s biggest power?

If we get to the point that we have a difficulty to sell our treasuries in the world we will cease to be a big power – that came from Greenspan – the former head of the Federal Reserve. Henry Paulson, the present holder of that job seemed less convincing.

David Walker, former US Controller General – head of the GAO – now head of te Peterson Foundation – wrote a book on the US deficit that has reached now $1.56 trillion and this is untenable.

—————–

Fareed Zakharia on China-US relations – a US – China economic war is MAD – that is Mutual Assured Destruction – he thinks that the two are symbiotically bound now. I think he is wrong. China has such a huge internal market that it can continue well by producing just for their own people without exports to the US. They may not want to do that because it would mean a too soon push at increasing China’s middle class and risking folks ask for a mellowing down of the political regime. But nevertheless, this does not assure an immediate rebellion. In the US rather – a rebellion is possible – or a call for some real war – internally or externally.

To the latest two skirmishes – the US sending $6.4 billion worth of weapons to Taiwan, and Obama hosting The Dalai Lama at the White House. Both topics are not new. The military hardware agreement with Taiwan was agreed in 2001, and the Dalai Lama has visited every single US previous President since he landed in India. Why did the Chinese get excited right now? That is before the April visit they will be making themselves to the White House? What about the Iran sanctions and the fact that Obama was left to wait outside that China conference room in Copenhagen? Are we going to see some muscle show here?

Christiane Amanpour, on her program had as guest Victor Gao, of the China National Association of International Studies.

He pointed out that the US sells weapons to Taiwan that it does not allow for sale to China. China is now the largest credit maker to the US. What if China buys less for several months? Is 2010 going to be the year that Obama gets tough and China gets nasty? Neither of them can afford a real trade war.

David Rothkopf affirmed that “we are interconnected” so we have to develop a different approach.

Victor Cha – he was on China desk at the National  Security Council. He said – This is a MUTUAL HOSTAGE GAME – both sides lose.

—————-

Fareed Zakharia in Davos, had in front of an audience a half hour interview with King Abdullah II of Jordan.

It started out with Fareed pointing out the two main problems he thinks are facing Jordan: Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the Islamic fighting movement, but he was brushed aside by the King who continued coming back to the Israeli – Palestinian problem.

Fareed said that no-one has yet lost money by betting against Peace in the Middle East, but the King countered that the credibility of the US is at stake. We desperately need the undivided attention of the US – he said. If God forbid we cross the line of the viability of the 2 State Solution, what are we left with – continuing warfare – or even worse – the One State solution that many Israelis dread?

Fareed wanted to know if there is a Jordan option and was told flatly by the King that it will not work – Jordan absolutely does not want the West Bank. Are we talking of a viable entity? A third of the UN do not recognize Israel now.  The building of the wall has made Israel safer Fareed said and he spoke with President Peres who believes in a two States solution for the future of Israel but because of the security threats they think only of today and not the future.

The King disagreed – the injustice felt towards the Palestinian people pushes all other issues. He thinks that if you solved the problem of the Palestinians why should Iran then want the nuclear power. It does not make any sense for them to continue on that path. For now, it is the Palestinian issue that propels Iran’s efforts. When asked if he thinks that if not for the Israeli – Palestinian issue, there would be no Islamic terrorism? The King retreated by saying that – for evil to succeed – is for good men to do nothing. Evil will always exist – the evil always will be evil. On November 9, 2005 we had our own 9/11 and proportionately we lost twice as many people as the US casualties. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is is incendiary that it drives everything else.

Fareed suggested that Professor Bernard Lewis explained that it was rather because of the lack of openness in the Muslim world that created the Al Qaeda – it was against Egypt and Saudi Arabia. We have 400 million young people in the Islamic world that need a direction. My role is to create a viable political Middle Class. If you want to move your country it is education – education – education. Bahrain speaks our language – so is a list of young countries that agree.

————-

Christiane Amanpour had a panel on security issues and wanted to know what are the real security problems today. Surely it was not what you would have expected to hear. She was told:

- Outer Space

- The Open Sea

- The Cyber Space

- The Polar Ice Caps.

So far as the conventional thinking she was told that Washington and Beijing have less to fear from each other then from failed States like Somalia.

When satellites become more crucial they become targets. Where are the National borders in cyber-space? Most governments cannot even define a cyber attack.

Zbigniew Brzezinski said that we have to define the nature of the threat. Today it is not as lethal as it was when within 6 hours we could have had 80 million casualties in the cold war. But today attacks are less predictable even though less lethal.

The US still has a higher sophisticated technology capability. The Google issue is a cyberthreat. Are the hackers from China government? Do they really come from China? We may have to retaliatete selectively and we must have a foreign policy that does not object to this.

The way the domestic policy goes now, will Obama continue the international engagement that he started out with so well? Now we have gridlock.

Brzezinski called for Presidential leadership. Also – the President should persevere with the Iran effort.

The other topic is the Israeli -Palestinian conflict. Rhetorically Obama gets an A, For Performance a B or B-

On space – we must avoid a nuclear race in space – we must have the capacity to shoot down satellites and space vehicles.

———————

From the Kathie Crowley show – her interview with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, I picked up one fleting issue – the names of the countries the Secretary mentioned as friends to work with in the present world. She clearly mentioned the big two China and India, but then she spoke also of other major economies – Brazil, South Africa and Turkey. I mention this here because it vindicates our recent decision to move Turkey to the Home-page of www.SustainabiliTank.info and it seems that we were right.

Clearly, there were no Europeans mentioned in that segment, neither Mexico nor Canada or Japan.

We kept saying all last year – Mr. President – change requires new people . On economy issues this means people that are not graduates of Goldman Sachs. Granted that one year is not enough to measure the success of the new Administration, but watching the people defend what they did or what they did not do for the country’s economic revival – it is clear that rather people like Joe Stiglitz or Paul Krugman should have been entrusted with those jobs – if change is what the Administration wanted to achieve.

Lloyd C. Blankfein, CEO, Goldman Sachs just got his $9 Million 2009 Achievements Bonus – coincidentally, this was also the amount equal for what the Bernard L. Madoff Lexington Avenue in Manhattan penthouse sold for as a tocken repayment to those he defrauded. Now to be fair to Blankfein, he actually took a large cut in bonus pay when compared to James Dimon from J.P. Morgan who got $17 Million; but then J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. also recovered from the crisis much faster then its rivals. Now, the CEOs of the these banks did not directly defraud their customers like Madoff did. They simply plaid by the rules established by Congress – they gambled with the customers money – and the rules were – if they win it is great – if they lose the public pays. The folks in Congress that got their own positions, among others,  on the back of funds from above mentioned banks, can be counted upon to oppose change of these rules. The following article expresses the need for leadership that is fresh and can take on the established foes of US revival. Obama was elected to achieve such results.

Obama’s muddled solutions: The president is trying to please everyone, but he needs to take tough action to prevent the US economy’s second freefall.

Joseph Stiglitz
guardian.co.uk,     Saturday 6 February 2010

Article history: Defeat in the Massachusetts senatorial election has deprived US Democrats of the 60 votes needed to pass healthcare reform and other legislation, and it has changed American politics – at least for the moment. But what does that vote say about American voters and the economy?

It does not herald a shift to the right, as some pundits suggest. Rather, the message it sends is the same as that sent by voters to former president Bill Clinton 17 years ago: “It’s the economy, stupid!” and “Jobs, jobs, jobs”. Indeed, on the other side of the United States from Massachusetts, voters in Oregon passed a referendum supporting a tax increase.

The US economy is in a mess, even if growth has resumed, and bankers are once again receiving huge bonuses. More than one out of six Americans who would like a full-time job cannot get one; and 40% of the unemployed have been out of a job for more than six months.

As Europe learned long ago, hardship increases with the length of unemployment, as job skills and prospects deteriorate and savings gets wiped out. The 2.5-3.5m foreclosures expected this year will exceed those of 2009, and the year began with what is expected to be the first of many large commercial real-estate bankruptcies. Even the Congressional budget office is predicting that it will be the middle of the decade before unemployment returns to more normal levels, as America experiences its own version of “Japanese malaise”.

As I wrote in my new book Freefall, Barack Obama took a big gamble at the start of his administration. Instead of the marked change that his campaign had promised, he kept many of the same officials and maintained the same “trickle down” strategy to confront the financial crisis. Providing enough money to the banks was, his team seemed to say, the best way to help ordinary homeowners and workers.

————

When America reformed its welfare programs for the poor under Clinton, it put conditions on recipients: they had to look for a job or enroll in training programs. But when the banks received welfare benefits, no conditions were imposed on them. Had Obama’s attempt at muddling through worked, it would have avoided some big philosophical battles. But it didn’t work, and it has been a long time since popular antipathy to banks has been so great.

Obama wanted to bridge the divides among Americans that George W Bush had opened. But now those divides are wider. His attempts to please everyone, so evident in the last few weeks, are likely to mollify no one.

Deficit hawks – especially among the bankers who laid low during the government bailout of their institutions, but who have now come back with a vengeance – use worries about the growing deficit to justify cutbacks in spending. But these views on how to run the economy are no better than the bankers’ approach to running their own institutions.

Cutting spending now will weaken the economy. So long as spending goes to investments yielding a modest return of 6%, the long-term debt will be reduced, even as the short-term deficit increases, owing to the higher tax revenues generated by the larger output in the short run and the more rapid growth in the long run.

Trying to “square the circle” between the need to stimulate the economy and please the deficit hawks, Obama has proposed deficit reductions that, while alienating liberal democrats, were too small to please the hawks. Other gestures to help struggling middle-class Americans may show where his heart is, but are too small to make a meaningful difference.

————

Three things can make a difference:

a second stimulus,

stemming the tide of housing foreclosures by addressing the roughly 25% of mortgages that are worth more than the value the house,

and reshaping our financial system to rein in the banks.

———–

There was a moment a year ago when Obama, with his enormous political capital, might have been able to achieve this ambitious agenda, and, building on these successes, go on to deal with America’s other problems. But anger about the bailout, confusion between the bailout (which didn’t restart lending, as it was supposed to do) and the stimulus (which did what it was supposed to do, but was too small), and disappointment about mounting job losses, has vastly circumscribed his room for manoeuvre.

Indeed, there is even skepticism about whether Obama will be able to push through his welcome and long overdue efforts to curtail the too-big-to-fail banks and their reckless risk-taking. And, without that, more likely than not, the economy will face another crisis in the not-too-distant future.

Most Americans, however, are focused on today’s downturn, not tomorrow’s. Growth over the next two years is expected to be so anaemic that it will barely be able to create enough jobs for new entrants to the labour force, let alone to return unemployment to an acceptable level.

Unfettered markets may have caused this calamity, and markets by themselves won’t get us out, at least any time soon. Government action is needed, and that will require effective and forceful political leadership.

————————————-

Opinion, The Los Angeles Times
The winter of America’s discontent: Dissatisfaction with both political parties runs deep.

By Tim Rutten
February 5, 2010

It has been more than four decades since the Congress of the United States has been able to summon the will to pass a major piece of social legislation. Not since 1965, when Medicare and the Voting Rights Act both overcame decades of opposition to become law, has Congress proved itself up to the task.

Significant healthcare reform is all but dead for this session, and the chances of substantively addressing the regulatory breakdown that allowed Wall Street’s irresponsible speculation to precipitate the worst global financial crisis since the Depression seem to recede with each passing day. So too the prospects for passage of further stimulus measures to remedy the crisis of unemployment and underemployment that continues to ravage the lives of families in states from Michigan to California.

In the face of these daunting issues, what was it that preoccupied the Senate on the eve of its long weekend recess? The legislative drama du jour is the standoff between the White House and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), who has put a personal hold on more than 70 executive branch appointments until the Obama administration agrees to fund a couple of pork-barrel projects he has earmarked for his state. One involves tens of millions of dollars for an FBI laboratory focusing on improvised explosives — something the bureau doesn’t think it needs. The other involves contract specifications for an aerial tanker that Northrop Grumman and Airbus would manufacture in Alabama, if they win the deal. (Boeing also is competing for the plane, which it would build in Topeka, Kan., and Seattle.)

Unless the administration agrees to give Shelby what he wants, he intends to invoke an archaic senatorial privilege that allows him to prevent the chamber from considering any of the administration’s nominees to executive branch vacancies, no matter how crucial. Without the 60 votes to force cloture — another archaic convention — there’s nothing the Democrats or the White House can do.

Outside the Senate, Shelby’s conduct would be called extortion; inside the chamber, it’s a “parliamentary tactic.”

It’s also the sort of shabby situation that brings into sharp focus both the sources of congressional dysfunction and the popular discontent on both the left and right with the congressional parties. Earmarks and pork are anathema to a majority of conservatives and independents; the Senate’s outdated, made-for-obstruction rules and susceptibility to special interests are a source of increasing frustration to liberals and some independents. Yet, here we have one senator from one Southern state obstructing with impunity an entire nation’s business — purely for his narrow constituency’s financial interests.

——-

You don’t have to attend a “tea party” convention to see the corrosive effect this sort of otherworldly political navel-gazing has on American attitudes toward the institutions of national government and the parties vying to control them. Evidence of the damage is scattered throughout the recent polls:

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey, for example, found that although 52% of the nation’s voters retain a favorable view of President Obama, only 38% have a similar appraisal of the Democratic Party. The Republicans fare even worse; just 30%, fewer than

1 in 3 voters, view the GOP favorably.

A recent CBS News poll found that nearly half of all Republicans, 45%, disapprove of their party’s congressional delegation.

A national Washington Post/ABC News poll found that just 24% of Americans, fewer than 1 in 4, trust congressional Republicans, like Shelby, “to make the right decisions for the country’s future.” (Wonder why?) The House and Senate Democrats didn’t fare all that better, and are trusted by just 32%. Forty-seven percent of those polled — still less than half — have confidence in Obama’s ability to make the right decisions.

When people’s mistrust of their elected officials and the parties reaches these levels, there is little for political leaders to do but take counsel from their own anger and anxieties — and, these days, the popular mood fairly seethes with both those things. Discontent with the present and apprehension about the future have become the background noise of our politics, yet both sides of the congressional aisle seem deaf to the din.

In one of his magisterial explorations of German politics between the wars, the historian Ian Kershaw mused that “there are times — they mark the danger point for a political system — when politicians can no longer communicate, when they stop understanding the language of the people they are supposed to be representing.”

It would be reckless not to insist that this country and its politics remain, in crucial ways, far distant from Weimar. It would be rash, though, to pretend that the distance remains as great as it once was.

 timothy.rutten at latimes.com