G-8 climate scorecard shows US in last. The U.S. has done the least among the world’s eight largest economies to address global warming, a study released Thursday found.
By PATRICK McGROARTY, BERLIN (AP) — The U.S. has done the least among the world’s eight largest economies to address global warming, a study released Thursday found.
The G-8 Climate Scorecards 2008, released Thursday ahead of next week’s gathering of the Group of Eight on the northern Japanese island of Hokkaido, also found that none of the eight countries are making improvements large enough to prevent temperature increases that scientists think would cause catastrophic climate changes. The gathering includes the heads of states of the U.S., Japan, Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Canada and Russia.
Regine Guenther, director of the World Wildlife Fund Climate Change Program in Germany, told reporters in the German capital that G-8 leaders should commit to reducing emissions in their countries 40 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. “If we don’t achieve that, the world’s climate will change in ways that we can’t even imagine today,” Guenther said.

The scorecard ranked Britain as the developed nation that has done the most to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reach targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. France and Germany are close behind. Germany was praised for its investment in renewable energy.
“But all three countries are at best half as far along the road as they should be,” a statement announcing the study said.
The scorecard was compiled by Ecofys, a Dutch consulting company, and commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund and insurer Allianz SE.

Joachim Faber, an Allianz board member who helped compile the scorecards, said a global emissions trading market is important to fighting climate change, and that the EU should lead its development.
“The EU-specific trading system we have at the moment must serve as model system for one that we can found outside the EU, for the world economy,” he said.

The study criticized low energy efficiency in the U.S., but said there was hope in legislation under consideration by Congress and initiatives led by non-governmental groups.

The study also analyzed — but did not rank — five of the world’s fastest growing economies: Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. “These countries cannot be measured with the same ruler as industrialized countries,” the statement said.

Bush Makes Final Push for Global Climate Deal.
By Michael Abramowitz and Blaine Harden, WashPost, July 3, 2008.

“In his final months in office, President Bush is mounting a last-ditch effort to forge a new global deal to limit greenhouse-gas emissions but finds himself once again at odds with much of the rest of the world on how to address climate change. Bush aides said a deal might be struck when the president sits down next week in Japan with the leaders of the world’s largest industrialized nations and developing countries such as China and India. Japan is pushing for leaders at the Group of Eight summit to agree to a goal of cutting global carbon dioxide emissions in half by 2050, a proposal that the White House appears to be considering seriously. The Bush administration is also conducting negotiations with countries on including more-specific targets for each to meet by 2020 or 2025. Germany is pushing for more-significant cuts in emissions than the United States and some other countries are willing to consider, while China and India want the United States and other industrialized countries to do most of the heavy lifting for the next 10 to 15 years. Previewing his G-8 agenda yesterday in the Rose Garden, Bush emphasized the necessity of including the developing countries in any agreement struck by his administration… Environmentalists contend that Bush’s moves on global warming are too little, too late. They say even an agreement on a long-term goal would be meaningless because it would likely not bind the United States to making actual reductions. In many ways, they said, G-8 nations have begun to shift their focus to presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama, both of whom have indicated a willingness to consider steeper reductions than Bush — the kind of cuts the White House regards as unrealistic… Anything that the leaders agree to next week would have to be worked into a treaty that the United Nations hopes to conclude by the end of 2009 in Copenhagen.” 

 From:    dissemination at wider.unu.edu

The Helsinky-based World Institute for Development Economics Research of the United Nations University (UNU-WIDER).

 http://www.wider.unu.edu

FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS

Southern Engines of Global Growth: Africa and CIBS (China, India, Brazil and South Africa)
4-6 September 2008, Johannesburg, South Africa
Submission deadline: 30 June 2008.

The Financial Times of London: A weaker dollar could even see investors push the oil price higher. Last month, Opec president Chakib Khelil used this argument to predict $200 oil – and it looked less far-fetched this week when the Goldman Sachs analyst who correctly predicted $100 oil made a similar, if self-serving, prediction.

Look what I came up when we searched for “Oil $200″ on Financial Times online:

 http://search.ft.com/search?queryText=Oi…

The stuff is exciting to us - this because we need a higher price of oil in order to bring recalcitrant folks to their senses.

The need is to proceed decreasing the dependence on oil. To do this we will have to sell the remaining Hummers to the world’s museums. We saw this week the start by General Motors scratching their production of SUVs.

Also, we saw the UN making grand promises for a hunger free world, but going home after being rebuffed by the Latin Americans who won the day. Biofuels are not the source of hunger but the opposition to them is another oil industry invention.

The higher the price of oil - the better - but clearly we can envision much better ways of achieving this then by burying the dollar so that the oil magnates get their feed. Had we gone to the sun rather then Iraq, we would by now have turned the dollar around. Washington will try now to tar white-man Barak Obama in order to keep some of the Washington establishment in place. Those folks better be retired to the salt mines and straight thinking fresh and green folks replace every single one of them. Do not bring in MIT professors, they did not relearn yet the difference between thermodynamics and human dynamics. Bring in old time, home grown conservationists as the real honesty-goodness conservatives. We looked at some of the stuff being pushed around the webs and we are appalled at what the US election campaign will be like.

Bring in folks that believe a dollar in hand is valued more then a dollar in speculative spin. Bring in 140 IQ folks that know to operate technologies that could effectively be run by 100 IQ folks. Do not sell us pie-in-the-sky, but allow the world to grow rice and wheat and corn. Make the world proud again when holding in hand a green US dollar.

Obama, we hope someone gives you to look at this posting.

G8 SUMMIT 2008 - Environment Heads to Talk CO2 cuts in Kobe.

By KO HIRANO, Kyodo News, May 20, 2008.

The Group of Eight environment ministers will open on Saturday a three-day meeting in Kobe on ways to meet Japan’s proposal to halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

The ministers will also discuss steps to protect biodiversity and to ensure the efficient use of resources with the “3Rs” approach of reducing waste by promoting reuse and recycling, the officials said.

The Kobe event, chaired by Environment Minister Ichiro Kamoshita, will be a preparatory meeting for the July G8 summit in Hokkaido, at which policy coordination to curb climate change will top the agenda.

Emerging economies, including Brazil, China and India, plan to take part in the Kobe session.

The ministers are expected to discuss the setting of a long-term carbon reduction target, with Japan and Europe backing the idea.

Achim Steiner, Executive Director of UNEP, invites you to participate in the following side-event:

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO -
THE BIGGEST ENVIRONMENT CHALLENGE IN AFRICA TODAY.

Thursday 29th May, 13.15 - 14.45
Press Room, Maritim Hotel, Bonn
9th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity

Background:
The DR Congo is one of the worlds poorest, least developed and least stable countries whilst at the same time contains a wealth of natural resources including large areas of arable land, water , forest products and minerals. The forests of the DR Congo cover some one million square kilometers and as such can be also considered to be one of the largest and most important carbon sinks on the continent and the world. Armed conflict has raged across DR Congo on a large scale since 1994 resulting in more than five million deaths. Low level conflict and chronic instability continues to plague eastern Congo. Large scale displacement due to conflict is also evident with approximately 500,000 Internally Displaced Persons found in eastern DR Congo alone. The DRC economy is almost entirely driven by largely uncontrolled natural resource extraction and utilization. This has taken a significant toll on many aspects of the environment, with deforestation, species depletion and mining associated pollution being the three most significant issues. UNEP has recently launched a special programme to address these issues.

Agenda:

This side event will provide an introduction to the UNEP Programme in the Congo, including the following:

UNEP will report on our programme to assist the Congolese govt, including the post-conflict assessment, assistance with the environmental framework law, and facilitation of a stakeholder dialogue in the Virungas region.
The DR Congo government will outline its current and future actions.
The GRASP partnership will outline their latest activities in the country, including new funding for gorilla and chimpanzee conservation activities in Eastern DRC.
CMS will announce latest developments on the Gorilla Agreement, which comes into force on June 1.
CITES will report on latest figures the Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) programme has collected from Eastern DRC
UNESCO will report on their activities regarding World Heritage Sites in Danger
Professor Ian Swingland will discuss how DRC can benefit from using the market effectively to conserve its biodiversity

For further details, contact:  melanie.virtue at unep.org
 marie.khan at cbd.int or
David Ainsworth at 0170 558 5819 (until 30 May)  david.ainsworth at cbd.int
Information for journalists
To access the live webcast, please visit the home page of the CBD website,
www.cbd.int, and follow the links indicated.
For information on the ninth meeting of the conference of the Parties go
to:   http://www.cbd.int/cop9/
~~~~~~~~~
Melanie Virtue, Great Ape Survival Project (GRASP) Coordinator
GRASP Secretariat, UNEP, PO Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ph: +254 20 762-4163 Fax: +254 20 762-3926 or 762-4300, Web:  www.unep.org
To call from outside Africa, dial Italy +39 0831 24 3000, wait for tone, then dial 124 4163

————————-

 US Consumers Rank Last in World Survey of Green Habits.
By Queenie Wong for McClatchy Newspapers - based on National Geographic Magazine. Wednesday May 7, 2008.

Washington - Americans rank last in a new National Geographic-sponsored survey released Wednesday that compares environmental consumption habits in 14 countries.

Americans were least likely to choose the greener option in three out of four categories - housing, transportation and consumer goods - according to the assessment.

In the fourth category, food, Americans ranked ahead of Japanese consumers, who eat more meat and seafood.

The rankings, called “Greendex,” are the first to compare the lifestyles and behaviors of consumers in multiple countries, according to the National Geographic Society.

It plans to conduct the 100-plus question survey annually and considers trends more important than yearly scores, said Terry Garcia, executive vice president of National Geographic’s mission programs.

“This is not just a one-time snapshot,” Garcia said. “Some of the most important information may yet be revealed.”

India and Brazil tied for the highest score - 60 points out of a hundred. U.S. consumers scored 44.9.

In between, China scored 56.1, Mexico 54.2, Hungary 53.2, Russia 52.4, Great Britain 50.2, Germany 50.2, Australia 50.2, Spain 50, Japan 49.1, France 48.7 and Canada 48.5.

Results are based on 1,000 online respondents per country interviewed in January and February by GlobeScan, an international polling firm based in Toronto.

To see how you score, take an abbreviated version of the survey. It’s at nationalgeographic.com

A separate GlobeScan survey showed consumers in Brazil, Mexico and China to be most concerned about global warming. In general, people in developing countries were more worried about harming the environment than those in developed ones were. They also live in smaller houses, are more likely to consume locally produced food and more likely to get to work by foot, bike or public transportation.

The consumer choice rankings were adjusted for factors in which individuals have no control, such as climate and the availability of mass transit.

    From:        media at kdun.org
   Subject:     Green World Congress calls for elected UN body.
Date:     May 6, 2008 3:14:10 AM EDT

Committee for a Democratic United Nations.

PRESS RELEASE

Tuesday 6 May 2008

Green World Congress calls for elected UN body - Parliamentary Assembly proposed to overcome “international democratic deficit.”

Sao Paulo/Berlin. The outcome statement of the second Global Greens Congress adopted on
4th May in Sao Paulo has called for “the establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly” as
one step to overcome the “international democratic deficit.” “In the face of global
challenges such as climate change it is pretty clear that we need much more effective
international decision-making. This requires that the world’s citizens are better included
in international institutions. Hence the proposal for a body composed of elected
representatives,” said Senator Isabelle Durant, Secretary-General of the Belgian party
Ecolo, in Brasil. The congress assembled representatives of green parties and movements
from over 80 countries.

The leader of the Green Party of Canada, Elizabeth May, commented in Sao Paulo that
“governments mainly care about advancing their national interests. By contrast, a UN
Parliamentary Assembly could help to promote the global common interest.” “The resolution
adopted by the congress underlines that the green movement is convinced that a dialogue is
needed on the notion of a bi-cameral system at the UN,” May added.

The Committee for a Democratic U.N., an NGO specialized on the topic based in Berlin,
Germany, strongly welcomed the resolution. The Committee noted that the Global Greens are
the third major international party network to endorse the proposal of a UN Parliamentary
Assembly, following the Liberal International and the Socialist International.

The support of the Global Greens adds momentum to an international campaign for the
establishment of a UN Parliamentary Assembly which was launched in April 2007. The
campaign is backed by more than 450 members of parliament and over 100 non-governmental
organizations from around the world. The Committee for a Democratic U.N. acts as its
international secretariat.

CONTACTS:

Senator Isabelle Durant, Secretary-General, Ecolo,
Phone +32 81 22 78 71, Email  isabelle.durant at ecolo.be

Didier Couernelle, Ecolo delegate at the congress,
Phone +32 2 410 59 56, Email  didier.coeurnelle at gmail.com

Elizabeth May, Party leader, Canadian Greens,
Phone +1 613.240.8921, Email  debra at greenparty.ca

Andreas Bummel, Executive Chairman, Committee for a Democratic U.N.,
Phone +27 827 610 979, Email  bummel at kdun.org

MORE INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET:

2nd Global Greens Congress: http://www.globalgreens.org.br/
Committee for a Democratic UN: http://www.kdun.org/
Campaign for a UN Parliamentary Assembly: http://www.unpacampaign.org/

nbsp;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

Economists Debate Link Between War, Credit Crisis
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 15, 2008; A03

Economist Joseph Stiglitz says the connection between Iraq and the economic downturn is real. (Photo: Manish Swarup/AP)

For House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the connection between the Iraq conflict and the U.S. economic downturn is simple: “The president has taken us into a failed war,” the California Democrat said recently. “He’s taken us deeply into debt, and that debt is taking us into recession.”

This assessment was put to powerful political effect in the latest congressional hearings on the war, when Democrats and Republicans alike told Army Gen. David H. Petraeus that the oil-rich Iraqi government should relieve the United States of the conflict’s financial burdens. And Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) echoed the theme yesterday at a manufacturing forum in Pittsburgh.

“If we can spend $10 billion a month rebuilding Iraq,” the Democratic presidential contender declared, “we can spend $15 billion a year in our own country to put Americans back to work and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of our economy.”

But this logic may have more political salience than economic validity, according to many economists, who say that the assertions linking the five-year-old conflict in Iraq to the domestic economic slide have been oversimplified.

“You should support the war or oppose the war, which I do and have done from the start, on the merits of the war itself,” said Martin N. Baily, a former chairman of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. But, he added, “the current problems the United States is facing have very little to do with the war in Iraq.”

Even so, the theme resonated in Congress last week. “We’re kind of bankrupting this country,” Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) told Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. “We’re eating our seed corn. We’re in a recession, and God only knows how long we’re going to be in it.”

The link between Iraq and the downturn reflects a growing public perception that individual economic anxieties must stem somehow from the unpopular war — a unified theory of political misery, said Peter D. Hart, a Democratic pollster.

“It’s a sour economy, it’s a sour mood and it’s a sour situation in Iraq,” he said. “The public has for the last two years been told about the cost of Iraq in terms of human life. But then there was a direct and important switch, when we went into what I call the surge period, where the budget costs became front and center. While the administration was touting military successes, what the American public saw directly were the costs.”

Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist who wrote the new book “The Three Trillion Dollar War,” contends that the connection is real. Even with a growing energy demand from China, the United States and elsewhere, oil traders anticipated before the war that the price of oil would remain about $25 a barrel. Instead, it has soared to more than $100 a barrel. Iraqi oil production has not risen with demand, in part because investment in the Middle East has been stunted by war-related unrest.

Those price increases are self-perpetuating, Stiglitz argues. Oil-rich Persian Gulf states are so awash in money that they are not sure what to do with it all. By holding back oil production, they make more off what they do produce and keep their greatest asset — oil — in the ground as they search for ways to spend their cash.

That cash, through state-owned sovereign wealth funds, has flowed into stocks, bonds and other investments, creating incentives for lenders to offer low-interest loans, many of which have now gone sour.

But that is only one factor, by Stiglitz’s accounting. The federal government has sunk deeply into debt, first with tax cuts, then with accelerating war expenditures that have easily topped half a trillion dollars. That limited the government’s ability to keep the economy on track through tax cuts or domestic investments, so the Federal Reserve Board used low interest rates and the free flow of money to keep the economy growing. Cheap credit sparked rash loans, a housing bubble and the current crisis.

“The war played a very important role,” Stiglitz said.

To economists on the left and the right, his analysis strains credulity. Traditional economics hold that large budget deficits “crowd out” private lending, raising interest rates and making lending scarce, not profligate.

“The credit crisis we got into is because of the housing boom, the relaxation of lending standards and certainly a lack of adequate supervision,” Baily said. “I don’t see a connection with government borrowing.”

And most economists still think that oil prices are soaring because of rising demand, not constrained supply.

“I guess you can argue there’s been a contagion of foolishness” sparked by a spendthrift federal government, “but that seems like a stretch,” said Kevin A. Hassett, an American Enterprise Institute economist and an adviser to Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

Republicans have tried their best to beat back the argument before it takes hold, even citing one of their ideological nemeses, Princeton University economist and liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, who has raised doubts about any link between the war and the credit crunch.

“While both parties agree that middle-class families and small businesses are struggling with skyrocketing costs of living, this latest argument from Democratic leaders smacks of political opportunism at its very worst,” House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said last week.

The analysis is politically powerful because people believe it. A CNN poll last month found that 71 percent of Americans say government spending in Iraq is a factor in the economic downturn.

“When you’re spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq, you’re paying a price for this war,” Obama told an audience last month at the University of Charleston in West Virginia. “When Iraq is costing each household about $100 a month, you’re paying a price for this war.”

The analysis will drive the debate on the $108 billion in additional war spending that President Bush is now requesting. Congress is set to begin debate on war funding before the end of the month.

“I think there is a connection between the state of our economy and Iraq, and what we’re spending over there,” said Rep. Baron P. Hill (Ind.), a leading Democratic budget hawk. “We’re limited as to what we can do to stimulate the economy. We’re limited as to what we can do on health care or any other program. We need to spend more money on infrastructure, on roads and bridges that would have a stimulative effect on the economy, and we’re not doing those things because of all the money we’re spending in Iraq.”