from The Korea Society <The_Korea_Society@mail.vresp.com>

Like everyone else we try to understand the sense in the sinking of the South Korean (the Republic of Korea ROK) ship and we were glad to have the chance to listen to the official ROK version, this after we were familiar with a Japan Times article that mentioned two South Korean professors living in the US that expressed serious doubt about this version. We are trained to discredit the North Korea version because we have indeed little belief in anything this only remainig Stalinist regime puts forward. So this is not our problem. Our problem is rather that we sense here a difference of points of view betwen ROK and the US and this could sign in new times of danger in the Far East.

What does this have to do with Sustainable Development? It does. We wrote several times in the past of the terrific internal market a re-united Korea would have, so its future could be as bright as that of the re-united Germany. The placing of a Germany of the East in the middle of the China – Japan – India triangle could help push forward the whole region and help with the new economy of the 21st century.

South Korea wants to be granted an image of stability and stable management of the Peninsula. After analyzing the Security Council resolution on the Cheonan incident, it looks like one-sided and strengthening the US-ROK relations with a strong feeling of recomitment in the US. Was this the objective of an exercise?

On the North Korean side they clearly would like to stabilize the economy. They do not come out with large provocative acts but continue since Cheonan with a string of small provocations and it is remembered that they have some 30-40 kilo of Plutonium.

Politically the language is strange.

The ROK speaks of PEACE, ECONOMY, HAPPY COMMUNITY on the peninsula, while the North wants to talk via the 6-Party dialogue intermediary route.

Now to the ROK Cheonan: “It was an underwater explosion of a CHT -02D torpedo that created a shock wave and bubble effect that broke the ship in half.” This is backed by an international group of experts that was organized by South Korea. But then, as we will see from the article in the Japan Times, there seem to be signs that the old ship had structural problems, the Aluminum was being attacked – some white powder was found and perhaps it was just a plain accident that was indeed not caused by the North Koreans. But that does not mean anyway that they are angels.

The Vice Minister points out that the US has returned to Korea 47 out of the 80 bases it had and the USFK relocation project concentrates the forces to two hubs.

With all of this Moody’s ratings went up and there is hope a US-Korea Free Trade Agreement will be ratified.

——————

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/mail/nn20100710b2.html

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Scholars doubt Cheonan finding
Staff report, The Japan Times

Two visiting U.S.-based experts called Friday in Tokyo for a
reinvestigation into the sinking of a South Korean warship allegedly
by a North Korean submarine, arguing a multinational probe and report
on the incident had many inconsistencies and flaws.

The report, released in May, was based on a probe by the Joint
Civilian-Military Investigation Group (JIG) to look into the March
sinking of the Cheonan and the loss of 46 South Korean sailors.

Jae Jung Suh, an associate professor of international politics at
Johns Hopkins University in Washington D.C., and Seung Hun Lee, a
professor of physics at the University of Virginia, claimed the
condition of the salvaged Cheonan is inconsistent with the JIG
conclusion that the sinking was due to a shock wave and a bubble
effect and that the blue ink marking on the torpedo reading “No. 1″ in
Hangul would have been burned off in a detonation.

They also said the “white compounds” found on both the recovered ship
and torpedo were not substances resulting from an explosion but are
most likely “rusted” aluminum exposed to moisture or water for a long
time.”

“We do not know (what happened to the Cheonan), and nobody knows at
the moment,” Suh said Friday at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of
Japan in Tokyo’s Chiyoda Ward.

————————————

THE UPDATE IS THAT WEDNESDAY JULY 22, 2010, US Secretary of State Ms. Hillary Clinton and US Secretary of Defense Mr. Robert Gates, will be in Seoul to discuss security issues and the continuing tension with North Korea.

UN ADVISORY GROUP SEEKS TO ENHANCE PUBLIC-PRIVATE LINKS TO BOOST ACCESS TO ENERGY.

The potential of new public-private partnerships to enhance energy access and efficiency topped today’s discussions by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s high-level advisory group on the nexus between energy and climate change.

“Governments alone will not be able to deal with the challenges,” said Kandeh K. Yumkella, Director-General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), at the latest meeting of the Energy and Climate Change Advisory Group.

“We need a commitment from all sectors of society, including the private sector, academia and civil society, as well as from international organizations and NGOs [non-governmental organizations],” he added.

The meeting in Mexico City was hosted by Carlos Slim Helú, Mexican businessman and one the world’s wealthiest people, who is also a member of the Group, set up by Mr. Ban last year and comprising 20 business leaders, academics and representatives of the UN and civil society.

In April, the Group launched a report calling on nations to commit themselves to two complementary goals.

First, it urged universal access to modern energy services that are reliable, affordable, sustainable, and, if possible, from low-emissions sources by 2030.

It also underlined the need to slash global energy intensity, measured by the quantity of energy per unit of gross domestic product (GDP).

Currently, some 3 billion people worldwide rely on traditional biomass for cooking and heating, resulting in adverse health effects if used in inadequately ventilated buildings, with 1.6 billion having no access to electricity.

“This is why we are looking at launching a worldwide campaign to ensure that access to modern energy services no longer represents a barrier to development,” Mr. Yumkella said. “A reliable, affordable energy supply is the key to economic growth and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals [MDGs],” the eight anti-poverty targets with a 2015 deadline.

Private companies, he pointed out, already have the technology needed to make global energy systems less dependent on fossil fuels, while many governments are offering financial incentives and support for this transition.

“What we need today is to forge strong public-private partnerships to tackle these goals,” the UNIDO chief, who chairs the Advisory Group, said.

Today’s meeting, co-hosted by Mexican Energy Minister Georgina Kessel Martínez, drew top UN officials and business executives, while representatives of Sharp and other corporations presented some of the latest renewable technologies.

In a related development, a new report launched today by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) found that the United States and Europe have added more capacity to their electricity supplies from renewable sources, such as wind and solar, for the second consecutive year.

In 2009, renewables accounted for 60 per cent of newly-installed capacity in Europe and more than 50 per cent in the USA.

“The sustainable energy investment story of 2009 was one of resilience, frustration and determination,” said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner.

The sector was able to weather the global financial downturn, but faced setbacks given that last December’s UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, did not achieve the targets that had been hoped for, he noted.

“Yet there was determination on the part of many industry actors and governments, especially in rapidly developing economies, to transform the financial and economic crisis into an opportunity for greener growth,” the official said.

* * *

TODAY’S GLOBAL CRISES HIGHLIGHT NEED TO PROMOTE HUMAN SECURITY – BAN.

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has emphasized the need to promote the concept of human security, noting that the challenges facing the world today threaten the lives of millions and undermine development efforts.

“Everyone has a right to enjoy freedom from fear…freedom from want…and freedom to live in dignity,” Mr. Ban said in a video message for a symposium on human security taking place in Tokyo.

“These mutually reinforcing aspirations are at the heart of human security and our mission to build a better world for all,” he stated.

More than ever, “we live in an interconnected world,” where crises transcend borders and threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions of men, women and children, he noted.

“They increase human insecurity and undermine progress towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs),” he added, referring to the targets world leaders have pledged to achieve by 2015, ranging from ensuring quality education and a clean environment to reducing hunger and disease.

He said the symposium can help inform and advance discussions at the high-level summit he will be convening in New York in September at which world leaders will gather to push for further progress on the MDGs.

The landmark 2005 World Summit referred to the concept of human security, recognizing that “that all individuals, in particular vulnerable people, are entitled to freedom from fear and freedom from want, with an equal opportunity to enjoy all their rights and fully develop their human potential.”

In May, the General Assembly held its first formal debate on human security, during which Mr. Ban presented his report on the issue.

Addressing that meeting, he had stressed that “we must ensure that the gains of today are not lost to the crises of tomorrow,” calling for actions focusing on “people-centred, comprehensive, context-specific and preventive strategies at every level.”

Such an approach, the report pointed out, helps address both current and emerging threats, as well as their causes. The report also emphasized the need for strong and stable institutions to advance human security.

Wednesday, July 07, 2010 10:31 AM
Bottom-UP- Approach
BY GEORGE SAEMANE FROM HONIARA
 http://www.solomontimes.com/letter.aspx?…

Thank you Dr. Tara for your analytical and thought provoking article that painted the true picture of the last four years.

I pledge no addition or edition of your opinion but simply to ask those who are intending to contest the next election not to hide behind politic rhetoric to confuse the voters to vote for you.

Please give us a clear definition of how our villages are going to included in your plan and do not cover it with pictures of utopia because we know things will get tougher.

We want people who can distinguish between their entitlements and public money.

Marginalization of the villages in meaningful development of villages is an old issue, we have hoped to instill change in the previous elections but failed.

Most new MPs who we banked on were caught unprepared by, gold, glory and you name it.

In this election the loudest voice calling for change are the existing politicians and they are doing this by forming Political Parties left, right and center. Is this not a political ploy to divid us to vote them in, only to find that they throw their different colors and wear the same coats we see in the last house?

Old times we know your works and some a below satisfactory, you have nothing to prove cause your history has already proven who you are and what you are capable of doing.

New Kids on the Block, please if you are going to represent us then go in and do not be lured by power,money and entertainment. We want our villages to have good water supply, sanitation, improved housing, road systems and skills to run our canteens, grow our cocoa, coconut plantations etc. We want to be players in the economic activities in this nation.

We believe you have enough money to achieve the above in the next 12 years if our friend in need and indeed Taiwan continues t help us

Please do not confuse us in the name of dialogue by linking us with the Arab league, they have enough internal problems. Please do not allow us to bear part of their problem. History has shown over and over again that money is linked to human resource.

Old Timers there is still time for you to change your attitudes to deserve our votes. There is room for improvements

New candidates you must be a changed person to induce change . For we can only offer what we have.

Let us forget about “Bottom up Approach”, Rural Advancement” and Rural Development to talk more about Village Development, after all Solomon Islands is made up of villages.

God Bless our villages and Solomon Islands.

————————————

Wednesday, July 07, 2010 8:21 PM
Green Party Charter
BY PAUL DRAKE FROM NEW ZEALAND
 http://www.solomontimes.com/letter.aspx?…

Dear Editor; a couple of weeks ago I wrote to the Solomon Times suggesting that a Solomon Island Green Party be formed.

I have had quite a few enquiries for the Green Party (NZ) constitution from Solomon Islanders in Brisbane, Wellington Taiwan and Japan and I hope they take the initiative and form a SIGP by the next election.

I have read a very good letter from Travis Kalione advising voters to steer clear of candidates making promises. I agree promises are cheap!

Those standing for parliament, however should state very clearly what they stand for; eg. Labour or business etc.
“A man who does not stand for something.
Will fall for anything”
G.K. Chesterton.

This is the Aotearoa New Zealand Charter:

The charter is the founding document of the Green Party of Aotearoa , New Zealand.

The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi [The Treaty of Waitangi] as the founding document of Aotearoa NZ; recognises Maori as Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa NZ; and commits to the following four principles.
[Tangata Whenua; means the 1st people of the land]

Ecological Wisdom:
The basis of ecological wisdom is that human beings are a part of the natural world.
This world is finite, therefore unlimited material growth is impossible. Ecological sustainability is paramount.

Social Responsibility:
Unlimited material growth is impossible; therefore the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resourses, both locally and globally.

Appropriate Decision Making:
For the implementation of ecological wisdom and social responsibility, decisions will be made directly at the appropriate level by those affected.

Non Violence:
Non violent conflict resolution is the process by which ecological wisdom, social responsibility and appropriate decision making will be implemented. This principle applies at all levels.

The above is the Greens philosophy in a nut shell, the constitution is an elaboration of the above.

The Charter is simply a declaration of what a party or individual stands for.

The above document can be used as a good yard stick to measure the other parties in the coming election.

Any more inquiries are welcome you can e-mail me at ekard at slingshot.co.nz

God bless

Paul Drake

————————

Tuesday, July 13, 2010 10:20 AM
SI Independence Celebrated in Adelaide, South Australia
BY APOLLOS KALIALAHA IN ADELAIDE

The highlights on the occasion were the Warriors welcome performed by the community’s men and the community’s Children singing the two National Anthems of Solomon Islands and Australia.

The Solomon Islands Community in Adelaide, South Australia, has celebrated the Solomon Islands 32nd Independence Day on the 10th July, 2010.

It was a real Pacific Island atmosphere, as those took part and attended included friends from Fiji, Papua New Guinea, North Solomons, Tuvalu and Tongan communities. Others were friends, in-laws and Ex-RAMSI officers.

The two special guests on the occasion were the South Australian Lieutenant Governor Mr Hieu Van Le and the Solomon Islands High Commissioner to Australia His Excellency Mr. Beraki Gino. The Governor in his speech spoke highly of the effort that the Solomon Islands community has put together to register their community in the Multicultural Community of South Australia.

In his capacity as Chairman of South Australian Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Commission, the Governor has pledged his support for the Solomon Islands Community just as any newly formed community in South Australia. Solomon Islands High Commission to Australia His Excellency Mr. Beraki Gino has congratulated the group and thanked them for inviting him to this historical event.

“Because this is the first official event the community has hosted since becoming a community last year, it was indeed an honor to be part of the celebration,” he said.

As guest of honor he cut the Solomon Islands birthday cake, kindly donated by a PNG family who are very close to the SI community. The High Commissioner hosted a breakfast with the Solomon Islands community before catching his flight back to Canberra the next day.

The highlights on the occasion were the Warriors welcome performed by the community’s men and the community’s Children singing the two National Anthems of Solomon Islands and Australia. Food for the night was an Island dinner menu, something that really impressed most of the guests.

President of the Solomon Islands Wantok Association of South Australia, Apollos Kalialaha thanked the Solomon Islands community and guests for their attendance.

Where will limits of G20 policy leave debt-strewn Japan?

Mitsui Oil unit chief to testify on gulf spill before Senate panel.

Verónica Michelle Bachelet Jeria (Spanish pronunciation: [mi?t?el ?at?e?let]; born September 29, 1951) is a moderate socialist politician who was President of Chile from 11 March 2006 to 11 March 2010—the first woman president in the country’s history.

She won the 2006 presidential election in a runoff, beating center-right US dollar billionaire businessman and former senator Sebastián Piñera with 53.5% of the vote.

She campaigned on a platform of continuing Chile’s free-market policies, while increasing social benefits to help reduce the gap between rich and poor, one of the largest in the world.

Bachelet, a pediatrician and epidemiologist with studies in military strategy, served as Health Minister and Defense Minister under President Ricardo Lagos.

Bachelet is the second child of archaeologist Ángela Jeria Gómez and Air Force Brigadier General Alberto Bachelet Martínez.

Facing growing food shortages, the government of Salvador Allende placed Bachelet’s father in charge of the Food Distribution Office. When General Augusto Pinochet came to power in the September 11, 1973 coup, General Bachelet, refusing exile, was detained at the Air War Academy under charges of treason. Following months of daily torture at Santiago’s Public Prison, on March 12, 1974, he suffered a cardiac arrest that resulted in his death. On January 10, 1975, Bachelet and her mother were detained at their apartment by two DINA agents, who blindfolded them and drove them to Villa Grimaldi, a notorious secret detention center in Santiago, where they were separated and submitted to interrogation and torture.^[13] Some days later they were transferred to Cuatro Álamos (“Four Poplars”) detention center, where they were held until the end of January. Later in 1975, thanks to sympathetic connections in the military, both were exiled to Australia, where Bachelet’s older brother Alberto had moved in 1969.

Her paternal great-great-grandfather, Louis-Joseph Bachelet Lapierre, was a French wine merchant from Chassagne-Montrachet who emigrated to Chile with his Parisian wife, Françoise Jeanne Beault, in 1860 hired as a wine-making expert by the Subercaseaux vineyards in southern Santiago.

In February 1979, Bachelet returned to Santiago, Chile from East Germany. Her medical school credits from the GDR were not transferred, forcing her to resume her studies from where she had left off before fleeing the country. ^{[citation needed]} She graduated as M.D. on January 7, 1983^. She wished to work in the public sector wherever attention was most needed, applying for a position as general practitioner; her petition was, however, rejected by the military government on “political grounds.” Instead, because of her academic performance and published papers, she earned a scholarship to specialize in pediatrics and public health at Roberto del Río Children’s Hospital (1983–1986). During this time she also worked at PIDEE (Protection of Children Injured by States of Emergency Foundation), a non-governmental organization helping children of the tortured and missing in Santiago and Chillán. She was head of the foundation’s Medical Department between 1986 and 1990. Some time after her second child with Dávalos, Francisca Valentina, was born in February 1984, she and her husband legally separated. She is a separated mother of three and describes herself as an agnostic.

In 1990, after democracy was restored in Chile, Bachelet worked for the Ministry of Health’s West Santiago Health Service and was a consultant for the Pan-American Health Organization, the World Health Organization and the German Corporation for Technical Cooperation.

Driven by an interest in civil-military relations, in 1996 Bachelet began studies in military strategy at the National Academy for Strategic and Policy Studies (Anepe) in Chile, obtaining first place in her class.^[2] Her student achievement earned her a presidential scholarship, permitting her to continue her studies in the United States at the Inter-American Defense College in Washington, D.C., completing a Continental Defense Course in 1998. That same year she returned to Chile to work for the Defense Ministry as Senior Assistant to the Defense Minister. She subsequently graduated from a Master’s program in military science at the Chilean Army‘s War Academy.

In 1996 Bachelet ran against future presidential adversary Joaquín Lavín for the mayorship of Las Condes, a wealthy Santiago suburb and a right-wing stronghold. Lavín won the 22-candidate election with nearly 78% of the vote, while she finished fourth at 2.35%. At the 1999 presidential primary of Coalition of Parties for Democracy (CPD), Chile’s governing coalition since 1990, she worked for Ricardo Lagos’s nomination, heading the Santiago electoral zone.

On March 11, 2000 Bachelet—virtually unknown at the time—was appointed Minister of Health by President Ricardo Lagos. She began an in-depth study of the public health-care system that led to the AUGE plan a few years later. She was also given the task of eliminating waiting lists in the saturated public hospital system within the first 100 days of Lagos’s government. She reduced waiting lists by 90%, but was unable to eliminate them completely and offered her resignation, which was promptly rejected by the President.  Controversially,  she allowed free distribution of the morning-after pill for victims of sexual abuse.

On January 7, 2002 Bachelet was appointed Defense Minister, becoming the first woman to hold this post in a Latin American country and one of the few in the world. While Minister of Defense she promoted reconciliatory gestures between the military and victims of the dictatorship, culminating in the historic 2003 declaration by General Juan Emilio Cheyre, head of the army, that “never again” would the military subvert democracy in Chile.  She also oversaw a reform of the military pension system and continued with the process of modernization of the Chilean armed forces with the purchasing of new military equipment, while engaging in international peace operations.

A moment which has been cited as key to Bachelet’s chances to the presidency came during a flood in northern Santiago where she, as Defense Minister, led a rescue operation on top of an amphibious tank, wearing a cloak and military cap.

In late 2004, following a surge of her popularity in opinion polls, Bachelet was established as the only CPD figure able to defeat Lavín, and she was asked to become the Socialists’ candidate for the presidency.

According to The Economist magazine the government of Bachelet opted to make social protection and the promotion of equality of opportunity her main priority. Since becoming President, her government built 3,500 crèches daycare for poorer children. It introduced a universal minimum state pension and extended free health care to cover many serious conditions.
A new housing policy aimed at abolishing the last remaining shanty-towns in Chile by 2010 featured grants to the poorest families. Some of them had to pay just US$400 for a house costing about US$20,000.

In October 2009 Ms Bachelet’s popularity peaked at 80 percent according to a public opinion poll by conservative polling institute Adimark GfK., and in March 2010 she showed an approval rating of 84%, and in terms of specific characteristics attributed to Chile’s president, ‘loved by Chileans’ reached a record 96%.

The Chilean Constitution does not allow a president to serve two consecutive terms, so Bachelet left office in March 2010.

Chile’s October 16, 2006 vote in the United Nations Security Council election—with Venezuela and Guatemala deadlocked in a bid for the two-year, non-permanent Latin American and Caribbean seat on the Security Council — developed into a major ideological issue in the country, and was seen as a test for Bachelet. The governing coalition was divided between the Socialists, who supported a vote for Venezuela, and the Christian Democrats, who strongly opposed it. The day before the vote the president announced (through her spokesman) that Chile would abstain, citing as reason a lack of regional consensus over a single candidate, ending months of speculation.

Continuing the coalition’s free-trade strategy, in August 2006 Bachelet promulgated a free trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China (signed under the previous administration of Ricardo Lagos), the first Chinese free-trade agreement with a Latin American nation; similar deals with Japan and India were promulgated in August 2007. In October 2006, Bachelet promulgated a multilateral trade deal with New Zealand, Singapore and Brunei, the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (P4),  also signed under Lagos’ presidency.  She also held free-trade talks with other countries, including Australia, Vietnam,  Turkey and Malaysia. Regionally, she signed bilateral free trade agreements with Panama, Peru and Colombia.

At the beginning of 2010 Chile became the OECD’s 31st member, and its first in South America. This acceptance for OECD membership marked international recognition of nearly two decades of democratic reform and sound economic policies; for the OECD, Chile’s membership was a major milestone in its mission to build a stronger, cleaner and fairer global economy

She speaks Spanish (her native language), English, German, Portuguese and French.

In 2009 Forbes magazine ranked her as the 22nd in the list of the 100 most powerful women in the world (she was #25 in 2008, #27 in 2007, and #17 in 2006). In 2008, TIME magazine ranked her 15 on its list of the world’s 100 most influential people.

Eleanor Clift wrote on politicsdaily.com on June 10, 2010 that Michelle Bachelet moved the Chilean Government from Macho – to – Maternal. She was clearly the best qualified person to establish and head the new UN institution that was baptized with the terrible name UNWOMEN. And you know what, letting into the UN building a highly qualified person may endanger the minions working there. That, is what doomed on me today, this because I also learned an additional fact about Bachellet’s Chile, and that is why I write this UPDATE.
 http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/10/…

The additional fact I learned today came from reading material that will appear in an Energy Management Magazine Published in India. The article is by – Ms. Jimena Bronfman, Vice Minister of Energy, Chile , and it deals with Chile moving into leadership position on energy issues – and you guessed right if you said that Dr. Bachelet started this. In effect the Ministry of Energy – which for Chile is a Ministry of Energy Efficiency – was set up at the end of her days in the Presidential Office. We are sure that this was not an easy task to fulfill – but we are sure that it will be one of her most important legacies. We know that Energy Efficiency is not a top priority of the G77 real on-going leadership and this, more then anything else, explains the diatribe we described in our original posting which we updated now.

The creation of the Ministry of Energy in February 1^st 2010 is an important milestone in this process. The law that is the basis for Chile’s current institutional framework also includes the creation of the Chilean Energy Efficiency Agency, a public private entity that will implement the public policies designed by the Energy Efficiency Division of the Ministry.

Energy Efficiency is one of the main goals of Chile’s national energy policy, families are changing their habits and industries, corporations and local governments are trying to reduce their energy consumption by adopting energy-efficient measures. This fostering environment was recently faced by the February 27^th earthquake and tsunami that devastated several regions of our country. We have taken this catastrophe as an opportunity and a challenge to rebuild our towns and cities using energy efficiency and renewable energy.

The Ministry of Energy is working with other ministries, such as the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education to include energy efficiency measures and non-conventional renewable energies in the reconstruction of health and education infrastructure and emergency housing. We are also developing a pilot project to rebuild a town with the leading best practices in sustainability and energy consumption, so it can be replicated in other parts of the region and world.

Energy Efficiency is key to Chile’s competitiveness and economic growth. According to studies carried out before the earthquake, energy efficiency measures could help reduce Chile’s energy demand by around 14% by 2020. This would have a positive financial impact in the reconstruction process, as public funds saved by reduction of energy consumption can be reallocated to other priorities of the rebuilding program.

Energy Efficiency will also help Chile, whose economy is based on exports, to reduce its carbon footprint and be competitive in a world that is increasingly carbon-conscious. Although Chile’s contribution to global greenhouse emissions is low compared to many other nations, our wines, copper, fruits, fish and wood products are sold in developed markets that will require sustainable production processes.

In order to achieve our goals we are currently developing the Energy Efficiency Strategy for 2020. At the moment a draft proposal is being reviewed by key actors from the private and the public sectors who will be involved in the actual implementation of the strategy. The main objective of this process is to promote a broad discussion of the specific proposals, introduce appropriate improvements and gain comprehensive support for the energy saving goals contemplated in the strategy.  The official version of the E3 will be published after completion of this discussion period, hopefully by the end of November 2010.

Other challenges for this year include the implementation of the rest of our institutional framework, which will be completed by the creation of the Chilean Energy Efficiency Agency, a public-private non-profit entity that will implement the Ministry’s public policies. It will be funded mainly through public funds but will include private sector representatives in its board. The focus of the Agency’s work will be guided by the E3 strategy; however, we shall also aim at developing other important projects such as education. We strongly believe that a crucial driver for change in these matters is highly-skilled human resources. Therefore, education in schools, undergraduate and post-graduate education is needed to introduce strong energy efficiency programs. Other important aspects of energy efficiency lie in smart-grid and net-metering programs.

Another main priority for 2010 is the development of energy efficiency labelling for cars, new houses and domestic appliances. Labelling is currently mandatory for refrigerators and light bulbs, and we aim to expand this initiative so consumers have all the information available to make the right decisions.

We also want to continue growing our international alliances and cooperation. We have already executed collaboration agreements with several countries and organizations worldwide, and we will work to strengthen and deepen those relationships. Energy Efficiency is a global effort that can be fostered by exchanging best practices that will benefit consumers, industries and countries all over the world.

—————————–

The China and Developing States, the full name of the G77 that purports speaking for 130 out of the 192 UN Member States, is a UN charade – simply, because there never was a common interest among all these various States Now, with China becoming at least a G2 with the United States, if not the straight Global Economic Super power, for her to use the leadership of this rag-tag bunch and push into leadership positions at the UN – Libya, Zimbabwe, Sudan etc. resulted in turning the whole UN into a laughable enterprise. Bravo to little Palau that walked out on this continuous obstructionist committee circuit that calls for time-out whenever the UN tries to reach some decision. We watched them at climate Change meetings where Saudi Arabia is their representative.

Perhaps there was once s difference between the industrialized European  – North American countries plus Japan, and the rest of the world – this when the UN was created and the decolonizing process was giving birth to many new UN Member States – in effect multiplying by three the total number of global independent States, but since then much has changed.

The Latin ABC, Mexico, Korea, Turkey, India, Indonesia, South Africa have all knocked successfully at the corporate doors of development and entered the G20. The OECD club includes most of these G20 plus most EU States and Israel that is a perpetual  G77 pariah. They have now real interests to defend and not much time for posturing – so we will see slowly a realignment also at the UN. OK, China and South Africa will not want to give up their positions as leaders of the 130. It keeps some of their diplomats in the circuit and the UN will continue the fiction, but how long hence that the AOSIS/SIDS will still play this game? When will they see that Palau was indeed a trailblazer? Will the lack of action on Climate Change by some of the major OECD members who effectively joined the Saudis in opposing real action on climate, push these States back into the G77 arms?

—————————————-

THURSDAY, JULY 08, 2010
Chile Threatens to Split South Unity in World Body.
Thalif Deen
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

UNITED NATIONS, Jul 7 (IPS) – The Group of 77 (G77) has historically maintained a united front, vociferously protecting the economic interests of developing countries at the United Nations. But its longstanding solidarity is now being threatened by the continued presence of a single Latin American country which recently joined the ranks of a rich elitist group.

Chile, which was formally inducted last May into the 30-member Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), described as an exclusive club of industrial nations, has given no indications of leaving the G77, thereby triggering a sharp division of opinion among its 130 members. “Chile wants to have it both ways,” one G77 member told IPS, speaking on condition of anonymity. “It wants to have one foot in the OECD and another in the G77. But this is unacceptable to some of us.”

When Mexico and South Korea broke ranks with the developing world and joined the Paris-based OECD back in 1994 and 1996, respectively, both countries quit the G77, the largest single coalition of developing countries at the United Nations.

Chakravarti Raghavan, editor emeritus of the Geneva-based South-North Development Monitor published by the Third World Network, told IPS if Chile does not voluntarily quit the G77, the group must find a way around its longstanding convention of consensus decisions, and “politely but firmly throw Chile out”.

“This will be in line with the spirit and the intentions behind the formation of the Group of 77 and its functioning over all these years,” he added.

“It is probably about time that the G77 being an informal grouping expel Chile – on the simple ground that you can’t belong to two different groupings,” said Raghavan, who is considered a foremost authority on the G77, and who has written extensively about the Group since its inception in June 1964.

“It is my impression that Mexico, when it joined OECD, initially wanted to be in both camps, but was told it was not possible,” he added.

On North-South economic issues at the United Nations, the G77 and the OECD hold diametrically opposite views – most or all of the time.

The OECD is home to some of the world’s major economic powers, including the United States, Britain, Germany, France and Japan. Most of the emerging economic powers, including Brazil, India, China and South Africa, are longstanding members of the G77 and not members of the OECD.

But according to the OECD, it is planning to have discussions with Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and South Africa – all active members of the G77 – “with a view to possible membership”.

The G77 has lost four other members over the years: Cyprus and Malta (both in May 1994) and Romania (January 2007) when they joined the European Union.

A fourth country, Palau, a small island developing nation in the Pacific, withdrew from the G77 in June 2006, ostensibly for financial reasons.

Besides Chile, Mexico and South Korea, the OECD has also added three other non-G77 members into its ranks: Estonia, Slovenia and Israel.

Speaking off-the-record, a diplomat from a G77 country expressed a dissenting point of view when he told IPS: “There is nothing in the G77 rules or guidelines stating that an OECD member has to quit the G77.”

He said Chile is well within its rights to remain a member of the G77.

“And, while there may be a few in G77 who may not be pleased about Chile remaining in the G77, there are no serious moves afoot to push them out of the grouping,” he said. “Most of us, support Chile remaining in the G77. There will be strong resistance from a number of us if anyone tries to eject Chile from the G77.”

And as an after-thought, he added: “The OECD had made leaving the G77 a condition for Mexico’s entry into the OECD. However, when Chile was applying to the OECD, there was no such condition.”

Moreover, he said, Mexico stated that leaving the G77 should not be a condition for Chile’s entry.

Another G77 delegate told IPS that if Chile does not voluntarily leave the Group, as Mexico and South Korea did in previous years, a divided G77 may be forced to take a decision either way.

Meanwhile the former G8 – the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and Russia – has been expanded into the G20 to include seven developing nations (besides Australia, Mexico, South Korea, Turkey and the European Union).

The seven developing countries – Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa – are still members of the G77.

Chile has argued that G77 members that belong to the G20 should be considered in the same light as G77 members belonging to the OECD. But the G20 is not considered a formal body like the OECD, which is treaty-based and whose decisions are binding on all its members.

According to an OECD statement, the invitation to Chile to become the Organisation’s 31st member came at a time when the OECD is expanding its relations with the region.

As an OECD member, Chile will participate in all areas of the OECD’s work, from economic and financial policy to education, employment and social affairs. It will also join with other OECD countries to share experiences and best practices, setting new standards and developing new governance mechanisms for its economy and society more broadly.

The statement said that during two years of accession negotiations, Chile was reviewed by some 20 OECD committees with respect to OECD instruments, standards and benchmarks.

The invitation to take up membership confirms that Chile is taking appropriate steps to reform its economy including in the areas of corporate governance, anti-corruption, and environmental protection, the statement said.

World foreign currency reserves hit $8.1 trln – US.

by Reuters,  Friday, 09 July 2010.
 http://www.arabianbusiness.com/592379-wo…

Global foreign currency reserves swelled to $8.1 trillion by the end of 2009, more than replacing the amount drawn down during the depths of the recession, the U.S. Treasury Department said on Thursday July 8, 2010.

China led the way, boosting its reserves by $487.1 billion between February and December 2009. That was more than six times the rise of any other country as Beijing intervened heavily in the foreign exchange market to hold its yuan currency pegged to the U.S. dollar. China’s reserves as of December 2009 totaled $2.4 trillion, up 2.3 percent since February of that year.

The figures were released on Thursday as part of the U.S. Treasury’s long-awaited report to Congress on exchange rate policies, in which it once again declined to label China a currency manipulator.

Permalink | |  Email This Article
Posted in China, Japan, Reporting from Washington DC, Russia, Saudi Arabia

Discuss this article

	from:	Energy and Capital <eac-eletter@angelnexus.com>
subject:		I Got the Asian Itch.

I’ve got the Asian itch, and it won’t be hard to see why…

I’ve got this itch because the region’s economies continue to grow while economic tremors continue to rock Europe and the United States.

I’ve got this itch because Asia’s investment in cleantech continues to grow while it shrinks in other areas:

.

I’ve got this itch because Asian governments turned to cleantech as the obvious choice for financial stimulus — with China, South Korea, and Japan allocating $20 billion more to the sector than the United States:

.

I’ve got this itch because China out-invested us 2:1 last year in new energy technologies:

.

Which makes their long-term cleantech investment curve look like this:

.

While ours looks like this:

Scratching the itch…

With a financial investment edge like that, you can bet Asia’s — particularly China’s — dedication is translating to wins in the public markets as well.

Five years ago, you’d be hard-pressed to find more than one or two Chinese companies on global top ten lists…

Now, they’ve taken three of the top 10 global wind spots and six in the solar race:

And not only are they whooping us in investment and production capacity; European and U.S. companies look silly next to Chinese stars:

That’s why 19 of the last 60 or so winners I’ve closed in the Alternative Energy Speculator have been China-based.

But my itch isn’t satisfied yet…

You see, only Asia’s dominance of the solar market has been thoroughly established in U.S. markets, where Chinese ADRs are common.

And while their dominance of wind and smart grid industries is definitely being plotted and executed, there’s been no way to play it in domestic markets — until now.

Sinovel (the #3 company in the table above) has announced ambitions to be the world wind leader in the next five years. I’m guessing this company, along with a few other Chinese entrants, will go the initial public offering route.

And if you think there’s work to be done on our grid, you should have a look at Asia where, in some places, there is no grid at all.

In fact it’s being built from scratch.

Just last week, Bloomberg broke news that “smart grid technology will be one of the key industries for research and development support in China’s upcoming 12th Five Year development plan, due to be enacted at the beginning of 2011.”

China’s largest grid operator, the State Grid Corp., has already said it will invest $37 billion this year alone to build a nationwide smart grid network.

So to recap…

China has leveraged its massive economy to become world leaders in solar and wind technology, outinvesting other nations by far.

Now they’re turning to the smart grid, which we’ll be necessary if they’re ever to harness that solar and wind potential effectively.

And make no mistake — only the Chinese survive in China. They take care of and nurture their own.

Like the Chinese solar companies now sharply outperforming their foreign competitors, I’ve found the one company about to become a global smart grid and electric car juggernaut.

As you can tell from all the data above, China is betting on a clean energy future.

And it’s winning.

While the U.S. continues to lag behind, you can satisfy your Asian itch by following China’s lead.

Call it like you see it.
Nick

P.S. China’s thirst for energy is incomparable. And it’s not just clean energy they’re after… My friend Christian DeHaemer is fresh off a trip to Mongolia, where he cozied up with a tiny company sitting on $51 billion worth of crude. And China wants it — bad.

He’s going to release a full report on the company and its massive find tomorrow. But because you’re a loyal reader of Energy & Capital, I figured I’d give you early access to it today.

———————–

China’s Next Cleantech Takeover: World’s Largest Automaker!

It was just a tiny, $10 battery company…

But right now, as part of China’s rapid cleantech mission, this little gem is rapidly on the verge of becoming the world’s largest automaker!

Click here for your free report.

Environmental literature

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

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

Free Ride for Oil and Coal Industry May Be Over.
Stephen Leahy, back in Germany reporting on the Toronto G20 meeting.
 http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…

BERLIN, Jun 29 (IPS) – Every day, governments give away an estimated two billion dollars of taxpayer money to the fossil fuel industry. This unmatched largesse to a highly profitable sector by countries verging on bankruptcy or unable to feed large numbers of their own people is “complete madness”, according to many experts.

In Toronto Sunday, at the conclusion of G20 summit, countries agreed the madness must be constrained if not stopped. “I was impressed. I think the commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies has finally arrived,” said Mark Halle, director of trade and investment at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) European office in Geneva.

“With countries committed to cutting their deficits, it is hard to ignore giving billions of real money away to the fossil fuel industry or to keep fuel prices low,” Halle said in an interview. The two-billion-dollars-a-day public subsidy for carbon- based fuels is a very conservative estimate based on the extensive research conducted by the IISD’s Global Subsidies Initiative, said Halle. Not only do such huge subsidies undermine policies on energy efficiency, they make it impossible for alternative energy sources to compete, he said.

“We can’t make the transition to low-carbon economies nor can the energy playing field be leveled without the elimination of fossil fuels. And time for that has finally come,” he said.

Others are less optimistic given the G8 and G20 track record for broken promises.

“It (the G20 commitment) fell short of vision and courage that is expected from global leaders in the light of the disastrous oil spill” in the Gulf of Mexico, said Darek Urbaniak of Friends of the Earth Europe. Urbaniak noted that BP, the company responsible for the spill, receives British and EU public subsidies.

Countries such as Canada and Australia sought to weaken the G20 commitment by making commitments voluntary, he said, but the U.S. stepped up and pushed for a stronger agreement. However, do-nothing clauses remain part of the agreement. It says that countries agree to phase out “inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” but each country decides what those are. Some countries like Japan, Australia, Italy and others have already said they don’t have any.

“Australia wants to protect its coal mining sector …Canada wants to keep on going with its own subsidies to the tar sands – an environmental and climate disaster in the league of the BP oil spill only in slow motion,” Urbaniak told IPS.

“Our research shows that in the last two years Canada was spending as much on oil and gas subsidies as on climate programmes,” said Albert Koehl of Ecojustice, a Canadian environmental NGO.

“Taxpayers won’t be amused to find out that government spending on climate change is being nullified by spending on oil and gas subsidies,” Koehl told IPS.

He notes that Canada is now investing new billions of dollars into developing carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology for the fossil fuel sector and primarily the enormous Alberta tar sands operations. “CCS a new way of massively subsidising the oil and gas industry, especially the tar sands,” he said.

Most industrialised countries subsidise oil, coal and natural gas production to reduce the cost of finding and producing oil for oil companies. Countries in the developing world subsidise the cost of buying fuel to the public. Experts agree that both forms of subsidies encourage consumption of fossil fuels and thus increase the price of oil.

U.S. President Barack Obama put these subsidies on the chopping block at the previous G20 summit in Pittsburgh last September. The Obama administration is looking for ways to cut its ballooning deficit and thinks taking three or four billion away from fossil fuel companies is achievable, said Halle.

In addition to the G20, six or seven non-members have formed a “Friends of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform” group to follow the same commitments. And the G20 did agree to have some plans for action in place for their next meeting in November this year.

There are an awful lot things that could be done with that annual expenditure of 700 to 800 billion dollars in fossil fuel subsidies and countries are really beginning to think about that, Halle said. “The momentum for change is building but it still needs to grow.”

From the reporting by IPS/TerraViva.   http://ipsterraviva.net/UN/currentNew.as…
The final communiques of the G8 and G20 did little to assuage the central grievances that were expressed before the events in Huntsville and Toronto, during the ‘People’s Summit’ held by activists Jun. 18-20, in Toronto, or in the many peaceful demonstrations held prior to and during the summits.

The major issues being protested – lack of commitment regarding climate change and clean energy, the mounting concerns regarding the development of the Albertan tar sands, ongoing wars and foreign occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the imposition of fiscal austerity measures on member states despite continuing fallout from the global economic crisis which began in 2008 – were not resolved.

And perhaps the core concern – that a select, if somewhat broadened, group of elites are making decisions that concern all peoples around the globe largely in secret – appeared to be flaunted by members of the corporate elite, dubbed the ‘B20′ (Business 20), who were on hand.

During the summit, several dozen of the globe’s most powerful CEOs were given exclusive, off-the-record meetings with the G20′s finance ministers and Prime Minister Harper.

The G20 includes the “world’s most industrialised nations” (which also comprise the G8): Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, Britain and the United States.

Its other members are Australia, Mexico, Turkey and South Korea, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, plus the 27-member European Union.

In concert with the eventual announcement by the G20 that they would seek to halve deficits by 2013 (with the exception of Japan), one business leader projected, “Stimulus is winding down and the private sector is going to have to come in and pick up the slack.”

Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty praised the corporate leaders, saying “The advice we get from you is invaluable in terms of our deliberations and the deliberations of our leaders.”

Offering an indication of the B20′s influence, South Korean Finance Minister Jeung-Hyun Yoon told Toronto’s Globe and Mail, “I sincerely hope the business summit can serve as a platform for public-private collaboration and the starting point of the new normal in the global economic architecture.”

As the effects of the latest policy pronouncements begin to be felt, many fear that Toronto will become known also as the staging ground for the security model that will be deployed to protect this new architecture. {The B2o that is!}

Sunday, June 20, 2010

APEC to pursue low-carbon technologies: Nuke power to be promoted as low-emission energy source;
new plant construction urged.
FUKUI (Kyodo) Energy ministers from Pacific Rim economies agreed Saturday to embark on a project to create low-carbon model cities using energy-efficient technologies and urged the promotion of nuclear power as an environmentally friendly energy source.

The one-day meeting of the 21-member Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in the city of Fukui was hosted by Japan, this year’s APEC chair. At the meeting, which focused on energy security and other matters, participants also concurred that fossil fuels will continue to play a key role in the region, which includes such emerging economies as China, and attached importance to enhancing preparedness for oil supply disruption such as by collaborating with the International Energy Agency over energy response workshops and exercises.

The model cities would likely feature a “smart grid” advanced power transmission network or buildings with facilities for renewable energy generation.

Smart grid, which uses information technology, is an efficient power transmission network that is expected to encourage the use of renewable energy such as solar and wind, because it can give stability to the output of electricity supplied by the fluctuating power sources.

Meanwhile, the declaration stipulated that the deployment of renewable energy, nuclear energy, and power generation involving carbon capture and storage technology should be “promoted,” calling these three “low emission” power sources.

Noting that a growing number of interested economies are using nuclear power to diversify their energy mix and limit carbon emissions, the declaration also referred to the need to assess the emissions reduction potential of nuclear power in APEC.

Toward new nuclear power plant construction, the declaration also said “solid financial frameworks, as well as cooperation among member economies and with relevant multilateral organizations” could be of help.

It is the first time for APEC to clearly stipulate the promotion of building new nuclear power plants, according to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

Dr Taroh Matsuno Wins the IMO Prize

Geneva, 18 June 2010 (WMO) – The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has awarded its most prestigious Prize and honoured several distinguished scientists at the annual meeting of its Executive Council.  These scientists have made outstanding contributions in the field of meteorology, climatology, hydrology and related sciences.

The prizes awarded include the WMO IMO Prize, the Norbert Gerbier-MUMM International Award and the WMO Research Award for Young Scientists.

The IMO Prize, the highest WMO award, originates from WMO’s predecessor, the International Meteorological Organization (IMO), was founded in 1873. Dr Taroh Matsuno of Japan was awarded the 55^th IMO Prize. Dr Matsuno is an eminent research scientist in the field of atmospheric dynamics and a distinguished leader in climate research. His leadership in climate and meteorological research and his constant devotion in the scientific community have significantly contributed to the progress of studies on climate change and will also contribute to the development of international activities/framework such as the global framework for climate services (GFCS).

The Council conferred the Norbert Gerbier-MUMM International Award for 2010 for the paper entitled “Multi-level and Multi-scale Drought Reanalysis over France with the Safran-Isba-Modcou hydrological suite”, published in the Hydrology Earth System Sciences Discussions in 2009 (Vol. 6 No. 5) by Drs J.-P Vidal, E. Martin, L. Francistéguy, F. Habets, J.-M. Soubeyroux, M. Blanchard and M. Baillon, all from France.

The Council also conferred the 2010 WMO Research Award for Young Scientists to Juan José  Ruiz, from Argentina, for the paper entitled “Application of ensemble forecasts to weather prediction at short range over South America” PhD Thesis, and to Gabriela Szepszo, from Hungary, for the paper entitled “Transient simulation of the REMO regional climate model and its evaluation over Hungary”, published in Idojaras.

The World Meteorological Organization is the United Nations System’s

authoritative voice on Weather, Climate and Water

For more information please contact at the WMO Communications and Public Affairs Office:

Ms Carine Richard-Van Maele, Chief, Tel: +41 (0)22 730 83 15, E-mail: cpa@wmo.int

Website: http://www.wmo.int

Japan

Better Place launches switchable-battery electric taxi project in Tokyo

The Tokyo Electric Taxi Project marks another important technological milestone in the development of the Better Place EV network and demonstrates that battery switch technology provides the optimum solution for transitioning taxi fleets around the world to electric vehicles.

Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry commissioned Better Place to conduct a demonstration of the company’s battery switch technology, in partnership with Nihon Kotsu, Tokyo’s largest taxi operator, in a real-world application with taxis that will be in service nearly around-the-clock for a 90-day period.

The battery switch technology demonstrated in the Tokyo Electric Taxi Project allows taxi drivers to exchange a depleted battery with a fully charged one in less time then it takes to fill up at an LPG station. This enables the drivers to return to service with minimal downtime and makes electric taxis a viable option for taxi operators, which in turn benefits urban communities by removing a significant portion of harmful tailpipe emissions.

Please see: http://www.betterplace.com/global-progre… for photos and videos regarding those working taxis.

fromMRM <moothedathramanathan@gmail.com>

“Conserving energy is cheaper and smarter than building power plants” (Dr. Arthur Rosenfeld).

The watt. The volt. The ohm. All electrical terms are named after famous engineers and physicists from the 18th and 19th century. Now, an acclaimed 20th century scientist is lending his name to a new unit of energy savings – the ‘Rosenfeld.’

The proposed term – a ‘Rosenfeld’ – would represent the electricity savings of 3 billion kilowatt-hours per year — the annual output of an existing 500 megawatt coal-fired power plant – and avoid generating three million metric tons of CO2 emissions. The new energy-savings measurement term was authored by 54 scientists from 26 research institutions and announced in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters.

For your leisure time reading – a clean energy monthly E-zine from India          E_mag_June_2010.pdf

MRM says:  We shall be pleased if you could send us your views/comments/suggestions to make our publication more informative and useful.

——————–

“The Rosenfeld” Named After California’s Godfather of Energy Efficiency.

With a decades-long career in energy analysis and standards, Rosenfeld is often credited with being personally responsible for billions of dollars in energy savings.

How to cut energy use, carbon? Do it – One “Rosenfeld” at a time.

Arthur Rosenfeld, who recently retired at the age of 83 after two five-year terms on the California Energy Commission, led the way in helping the state set its first-ever energy standards for household appliances and buildings. His mission as an energy-efficiency evangelist was launched in 1973 during the OPEC oil embargo … rather than rail on the oil producers, he reasoned, wouldn’t it be better if the US could find ways to stop wasting so much energy?

His impact on California’s per capita electricity consumption, which has remained flat since the mid-’70s, has long been dubbed the “Rosenfeld effect.” And he himself coined “Rosenfeld’s Law,” which asserts that the amount of energy required to produce one dollar of economic output has decreased by about 1 per cent per year since 1845.

Eighty Year Old Saved Us $800 Billion - 

Ode to Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Doctor Efficiency - 

Arthur H. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. was originally appointed to the California Energy Commission by Governor Gray Davis in April 2000. The Commissioner was reappointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger January 26, 2005. The five members of the Energy Commission are appointed by the Governor to staggered five-year terms and requires Senate confirmation. By law, four of the five members of the Energy Commission have professional training in specific areas – engineering or physical science, environmental protection, economics, law, and one commissioner from the public-at-large. Commissioner Rosenfeld filled the physical science position until his retirement in January 2010.

Commissioner Rosenfeld was presiding member of the Research, Development and Demonstration Committee and the Dynamic Pricing Committee (Ad Hoc Committee); and was the second member of the Energy Efficiency Committee.

Art Rosenfeld received his Ph.D. in Physics in 1954 at the University of Chicago under Nobel Laureate Enrico Fermi, and then joined the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley. There he joined, and eventually oversaw, the Nobel prize-winning particle physics group of Luis Alvarez at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) until 1974. At that time, he changed his research focus to the efficient use of energy, formed the Center for Building Science at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and led it until 1994.
 http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-storie…

 http://www.energy.ca.gov/commissioners/r…

 http://www.greenbang.com/how-to-cut-ener…

 http://earth2tech.com/2010/03/15/how-do-…

 http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/e…

BP disaster’s lesson for government regulators.

By KENNETH ROGOFF, Professor of Economics and Public Policy at Harvard University.

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — As the damaged BP oil well continues to spew millions of gallons of crude from the depths of the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, the immediate challenge is how to mitigate an ever-magnifying environmental catastrophe. One can only hope that the spill will be contained soon, and that the ever-darkening worst-case scenarios will not materialize.

The disaster, however, poses a much deeper challenge to how modern societies deal with regulating complex technologies. The accelerating speed of innovation seems to be outstripping government regulators’ capacity to deal with risks, much less anticipate them.

The parallels between the oil spill and the recent financial crisis are all too painful: The promise of innovation, unfathomable complexity, and lack of transparency (scientists estimate that we know only a very small fraction of what goes on at the oceans’ depths.) Wealthy and politically powerful lobbies put enormous pressure on even the most robust governance structures. It is a huge embarrassment for U.S. President Barack Obama that he proposed to expand offshore oil drilling greatly just before the BP catastrophe struck.

The oil technology story, like the one for exotic financial instruments, was very compelling and seductive. Oil executives bragged that they could drill a couple of kilometers down, then a kilometer across and hit their target within a few meters. Suddenly, instead of a world of “peak oil” with ever-depleting resources, technology offered the promise of extending supplies for another generation.

Western officials were also swayed by concerns about the stability of supplies in the Middle East, which accounts for a large proportion of the world’s proven reserves. Some developing countries, most notably Brazil, have discovered huge potential offshore riches.

Now all bets are off. In the United States, offshore drilling seems set to go the way of nuclear power, with new projects being shelved for decades. And, as is often the case, a crisis in one country may go global, with many other countries radically scaling back off-shore and out-of-bounds projects. Will Brazil really risk its spectacular coastline for oil, now that everyone has been reminded of what can happen? What about Nigeria, where other risks are amplified by civil strife?

Oil experts argue that offshore drilling never had the potential to amount to more than a small share of global supply. But there now will be greater concerns about deep drilling in any sensitive environment. And the problem is not just with oil. The big news in energy these days is the revolution in technology for tapping shale gas. With important reserves near populated areas, governments will need to temper their enthusiasm and think about the balance between risks and riches. {see here that this comment is very timely – we just received an e-mail from the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club – the SustainabiliTank.info editor – the letter is attached.}

The basic problem of complexity, technology, and regulation extends to many other areas of modern life. Nanotechnology and innovation in developing artificial organisms offer a huge potential boon to mankind, promising development of new materials, medicines, and treatment techniques. Yet, with all of these exciting technologies, it is extremely difficult to strike a balance between managing “tail risk” — a very small risk of a very large disaster — and supporting innovation.

Financial crises are almost comforting by comparison. Speculative bubbles and banking crises have been a regular feature of the economic landscape for centuries. Awful as they are, societies survive them.

True, people who thought, “This time is different,” before the recent Great Recession were proven wrong. But, even if we are not getting any better at dealing with financial crises, things have not necessarily been getting worse, either.

Perhaps the G20 government leaders have not done quite as brilliant a job plugging the hole in the financial system as they claim. The raging sovereign-debt problems in continental Europe, and the brewing ones in the U.S., Japan and elsewhere are proof enough of that. But, compared to BP’s efforts to plug its oil hole, the G20 leaders look omnipotent.

- – -

If ever there were a wakeup call for Western society to rethink its dependence on ever-accelerating technological innovation for ever-expanding fuel consumption, surely the BP oil spill should be it. Even China, with its “boom now, deal with the environment later” strategy should be taking a hard look at the Gulf of Mexico.

Economics teaches us that when there is huge uncertainty about catastrophic risks, it is dangerous to rely too much on the price mechanism to get incentives right. Unfortunately, economists know much less about how to adapt regulation over time to complex systems with constantly evolving risks, much less how to design regulatory resilient institutions. Until these problems are better understood, we may be doomed to a world of regulation that perpetually overshoots or undershoots its goals.

The finance industry already is warning that new regulation may overshoot — that is, have the unintended effect of sharply impeding growth. Now, we may soon face the same concerns over energy policy, and not just for oil.

Given the huge financial stakes involved, achieving global consensus will be difficult, as the Copenhagen climate-change fiasco proved. The advanced countries, which can best afford to restrain long-term growth, must lead by example. The balance of technology, complexity, and regulation is without doubt one of the greatest challenges that the world must face in 21st century. We can ill afford to keep getting it wrong.

——————
——————

Atlantic Chapter Action Alerts <ATL-ACTIONALERTS@lists.sierraclub.org> date Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:58 PM subject Call to stop Hydrofracking.

We need to pass the Englebright/Addabbo (A.10490/S.7592) bill before June 21, the end of this legislative session!

We must delay permitting of horizontal drilling until the EPA concludes its study of hydrofracking’s impacts on water quality and public health. The DEC is poised to allow permitting of hydraulic fracturing before the end of 2010, and the legislature is not due back until 2011! Without the E/A bill’s passage, the state stands open to the imminent onset of drilling. For the text of the bill, visit http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S7592.

It is urgent that you call your state senator and ask him/her to reach out to Sen. Thompson, asking him to put the bill on Wednesday’s agenda.

Find your senator at http://www.nysenate.gov.

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

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

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

——-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

———————-

For The New York Forum

Contact:         Rubenstein Communications, Inc.

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

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

——————–

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

Discuss this article